Two killed on beach when aircraft makes emergency landing. [Archive]

Armchairflyer

2nd Aug 2017, 21:24

From the comfortable position in front of my PC screen, I am not sure whether I endorse the "sod everyone else" perspective, but I feel that there is a lot of benefit of hindsight here -- even assuming that the pilot had a choice, I doubt that he willingly and in cold blood decided to sacrifice two lives. If the plane had failed to hit anyone or the people had "merely" been injured and not killed, I assume the criticism regarding landing site would not be quite as harsh.

And given the prospect of cartwheeling (in shallow water?) and drowning (even though chances of escaping are probably better in an aircraft with doors as opposed to a canopy), I am not sure about my heroism in a similar situation which I'll hopefully never experience.

mini

2nd Aug 2017, 21:54

Pics I've seen show a rather limp port wing, i.e. there may have been control issues...

Picking a crowded beach rather than 100M offshore as a location to put down, assuming they were given the choice, is cowardice in my book.

However: we don't know that the driver had that option.

Best to let the fog clear (as usual) before passing judgement.

It could be that the pilot used exceptional skill to land it at the waters edge instead of the packed upper beach area, thus avoiding even more casualties...

Only those in the cockpit know the answer.

RIP to those killed, especially the family of the young girl.

Flying Binghi

2nd Aug 2017, 22:41

Things appear so obvious when your standing there relaxed on the beach looking up at the sky. Different thing when your up there and your little world goes bad. Suddenly what you perceive is seen through a tight little tunnel of vision that finds it difficult to differentiate objects below - unless you look directly at something on the ground objects become blurred and unnoticed. So many things to do and milliseconds to make decisions...

It may have only been on very short final that the pilot became aware of the people on the beach and then it would have been to late to avoid them.

Found a video that shows the aircraft on a part of the beach away from the sunbathers:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Trf_hTxDNOk

.

igs942

2nd Aug 2017, 23:27

I don't get why people are banging on about a bad choice of place to land...

Just look at the photos. The spar is buggered but the gear is intact. No way was that wing damaged like that by the landing alone.

RIP to the two innocent people involved. Condolences to the families of all involved.

Kewbick

3rd Aug 2017, 00:26

Being judgmental and condemning people's actions without first having the facts is a trade mark of this forum. Not having a pilot license also appears to be de rigueur.

jack11111

3rd Aug 2017, 01:13

"The spar is buggered but the gear is intact. No way was that wing damaged like that by the landing alone."

I'm thinking that spar got "buggered" by one of the two now dead holiday makers.

Flying Binghi

3rd Aug 2017, 01:28

Looking at the videos it looks like the strut is bent. On a Cessna the wing will sag when the supporting strut is removed. The two wing spars are bolted by one bolt each to the cabin carry through spars so are free to pivot around the bolts.

.

Flying Binghi

3rd Aug 2017, 04:45

Being judgmental and condemning people's actions without first having the facts is a trade mark of this forum. Not having a pilot license also appears to be de rigueur.

Yep.

Looking at some of the YouTube videos it looks like the aircraft may very well of landed in some shallow water of an outgoing tide. The beach goers towels and umbrellas are well up the beach slope. There is also the angle of the sun to consider re blinding reflections.
Scenario - gliding down and turn onto short final for a water landing Parallel to the beach and get blinded by the sun thus not seeing the bathers.

.

Jonzarno

3rd Aug 2017, 07:58

As happens all too often in accident threads here, there seems to be a rush to judgement based on assumptions about what happened, and how, based on very little detailed knowledge.

Several posters here have made the assumption that the pilot deliberately chose to make his emergency landing on a crowded beach rather than ditch in the sea. On that basis he is called a coward and condemned out of hand.

Well, let me speculate as well about what may have happened:

. The plane has an engine failure and the pilot sets up an approach to the beach with the option to put it into the sea

. The people on the beach hear the engine failing, realise what has happened, and get off the beach

. Some of them may be in the sea close to the beach thinking the plane won't land there (from the news story: ”According to reports, some sunbathers ran into the sea.”).

. Note: if that is true, it means they must have realised what was happening and had time to run into the sea or to vacate the beach in some other way

. The pilot sees this and elects to land on what, at that moment, is an empty beach

. The plane is now on very short finals and is gliding in silently

. An 8 year old girl doesn't realise what is happening and runs out onto the beach

. An adult sees this and runs out to try to save her

. The accident happens and the wing strut hits the victims

Now I stress that I don't know if this is what really happened any more that anyone else speculating here; but I suggest it is at least as plausible as saying that the pilot would cold-bloodedly hit someone in preference to ditching as has been implied by some of those posting.

Remember also that, once finally committed to landing on that beach, there is no reset button.

In the time-honoured phrase: "let's wait for the accident report".

3wheels

3rd Aug 2017, 08:35

Just look at the photos. The spar is buggered but the gear is intact.

No it isn't.

kevkdg

3rd Aug 2017, 08:35

'Killer!': Angry crowd confronts pilot after plane kills girl, 8, and man in crash-landing on Portuguese beach (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/killer-angry-crowd-confronts-pilot-after-plane-kills-girl-8-and-man-in-crash-landing-on-portuguese-beach/ar-AApkDiE?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp)

This eyewitness account suggests it struck a car that was on the beech. Might explain the wing being bent.

cessnapete

3rd Aug 2017, 09:07

Disgusting behaviour ( manslaughter??) when people post with blame, before knowing the circumstances.

AirJing

3rd Aug 2017, 10:05

Remember also that, once finally committed to landing on that beach, there is no reset button.

In the time-honoured phrase: "let's wait for the accident report".

I've seen reports of engine failure. OTOH there is an intact landing gear and a broken wing strut. So we don't know if there were control problems or engine problems.

I've read reports that the 50yo was laying on a beach towel and had their legs crushed, which indicates this was a beach landing and not a water landing which now looks like a beach landing due to tide changes once the photos were taken.

However, assuming no control problems, there are always options from as low as a few tens of feet off the ground to change your landing point. It's your choice to take an airplane up for private flying, so it's your responsibility not to hurt anyone on the ground if there is anything in your power to avoid it - including if that means a worse outcome for yourself. If you are a few tens of feet of the ground, then you can see your landing point and see an 8 year old girl minding her own business where you plan to put your airplane down. You can move your landing point further out to sea.

At the moment we don't know anything but if it turns out the pilots had other options than landing on people on the beach, they should never fly again.

currawong

3rd Aug 2017, 10:21

Could be the pilot had to choose between two people or ten...

PerPurumTonantes

3rd Aug 2017, 10:25

While I was learning to fly I called in one morning to check a/c and instructor availability. The CFI told me "no you won't be flying today, ***AK had an engine fail yesterday". This was the same ***AK that was drinking a quart of oil every flight, which I'd reported and was told "it just does that".

I found out later that the owner was running the engine beyond its lifetime because he didn't want to pay for a replacement.

Later when I rented a C172 in Australia a few times, I was told not to report minor maintenance issues because they would "have to be fixed immediately". This would ground the a/c and lose them revenue. After a transponder fail in Class D airspace, a flat tyre, PTT button intermittent, landing lights o/s and seized flap bearings, I decided not to rent that aircraft any more. The CFI looked at me like I was being a pain in the arse.

We don't know yet what caused the engine out, but from what I've seen in GA I wouldn't be surprised if it was a maintenance root cause. If so, those deaths were caused by penny pinching, and are the owner's responsibility as well as the pilot.

If you can't afford to maintain your aircraft, you shouldn't be in aviation.

PDR1

3rd Aug 2017, 11:02

Looking at this image (https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/42a8e26a255da1c78ea3d16e48fc48f46ef79e62/0_309_5474_3286/500.jpg?q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&) from the grauniad it seems that the port wing is intact, but the strut has colapsed. There are no signs of impact damage to the wing itslef in this and other images. The strut failure could be as a result of a vertical impact exceeding the stiffness of the strut, but it could equaly be because someone has jumped on or taken a sledge hammer to the strut.

I don't have the data to do any calcs, but my expectation would be that if the strut failed in compression due to a high vertical velocity the wing itself would show at least some signs of bending downwards otboard of the strut attachment as well. I'd also be very surprised to see the aeroplane apparently having rolled along the sand after such a touchdown - I would have expected the wheels to become forced into the sand and an ensuing nose-over. So I feel the more likely explanation is that someone has taken revenge on the aeroplane.

But I laos not the tip of one prop blade is bent - the port blade in the picture is bent backwards about 8" form the tip. Not sure what caused that, given its position.

PDR

squidie

3rd Aug 2017, 11:38

It’s horrific knowing that two people who weren’t involved in the flight sadly lost their lives while just relaxing on a beach, I would hate to have this on my conscience if I was PIC during this flight.

To some, normally non-aviators, it seems obvious that the flight crew screwed this up. But being an aviator especially one who prefers not to immediately speculate I know there is potentially more to this.

Putting a plane down on a crowded beach is a bad idea (proven here), also so is ditching where you and your student or passenger may drown if they cannot get out, because as we know planes like this like to flip upside down in the water.

I will add that my opinion would be to ditch that plane in the water if the beach was too crowded given the situation and what I know now about the incident, probably just what everyone else does.

AirJing

3rd Aug 2017, 12:19

More recent update here (sorry for Daily Mail link):
Father of girl killed in Portugal plane crash slams pilot | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4756204/Father-girl-killed-Portugal-plane-crash-slams-pilot.html)

Seems to suggest engine failure, not structural failure. Given then it has landed along the length of the beach (as opposed trying to make it out to sea having been flying over land), I can't see a situation where engine failure alone would prevent ditching in the sea, rather than on a beach with people on it. From the article, it also appears there were more people than the two killed on the beach who saw it coming and got out of the way.

patowalker

3rd Aug 2017, 14:21

Mayday call here (http://www.jn.pt/local/videos/interior/falha-do-motor-vou-aterrar-na-praia-disse-piloto-a-torre-de-controlo-8681950.html).

"Engine failure. I am going to land on the beach."

piperboy84

3rd Aug 2017, 14:40

Mayday call here (http://www.jn.pt/local/videos/interior/falha-do-motor-vou-aterrar-na-praia-disse-piloto-a-torre-de-controlo-8681950.html).

"Engine failure. I am going to land on the beach."

That being the case then the pilot is a complete cnut.

whiterock

3rd Aug 2017, 16:30

This is a tragic accident. I repeat, an accident. I am appalled at the attitude from apparent fellow aviators on this forum who have a lynch mob mentality and a rush to judgement.

Given the information so far, the crew was an instructor and a student and I would imagine the instructor carried out the landing. It is possible the instructor sitting on the starboard side would not have seen the unfortunate victims who appear to have been struck by the port strut and port main gear leg. The port strut, I would suggest was bent by the collision with the man and the u/c leg struck the little girl. An investigator can be seen marking the leg with a tag.

A witness reported the a/c climbed after hitting the man, and it looks like the resultant stall caused the a/c to land nose down, bending a propeller blade and the nose leg.

patowalker

3rd Aug 2017, 16:43

That being the case then the pilot is a complete cnut.

You have to listen/read the whole message. When the controller asks which beach, the pilot replies "Cova do Vapor". This is far less crowded than Sao Joao beach, where the accident happened.

Cenus_

3rd Aug 2017, 17:48

I don't understand why both the instructor and student have appeared in court? Surely the student has no liability here as the instructor was PIC?

maxred

3rd Aug 2017, 18:39

We don't know yet what caused the engine out, but from what I've seen in GA I wouldn't be surprised if it was a maintenance root cause. If so, those deaths were caused by penny pinching, and are the owner's responsibility as well as the pilot.

I appreciate you are new here, but that is utter junk. Rubbish. Engines can, and will, fail for all manner of reasons, and at any stage of the life cycle. I think you are a troll....

AirJing

3rd Aug 2017, 18:52

You have to listen/read the whole message. When the controller asks which beach, the pilot replies "Cova do Vapor". This is far less crowded than Sao Joao beach, where the accident happened.
It's also quite a distance away. It would have been apparent well before that they were not going to make that beach.

Now that the reports are pointing to an engine failure and not a loss of control, my sympathy levels for the PIC have dropped to zero. I do not buy the instructor not being able to see the people he struck because he was on the right. The airplane would have had a solid nose down attitude and the crowded beach with people was there to be seen.

What's the glide ratio with engine out and flaps on a C152? About 8:1? That means when you are 60 feet above ground, you can choose to hit the surface 480 feet out to sea and not on top of an 8 year old girl. There is no excuse for landing on a populated beach if you still have control of the airplane and an instructor should know better. If it was an engine out, that may have been an accident but the accident part stopped when the decision was made to land somewhere with people instead of the sea with no people.

BusAirDriver

3rd Aug 2017, 19:31

AirJing; What is your background?

Your calculation for glide-ratio shows that you are completely clueless.
Glide ratio will depend on many things, such as wind milling prop, configuration, actual atmospheric condition, air density, actual winds on the day. You generally try to land into wind, this means shortening your glide distance, you try to land as slow as possible, by extending flaps, again shortening your glide distance, I assume it was hot weather, again this will give you less lift, and shorten your glide distance. So your theory is crap, put garbage information in the computer, and you get garbage information out of it.

Why do you presume the following: "The airplane would have had a solid nose down attitude"

Again the nose attitude, aircraft attitude, would depend on all of the above. Did they have full flaps? Or was the aircraft clean? If clean they would have had a very high nose pitch, so not much would have been visible of the ground below them.

Best glide ratio in clean configuration with a windmilling prop, and still wind might give you that suggested ratio, however we do not live in a perfect world.

Again you have very little time to make decisions, and lets not fool ourselves who wants to take the option to die by choice, if there is hope of a safe landing?

Furthermore, the instructor also had the responsibility of the "student" flying with him, what would the parents of this "trainee pilot" have said, if the instructor took a gamble to ditch, which might have killed the student pilot.

In the end this was a tragic accident, there options was limited in the time-frame given for them to make a choice.

I feel for the people who lost their lives, and their families, it is awful for all of them.
But the one thing we all no, in case of emergencies, there are no longer any rules, if it can save lives. In this case it saved the Instructor and his student, and I am sure they will not sleep lightly after this either.

To many flight sim experts making stupid comments about things they don't know anything about.

AirJing

3rd Aug 2017, 20:39

AirJing; What is your background?

Your calculation for glide-ratio shows that you are completely clueless.
Glide ratio will depend on many things, such as wind milling prop, configuration, actual atmospheric condition, air density, actual winds on the day. You generally try to land into wind, this means shortening your glide distance, you try to land as slow as possible, by extending flaps, again shortening your glide distance, I assume it was hot weather, again this will give you less lift, and shorten your glide distance. So your theory is crap, put garbage information in the computer, and you get garbage information out of it.

Why do you presume the following: "The airplane would have had a solid nose down attitude"

Well BusDriver, I've made my assessment based on an assessment of the information provided, which indicates an engine failure.

OTOH you have decided I'm clueless based on something you have just made up.

I have a PPL and have flown a C152 many times, although not for about 7 years. A C152 not being fresh in my memory, I googled it up and it has a glide ratio of about 10:1 with a windmilling prop, which I then dropped to a guess of 8:1 given I don't know what the weight or configuration of the ac was. Feel free to look that glide ratio up for yourself given you have decided I am clueless and you are the clear expert here; not that it matters because even if it was 5:1 you would still have 300 horizontal feet to work with. Given an instructor would have been PIC, I'd expect they should be able to work with that.

I also looked at cockpit photos I have from flying C152s on landings with and without flaps (the no flaps landing being on training flights). I could see plenty on the ground in both cases and certainly had I been over a beach instead of a runway, I would have been able to tell the difference between a beach full of sunbathers and a deserted beach out of some Robinson Carsoe fantasy. Then I looked at photos I had with engine-idle practice forced landings, where I saw that solid nose down attitude which you seem to think I found from FlightSim 1965.

Even the 60 feet I quoted implies very late decision making. Anybody who can pass a flying medical can make out people a lot more than 60 vertical feet and a few hundred horizontal feet away. There appeared in the after-event photos to be nothing in the way of weather which would prevent a pilot from seeing a long way.

If you have some specific knowledge you would like to share about how far you can see in a C152, you may wish to consider sharing it. Making things up hasn't worked out so well for you so far.

patowalker

3rd Aug 2017, 20:45

It's also quite a distance away. It would have been apparent well before that they were not going to make that beach.

Do you know where the aircraft was when the pilot made the call? It is 200m from the accident site between the Bicho d'agua and Leblon restaurants on Sao Joao to the Cova do Vapor beach.

BusAirDriver

3rd Aug 2017, 21:50

"I googled it up" - yes sure your friend google - sure great, first of all it's 8:1, considering clean configuration, windmilling and no wind.

1. Nobody lands with clean configuration, so with full flaps, you have lots of Drag.
2. We don't know if engine was windmilling, it could have been stuck, making it give more DRAG.
3. Wind conditions, you don't even take account of this.

Speed would have been around 60 kts. Let's just for fun use your 480 ft theory, do you really believe somebody will start changing landing spot at 60 ft? You have around 5 seconds before you will touch down?
I am not sure what kind of imaginary fantasy world you live in, but your thought process does not belong to reality. At 60 ft you have around 5 seconds before you touch down, it's already to late at this point.
But reality is much less, you will never glide 480 feet from 60 ft with flaps full and head wind, more likely half of that distance, which gives you even less time to decide to do anything.

I don't need to google this to know this, it's simple maths :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Even if he sees the danger at 60 ft, or even 100 ft, the time to make the decision is to short before you hit the ground. Time is more important than distance in this case, because once you are committed than there is no turning back.

Well BusDriver, I've made my assessment based on an assessment of the information provided, which indicates an engine failure.

OTOH you have decided I'm clueless based on something you have just made up.

I have a PPL and have flown a C152 many times, although not for about 7 years. A C152 not being fresh in my memory, I googled it up and it has a glide ratio of about 10:1 with a windmilling prop, which I then dropped to a guess of 8:1 given I don't know what the weight or configuration of the ac was. Feel free to look that glide ratio up for yourself given you have decided I am clueless and you are the clear expert here; not that it matters because even if it was 5:1 you would still have 300 horizontal feet to work with. Given an instructor would have been PIC, I'd expect they should be able to work with that.

I also looked at cockpit photos I have from flying C152s on landings with and without flaps (the no flaps landing being on training flights). I could see plenty on the ground in both cases and certainly had I been over a beach instead of a runway, I would have been able to tell the difference between a beach full of sunbathers and a deserted beach out of some Robinson Carsoe fantasy. Then I looked at photos I had with engine-idle practice forced landings, where I saw that solid nose down attitude which you seem to think I found from FlightSim 1965.

Even the 60 feet I quoted implies very late decision making. Anybody who can pass a flying medical can make out people a lot more than 60 vertical feet and a few hundred horizontal feet away. There appeared in the after-event photos to be nothing in the way of weather which would prevent a pilot from seeing a long way.

If you have some specific knowledge you would like to share about how far you can see in a C152, you may wish to consider sharing it. Making things up hasn't worked out so well for you so far.

AirJing

3rd Aug 2017, 22:04

BusDriver, you said they would have had a head wind. Since you quite clearly are an expert, I'm sure you know about picking up tell-tales of wind direction if you have to make a forced landing. That being the case, perhaps you could actually look at publically available information before making a fool of yourself again. There is a public domain photo of the airplane on the beach with a windsurfer in the background and a public domain video of plastic police barrier tape around the airplane, blowing in a gentle breeze. It looks to me they landed with a tailwind.

You are mistaken about your decision time with a head or a tail wind ("60 ft with flaps full and head wind, more likely half of that distance, which gives you even less >>time<< to decide to do anything"), you seem to think your time to landing/impact varies with wind direction. Your horizontal distance flown changes. Your vertical descent rate and time to impact stays the same.

And yes, if I did not like what I saw a few seconds before impact like people (although you would have a lot more than a few seconds to work out you were over a crowded beach), I'd be minded to try something different. Esp if I was an instructor and practiced forced landings with every single student pilot who didn't give up on flying at the first circuit.

I even remember during my PPL forced landing training, the instructor asked me what to do if I was landing in a field and saw a fence as I was coming into the landing point; would i land on top of the fence or turn away? But you just stick to your landing plan even if it becomes apparent it is a bad plan and you have time to do something about it.

Your error with decision time and vertical speed vs head/tail wind is so basic that I have to ask what you asked of me: Do you actually fly?

This is a pointless argument. To summarise for the benefit of everyone else my opinion, formed on the basis of reports that it was engine failure and not loss of control are:
- PIC would have been the instructor; the instructor is experienced and will be doing practice forced landings regularly
- It would have been evident the beach was croweded. There are reports of quite a number of people running out of the way. It is reported it is a busy beach. There are people on TV saying a lot more people could have been hurt. It would have been evident there were people on the beach even there was no direct view of the two people killed.
- It was good visibility and there would have been plenty of time to observe that there were people on the beach.
- I had a guess at 60ft height where you would be able to pick the exact point you will touchdown and where you would be looking for obstructions (rocks, people etc) at that point. It could be 50 feet, it would more likely be about 100 feet. I guessed an 8:1 glide ratio based on a theoretical 10:1 with a windmilling prop... it doesn't really matter for the purpose of my agument what the exact glide ratio or height above ground when you realise you are going to hit a person is; you still have several seconds.
- At 60, or 50 or 100 feet above ground there are several seconds to change direction and I'm sure everyone on here who actually flies would change direction if there was something nasty to land on straight ahead.
- It looks to me from the sail direction on the windsurfer and police tape blowing in public domain video/photos, that the airplane landed with a tailwind or at least blowing from somewhere in the back half. It also looks to me the wind was reasonably light.

IcePaq

3rd Aug 2017, 23:40

Pretty crowded beach should have had at least one guy yelling to get out of the way as the plane made an approach.

piperboy84

4th Aug 2017, 00:20

You have to listen/read the whole message. When the controller asks which beach, the pilot replies "Cova do Vapor". This is far less crowded than Sao Joao beach, where the accident happened.

I'm somewhat familiar with the general area, last year I flew low level from Portimoa round the coastline and up to Ciascas west of Lisbon and for the most part the beaches were not crowded at all. I guess what I'm thinking is that after being in a few scrapes myself I know the final sequence of an accident especially of this type (engine failure) can happen quickly, but you do have a bit time to make las minute directional changes, even if there was just a few people on the beach would be enough have try for the surf at least. In fact after doing quite a few beach landings I'd rather go for the wet sand than the soft stuff even if no one was on the beach.

Flying Binghi

4th Aug 2017, 01:14

I don't see how we can make any 'judgement' call yet.

Some observations from the available YouTube videos I've seen:

- In some videos before the Police tapes were up there were still puddles of water between the aircraft and crowd side of the beach. Other video post Police tape show a dusty dry sand. Suggests the tide were on its way out.

- As the aircraft has clear damage from hitting an object it would suggest to me the high probability of the aircraft spinning around on landing. So the way the aircraft is sitting post accident may not indicate flight approach path.

- The sea breeze 'effect' can be quiet strong along a beach at low level. The wind direction and strength barely 500' above the beach could be very different. A pilot having an engine failure a few thousand feet above the built up residential area behind the beach might be suckered into gliding towards the ocean thinking they will make it. As the aircraft looses altitude and the local sea breeze effect comes into play then the aircraft may land short.

To me, waiting for an accident report before judging the pilot seems prudent at this time.

.

currawong

4th Aug 2017, 01:49

FWIW I have had an engine failure at 60 ft.

At that point you have basically arrived.

You are going somewhere between 30 deg left or right and no further than what is just passing out of sight under the nose.

By the time I secured the engine and switches I was pulling the flap on while flaring to land.

Maybe 3 - 4 seconds.

"Glide Ratio"? Think space shuttle. Especially if you are obliged to stuff the nose down to maintain flying speed initially.

AirJing

4th Aug 2017, 06:48

^ Quite true, you don't have any time if your engine fails at 60 feet.... but you would have been already lined up on the centreline of a runway. The engine here, we don't know if it was rough running then failed or just failed, but we know the pilots had time for a mayday. That would have happened well in advance of the final few seconds of flight.

currawong

4th Aug 2017, 07:18

Why would that be?

Some of us do this for a living.

Some days I don't get above 300ft.

I respect the fact you have a PPL.

Respect the fact many on here have a bit more.

effortless

4th Aug 2017, 07:53

I would hope that you were more than 300ft above people, vessels or structures.

currawong

4th Aug 2017, 07:59

Why?

Operational requirement.

:rolleyes:

arketip

4th Aug 2017, 08:24

Looks like everybody assumes that the sea was empty.

AirJing

4th Aug 2017, 08:36

Why would that be?

Some of us do this for a living.

Some days I don't get above 300ft.

I respect the fact you have a PPL.

Respect the fact many on here have a bit more.

This was a training flight in a C152. The 300 or 60 ft where you planned to fly would have meant you were crop dusting, moving livestock or similar or a military pilot. An engine failure at crop dusting heights would mean an instant landing. Although crop dusting is outside my experience, I can imangine an engine failure on short final at the same hight and what would happen then.
An engine failure at PPL training or private flying altitude means some time to think - so even if I only have a PPL, I don't see how your engine failure at 60ft is directly comparible to an engine failure at PPL altitudes where you do have time to do things, including make a mayday and select a landing point. The 60 ft I mentioned also isn't the height where the pilots would have first realised this was a crowded beach - that would have been clear well beforehand. 60 ft is about where you might know your exact landing point on the beach and still have a few seconds to do something if there is something at your landing point.

Selecting a suitable forced landing site was drummed into me during PPL. In the absence of control problems, it's quite hard to see how a beach with people on it would be suitable.

Mike Flynn

4th Aug 2017, 09:28

Looks like everybody assumes that the sea was empty.

Certainly looks that way.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/plane5.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=616
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/plane3.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=873

Was the pilot hoping to save the airframe?

squidie

4th Aug 2017, 10:30

Pretty crowded beach should have had at least one guy yelling to get out of the way as the plane made an approach.

Can’t expect that to happen, you’d have to see it where you’d only hear it about 30ft above the ground.

runway30

4th Aug 2017, 11:26

I think Jay has got it spot on, it could be an FI who decided to prioritise saving his aircraft. I also have flown PFLs at deserted beaches and if my eyesight wasn't good enough to see people on the beach at 500 feet then I wouldn't have been legal to fly it. I also agree that we can't condemn the pilot before we know the full facts but after seeing the most recent pictures my decision would have been to go in the sea.

Steve6443

4th Aug 2017, 12:01

And yes, if I did not like what I saw a few seconds before impact like people (although you would have a lot more than a few seconds to work out you were over a crowded beach), I'd be minded to try something different.

Reminds me somewhat of when I was doing my night rating. The instructor I was flying with told me - if you have an engine failure at night, aim for the blackest part of the countryside. A few seconds before impact, turn the landing lights on to see where you will likely land.

I asked him what I should do if I didn't like what I saw...... to which he coolly replied:

Turn the light off

B2N2

4th Aug 2017, 12:05

Certainly looks that way.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/plane5.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=616
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/plane3.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=873

Was the pilot hoping to save the airframe?

That's a really high pitch attitude for a powerless glide with flaps down.
There are definitely people in the water.

squidie

4th Aug 2017, 13:11

That's a really high pitch attitude for a powerless glide with flaps down.
There are definitely people in the water.

Could assume perhaps they picked a spot on the beach with no people on but because of the angle of approach missed it or undershot it.

runway30

4th Aug 2017, 13:22

Could assume perhaps they picked a spot on the beach with no people on but because of the angle of approach missed it or undershot it.

Yes, they could have seen a space between the people sitting on the beach and the people standing in the surf. There is a huge risk that someone is going to walk or run in front of you. If you go for the sea there is a risk of swimmers in the sea that you can't see. Take a choice.

squidie

4th Aug 2017, 13:37

Yes, they could have seen a space between the people sitting on the beach and the people standing in the surf. There is a huge risk that someone is going to walk or run in front of you. If you go for the sea there is a risk of swimmers in the sea that you can't see. Take a choice.

I’d like to say the sea but it’s still too early to say…

Tigger4Me

4th Aug 2017, 16:53

I think Jay has got it spot on, it could be an FI who decided to prioritise saving his aircraft.

This was not his aircraft. The flight school concerned were renting the a/c from the school that owned it.

Video of the approach here:

https://goo.gl/pDddjg

Sorry, but you will have to sit through an advert first.

BusAirDriver

4th Aug 2017, 17:46

The winds and the flaps would have made the exact aiming point very hard to judge. If you look at the sea, you can see there is a fairly strong wind. You can see the white in the waves.

Also I could see at least 5 people in the sea, so there would have been people in the sea too. He chose the "best" option, out of many bad options available.

what next

4th Aug 2017, 17:51

He chose the "best" option, out of many bad options available.

Hardly. The people which can be seen in the sea are very close to the beach. 50m away from the beach they would have hurt nobody. Turning towards the sea even as low as they were in that video would have taken them far enough away. There is no excuse for landing on top of people when there is an alternative.

piperboy84

4th Aug 2017, 18:03

Mike Flynn

4th Aug 2017, 18:54

The instructor made the radio call saying he was going for the beach and that's what he did.

Looking at the flaps and the way he was aligned in relation to the sea he had no intention of getting his feet wet.

Had he pulled it off then the aircraft could have been flown out or pulled to a safe place to remove the wings.

I suspect they were both arrested as the student has important info for the forthcoming trial.

patowalker

4th Aug 2017, 21:35

The instructor made the radio call saying he was going for the beach and that's what he did.

Yes, but in the radio call he said he was going for another (quieter) beach, 200m from where he landed.

Flying Binghi

5th Aug 2017, 04:33

Yes, but in the radio call he said he was going for another (quieter) beach, 200m from where he landed.

I don't know where that beach were in relation to the touch down point though we do have a wind sock of sorts.
Far right of screen, at time :37
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGNAn2p5BJc

Note: For the non aviation people, wind sheer near the ground can make a big difference to the planned un-powered aircraft touch down point.

.

Video of the approach here:

https://goo.gl/pDddjg

Video at link wont work on me iPad for some reason.

YouTube link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qf0zh8EUJDA

.

Mike Flynn

5th Aug 2017, 07:54

Yes, but in the radio call he said he was going for another (quieter) beach, 200m from where he landed.

Which confirms he was planning a beach landing instead of putting it down in the water well clear of people.

patowalker

5th Aug 2017, 13:13

Yes, but as I said, the Cova do Vapor beach did not have many people on it, so the chances of hurting someone there were much lower. I can't tell from the pictures or reports if he overshot the chosen beach or didn't reach it.

runway30

5th Aug 2017, 15:32

Solely based on looking at local maps, it looks like he overshot.

simmple

5th Aug 2017, 16:16

what next

5th Aug 2017, 17:02

The only people who should be criticising are the ones who have been in that situation...

No. I have never been in the situation of the president either yet I can criticise him as much as I want.
The accident pilot was an instructor. He should know how to execute a forced landing. He should know and apply the concept of FORDEC/DODAR or whatever they call it this year.
And he should be familiar with one of the most basic rules of visual flight, now contained in SERA Europe-wide, but a pillar of every national aviation law before that:

SERA.3101 Negligent or reckless operation of aircraft
An aircraft shall not be operated in a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property of others.
SERA.3105 Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be
flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a
height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Ditching is not an option in a high-wing Cessna? So don't get yourself in a position where ditching is the only way to avoid harming people on the ground.

NB: This website here looks at the statistics of known ditching events. As usual, statistics derived from a (luckily) small number of samples are not too reliable, but it holds some surprises, especially ones concerning high-wing aircraft: http://www.equipped.org/ditchingmyths.htm

biscuit74

5th Aug 2017, 20:30

patowalker

5th Aug 2017, 21:16

The accident happened under the Lisbon TMA, which starts at 1000' agl there.

runway30

5th Aug 2017, 21:18

If you look on the map, there is a lot of sea and river. If he was over water trying to make land, he may not have been able to turn into wind because that would have taken him back over deep water. I also know from the few times that I have had to land with a significant tail wind component, touching down at a precise point in a confined space would be impossible.

Mike Flynn

5th Aug 2017, 22:03

Someone once said and it may have been Yeager or someone else who knew about these things, hearing of the pilot wrestling with the controls to miss the school and the children was total bolo'
You do not see the children and probably not even the school you focus on the spot that will save your own skin.
The only people who should be criticising are the ones who have been in that situation, water landing and a Cessna is not a good option!

Would that be saving your own skin or risking others?

As a committed low wing pilot of over 35 years experience that is one reason I have very low hours on Cessna's.

The odds are the instructor knew the fuselage would be submerged and escape would be a challenge.Once out of the door then it is a clamber under the wing to get to the surface.

As I have mentioned before ditching in the sea would also have destroyed the airframe.

You can make your own mind up.

Flying Binghi

6th Aug 2017, 06:54

Damned if yer do and damned if ya don't. If the pilot in command (PIC) had landed out in the ocean as some have suggested and the pax/student were killed then the PIC would be blamed for not using the clear bit of beach available - which were apparently what he aimed for though missed.
I wonder how much engine off performance training the PIC received or was required to receive. On many light aircraft a windmilling prop gives a speed brake effect where-as a stopped prop gives better glide. None of my 'forced' glider landing experience has been in a 150 type aircraft so i carn't opinion on this incident.
Nice to have an accident report to consider first...

Anyway, here's a drone shot of apparently the same beach: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sCFGks46IPU

Note at time 1:10 the hard to see people walking the beach. The drone is almost on top of them before they are identifiable as people.

At time 1:56 note the many beach umbrellas. Relavence is the pilot in command may be used to seeing from the air a large number of beach brollies that have few to no people around.

At time 2:50 note the sand 'island' just off the beach. Much the same is visible in the actual aircraft approach vid and is likely similar to the pilot view of approach.

.

Crosswind Limits

6th Aug 2017, 09:49

If there are grounds for criminal liability for the tragic deaths, then you can bet your bottom dollar a prosecution will follow.

As a former lawyer and flying instructor I would rather die myself than risk killing innocent members of the public. I justify this stance both ethically/morally and from a criminal liability standpoint.

LOMCEVAK

6th Aug 2017, 14:06

There are many posts on this thread that I find quite disturbing. Unless we know the cues and information presented to and recognised by the crew then we cannot decide upon the possible courses of action that were available to them and, with hindsight, consider which was the best course that they should have taken. If their course of action was not what retrospectively was considered to be the one that would have had the best outcome then we would then need to try to ascertain why they took the course of action that they did. There will be many potential human factors considerations that may exonerate the crew totally. At the other end of the spectrum the actions that they took could have been reckless and constitute manslaughter. Both pilots are still alive and could give witness statements. However, to understand the reality of their actions such statements must not be admissible as self-incriminating documents.

In situations such as this workload is very high and spare capacity for assessing external cues and decision making is reduced. I find it very scary that so many who have posted on here are judge and jury and, frankly, appear to have very little understanding of human performance and limitations with respect to operating aircraft.

what next

6th Aug 2017, 14:44

In situations such as this workload is very high and spare capacity for assessing external cues and decision making is reduced.

Certainly. Therefore a thorough briefing is required before commencing such a flight covering possible emergencies and how to deal with them. Especially so in the training environment. I looked the area up on the chart and unless they flew a wide detour through the backcountry they had to cross some expanse of water (the Tejo estuary) between their departure and the location of the crash. Airspace constraints - unless they got permission to fly higher - would hold them down low, as low as 1000ft along part of their trip. In such an environment - sea and basically unlandable terrain, especially to the north of the Tejo mouth and only a couple of kilometers of gliding distance avaiable - one has to have a plan about how to deal with an engine failure and a plan B as well.

I I find it very scary that so many who have posted on here are judge and jury ...

I do not see any postings where someone poses as judge and jury. "We" (and I assume that I am considered to be one of those because my understanding for the actions of that instructor is marginal) only "work" from what we have been informed about by the media: An "experienced" instructor reported an engine failure to ATC and announced his intention to force land on an empty stretch of beach. Somehow he misses this part of the beach. From that moment on we have video evidence that shows him continuing his approach on the original track, thereby killing two persons on the beach. Unless there were (so far unreported) control problems or unexpected weather phenomena (windshear?) a real good explanation is required why he did not turn away from the populated part of the beach.

... frankly, appear to have very little understanding of human performance and limitations with respect to operating aircraft.

We are not talking here about some low-time PPL holder who flies once every two months. This would make it a lot easier to understand those human limitations. Instead we talk about an "experienced" (as the media reported) instructor who is based locally. And no, repeating your sentence, in this respect I have no understanding for the kind of human performance limitations shown here.

simmple

6th Aug 2017, 17:17

Would all the critics be playing a different tune if there was 3, 5, 10 or pick a number in the aircraft instead of 2?

DownWest

6th Aug 2017, 18:11

[QUOTE=Crosswind Limits;9853614]If there are grounds for criminal liability for the tragic deaths, then you can bet your bottom dollar a prosecution will follow.

.[/QUOTe

Following prosecutions have a habit of being derailed over there. Dépends on the interest. One of the really bad ones was the death of some children in a water park.
I lived there from '75 to '04 and I hope the law has tidied up a bit...It tended to favour the better off.

what next

6th Aug 2017, 18:40

Would all the critics be playing a different tune if there was 3, 5, 10 or pick a number in the aircraft instead of 2?

No. You can't sacrifice any number of uninvolved persons in order to save those onboard, no matter how many there are. They climbed on board an aeroplane knowing there is a risk involved. That was their decision alone and they alone must bear the consequences. Not sunbathers on the beach.

BusAirDriver

6th Aug 2017, 21:20

"what next" - So what about the Student pilot? Wasn't he also innocent?
We know nothing about this case yet, was this maybe the Students first flights? Who knows. But he was in the care of the PIC too.

Nobody deliberately lands wanting to kill someone.

I have had similar discussion regarding similar situation during night flight with SEP, if people would try to land on a motorway instead of into a black hole in the ground.

Not all are born Kamikaze pilots, most people have a survival instinct, and aim is to survive for all.
Video shows pitch on aircraft was pretty high, so they would not have had good vision ahead.

We don't know exactly what happen, if people was unlucky when they tried moving away, and they was at the wrong place at the wrong time, tragic I agree. In aviation we sometimes will be faced with difficult situations, with little time to decide what to do, and maybe plan A did not work out, plan B or Plan C, might not have been ideal, as people got killed.

What would people have said if Captain Sully had hit a boat as he tried landing in the Hudson? Once he committed there was a chance something unexpected could have happen, he could not have worked out all scenarios.
Or had the aircraft broken up and people died, people would have said he should have tried returning to the runway.

what next

6th Aug 2017, 22:02

"what next" - So what about the Student pilot? Wasn't he also innocent?

It not a matter of being "innocent" or not. Rather "involved" or not. Every student pilot knows that there is an inherent risk in that activity. Transferring this risk to sunbathers on the beach can not be an option.

What would people have said if Captain Sully had hit a boat as he tried landing in the Hudson?

That's an interesting question but easily answered. Sullenberger had three options:
1. Try to turn back or land at another airport in the vicinity. This has been done to death in countless simulator sessions and would only have been possible - if at all - if everybody knew in advance what would be happening so they could react instantly. For some reason he discarded this option early in his decision making process.
2. Land between the houses. Guaranteed victims on the ground and victims on the plane as well.
3. Ditch. Possible victims in boats and possible victims on the plane.
So he had to chose between "possible victims" and "guaranteed victims".

In this accidents they had a choice between:
1. Land on the beach. Possible victims on the ground and possible victims in the plane (not every forced landing on soft ground goes without injury).
2. Ditch. Possible victims in the plane. Very remote possibility to hit a swimmer far away (> 50m) from the beach.

Flying Binghi

7th Aug 2017, 02:05

...That's an interesting question but easily answered. Sullenberger had three options:
1. Try to turn back or land at another airport in the vicinity. This has been done to death in countless simulator sessions and would only have been possible - if at all - if everybody knew in advance what would be happening so they could react instantly. For some reason he discarded this option early in his decision making process.....

We know that now. Though if Sullenberger had actually tried for the airport and crashed short as the sim suggests would He of been blamed for his decision ?

.

IcePaq

7th Aug 2017, 05:37

Was there talk of the plane hitting a parked car?

From the video, it looks like he put the upwind wing down indicating a pretty strong sea breeze which may have caused him to drift further away from the water.

AirJing

7th Aug 2017, 09:58

Slightly puzzled having looked at the video; that appears to be a downwind landing. At what height did the engine failure happen ? - to my thinking unless it was at very low height, attempting a downwind landing seems odd, unless the beach is far too crowded or stops to the upwind side.

An unusually nose high attitude too, though the aircraft had not touched down by the time it went out of sight.

I was always told that if any chance & control existed we should ensure our accidents don't involve other folk; that was part of the risk we took. Sadly it looks very much from that short piece of video as if the pilot thought he saw a safe spot which in fact didn't exist. (Or possibly overshot, as someone else said. Easy to do if attempting downwind.)

It all smacks just a bit of panic, not the cool thinking we'd all like to believe in and hope we'd be capable of.

A very sad event.

Yes, does look like downwind. I posted earlier that there was an after-the-event photo of the airplane on the beach with a windsurfer in the background and also a video of police barrier tape, which pointed to a downwind landing. The way that beach tent is flapping around, it was definitely a downwind landing.

Looks like a bit of a stiffer breeze than from the video taken after the landing too. They had apparently only been flying for only a few mins, so the wind speed/direction would likely have been about the same as at the airfield from which they departed. I wonder if they had sufficient height to turn the airplne around for an upwind landing?

BusAirDriver

8th Aug 2017, 14:56

Does anybody know where they took of from?

Tigger4Me

8th Aug 2017, 16:04

Does anybody know where they took of from?

Cascais

Aeródromo Cascais (http://aerodromo-cascais.pt/)

Mike Flynn

8th Aug 2017, 20:35

Picture here of airport and climb out plus beaches. It appears he wanted to save the airframe?

https://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2017/08/08/IMG_4379.jpg

runway30

8th Aug 2017, 21:59

Jay, I don't think you have got that right. Take off would have been on 35, directly into the wind. He would then have turned south and crossed the river estuary. The beach he landed on is not on the photograph, it is well to the south on the other side of the estuary.

BusAirDriver

8th Aug 2017, 22:00

Judging by the distance from the airport to the beach, and where the engine failure would have happen, he would not have had much time to worry about the airframe, I think people are more worried about saving their own life, and their passengers life, this is a fairly primal instinct, so loads of todwash what you are saying here about saving the airframe.

I once many years ago had engine giving up on me during climb out, I managed to get enough altitude to make 180, and land with tail wind, probably touch down at 80 kts, while this was at an uncontrolled airstrip, with gliders operating out of the airfield during this time, I just told everybody on the radio to get out of my way, as the engine twice had died on my during the initial climb, and I was not going to waste my time to find out if it would last a whole circuit. Not one second did I have time to think about saving the airframe. I have to seriously ask the question, do any of you guys really fly?

It is around 5 Nm from the airfield to the beach, so he must have been to low to be able to return to the airstrip, and this again would have again given him very limited options. That he only hit 2 shows that the beach was almost clear, with limited time to decide he made a choice hoping to save his and his passengers life.

The result was of course tragic, and he will undoubtedly have to live with this fact for the rest of his life, but for some of you guys almost proclaiming that he should have been the hero and been a kamikaze pilot is just extremely dumb, and it's so easy to write that while you sitting in front of your PC, on the ground, not facing this issue in REAL life, when time is of the essence, and at one stage you have to be committed to your decision, and you will have to live the consequences of it, one way or the other.

As they say, it's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

runway30

8th Aug 2017, 22:15

BA, as I just said I don't think this was an engine failure after take off and the beach on the photograph is not the one he landed on.

Mike Flynn

8th Aug 2017, 22:20

OK so this is another view.http://aerodromo-cascais.pt/
If I took of from the airfield below with an engine failure I would be heading for the sea or beaches ?
So where did this accident happen in relation to this picture?
http://www.aerodromo-cascais.pt/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1000188_674671829225468_1228930722_n.jpg

runway30

8th Aug 2017, 22:29

OK so this is another view.
If I took of from here with an engine failure I would be heading for the sea or beaches.So where did this accident happen in relation to this picture?
http://www.aerodromo-cascais.pt/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1000188_674671829225468_1228930722_n.jpg

Jay, I see you got the picture from the aerodrome website. I believe the beach he landed on is at the top of the photograph on the other side of the estuary. I believe we are looking downwind.

Mike Flynn

8th Aug 2017, 22:34

Jay, I see you got the picture from the aerodrome website. I believe the beach he landed on is at the top of the photograph on the other side of the estuary. I believe we are looking downwind.
So he had a big choice?

megan

9th Aug 2017, 02:19

Accident took place here.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/03/13/42E8898400000578-4754404-The_tragedy_happened_at_the_Sao_Joao_beach_on_Portugal_s_Cos ta_d-a-11_1501762738248.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4754404/Two-sunbathers-killed-near-Lisbon.html

runway30

9th Aug 2017, 07:47

As it's from the Daily Mail, we know it must be accurate............

PrivtPilotRadarTech

11th Aug 2017, 23:55

Yes, Megan's map is pretty close. News reports I read said he landed on the beach at Costa da Caparica "between Bicho D'água, and Leblon Restaurante." Search Google Maps for the first restaurant and you'll see the situation.

Landing on the beach would be my first choice, but not if it involved mowing down people. The alternative of ditching was equally available, the sea was calm and it's warm and shallow with a sandy bottom. Plus there's a beach full of rescuers. If you have to ditch, that's ideal. According to this website, EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Ditching Myths Torpedoed! (http://www.equipped.org/ditchingmyths.htm) "inshore ocean ditching" like this has an 88% survival rate.

Ditching also avoids the angry mob yelling "Killer!" (which is what happened).

patowalker

12th Aug 2017, 11:54

As has been mentioned before, the pilot intended to land on Cova do Vapor beach, which had far less people on it. Unfortunately, he overshot it by about 200 meters.

runway30

12th Aug 2017, 16:07

As has been mentioned before, the pilot intended to land on Cova do Vapor beach, which had far less people on it. Unfortunately, he overshot it by about 200 meters.

........but landing with a strong tailwind, he would have been good if he had pulled that one off.

PrivtPilotRadarTech

12th Aug 2017, 17:40

As has been mentioned before, the pilot intended to land on Cova do Vapor beach, which had far less people on it. Unfortunately, he overshot it by about 200 meters.

That may be true, but it's not relevant. Once he realized he was going to overshoot that beach, he still had the option of ditching where he wouldn't hit anyone. I don't know that I'd have the presence of mind to turn into the wind or put it in a forward slip to get down to the first beach, but I would not put it down on top of people when I could just as easily ditch clear of them.

megan

13th Aug 2017, 04:31

I could just as easily ditch clear of themWhat if you couldn't swim, or worse, suffered from aquaphobia? How would that play into the decision making process? Just saying....

PrivtPilotRadarTech

13th Aug 2017, 07:05

What if you couldn't swim, or worse, suffered from aquaphobia? How would that play into the decision making process? Just saying....

That did occur to me. I enjoy swimming, but I have observed the overwhelming fear/panic some people experience when they suddenly decide they are in too deep. I can believe that might play into their decision making process.

Suppose a person like that was on a sinking boat. Would their fear justify taking the life jacket from a child?

That's analogous to what happened here. The pilot shifted the risk from himself to the people on the beach, including a little girl.

Homsap

13th Aug 2017, 10:20

Privit.... I do not know what the position is in the states but 'Forwrd Slip' or -slide slip' as it known in the UK, is a technique rarely used or practised by private pilots or instructors . I agree sideslip is an invaluable technique, as long pilots are taught well and not to attempt it in a turn.

Again in turns of oprating in coastal regions, I never understand why pilots do not wear lifejacks and immerssion suits when the se is cold. Likewise why do pilots not carry survival knives especially when carrying life raft raft. I say this because a number of years ago, someone accidently inflated the lifer aft on the ground, and basically the pilot got squashed up against the instruments and ncontrols, imagine that happening in the air! It will happen

For that reason, I have always tried to have a survival knife with me. I know everyone is going to flag up sucirity. I once got ot told by security, that I could not board with a life jaclet, despite the fact there about 188 already in the cabin. The Captain allowed it in the end.

I heard people say use a ball point pen, but I dont think that would be rapid enought. In the case of the A320 in the Hudson, someone on one of the boats had to through his penknife from a boat, so they could cut the lanyard!

Gertrude the Wombat

13th Aug 2017, 10:28

Homsap

13th Aug 2017, 11:52

Gertrude ..... i'm not sure what you were flying, but you were sensible to take instruction, but I would say you can achieve more that the exra 200 feet per minute. But the instructor was probably and rightly so, being a bit conservate. Obviviously the ROD is going to vary between types, what it says in the Flight Manual, how much bank is used and the rudder authority.

I beleive that is one of the reasons, some maufaturers, advise against sideslipping with full flap also, if you look at the rudders at the early Slingby T67 is much smaller than say the Bulldog or Beagle Pup.

As a word of warning, there was a number of years ago, gliding club usiing DHC Chipmonks and pushed the aircraft to the limits in terms of sidesliping, it was an accident waiting to happen. During a check flight, on finals the aircraft flight rolled inverted, landed inverted killing the pilots.

I'm not entirely what caused the aircraft to flick but I suspect the aircraft was still in a turn the pilot intiated a high ROD using sidesl. Alternately he may have applied full flap while in still in slideslip, but I think that less likely.

LOMCEVAK

13th Aug 2017, 12:11

The brief video clip of the aircraft crossing the beach from right to left shows that the pitch attitude was abnormally nose high such that the tail skid was approximately level with the mainwheels with a flightpath that was approximately constant. This would indicate that the aircraft was below the normal approach speed and that the margin above the stall was reduced from that which would normally exist during a glide approach. If bank had been applied to turn towards the sea then there was a potential for the aircraft to stall, the precise bank angle required being a function of the IAS. A stall would have resulted in an uncontrolled impact on the beach. We do not know what the airspeed was nor whether the pilot had the capacity to consider stall margin and the reduced potential to turn but this could have been a factor. In addition, abnormally slow speed may have put the aircraft at less than minimum drag speed such that the pilot was confronted with an unfamiliar relationship between pitch attitude and flightpath, further complicated by the tailwind. Therefore, it may not have been easy for him to predict the touchdown point in such unfamiliar circumstances. Also, there was a small amount of right bank applied just before the aircraft went out of frame on the video so there was possibly some attempt made to control the azimuth flightpath of the aircraft.

For those who read this thread but who do not fly single engine light aeroplanes and/or who have not had an engine failure in one, there are many factors that influence a pilot's decision making regarding control of the flightpath of the aircraft. One of these will certainly be the nature of the touchdown point which will include consideration of any human occupation. However, in such a high stress scenario a pilot may have limited spare mental capacity available for making such decisions and, therefore, may not take a course of action which, with hindsight, would have been optimal.

Pilots are humans and humans have performance limitations as an inherent aspect of their biology. These must always be taken into account when a tragic accident such as this occurs.

LOMCEVAK

13th Aug 2017, 12:15

Homsap,

In aeroplanes where it is advised not to sideslip in a certain flap configuration the reason is often that sideslip, in addition to producing increased drag, also may produce a pitching moment and there may be insufficient elevator authority to counter this. The reason why flap affects this is because of the change in downwash angle at the tailplane as a function of flap deflection.

effortless

13th Aug 2017, 12:30

From experience, urgent situations cause the field of attention to close in. I have had non aviation events that, because of my foreshortened field of attention, have brought me into near contact with bystanders. I was lucky that I was able to make small changes to miss them.

Homsap

13th Aug 2017, 15:38

LOMOVACK.... I accept your points, on the other hand flap postions can cause pitch down, so the moral of the story is the read the flight manual, which I know does not always happen.

PrivtPilotRadarTech

13th Aug 2017, 17:19

The brief video clip of the aircraft crossing the beach from right to left shows that the pitch attitude was abnormally nose high ... This would indicate that the aircraft was below the normal approach speed and that the margin above the stall was reduced from that which would normally exist during a glide approach.

Certainly, and in the aftermath the left wing was broken with the strut failed in compression. They hit hard, according to witnesses they bounced several times. No doubt they were trying to clear the people on the beach. In the video they are too low and slow to maneuver. However, before that time, with bathers clearly occupying the beach, they could have opted to ditch. They didn't, and they will have to live with the consequences.

LOMCEVAK

13th Aug 2017, 17:50

PPRT,

with bathers clearly occupying the beach, they could have opted to ditch

Or perhaps there appeared to be a clear patch of beach before or after where the bathers were but they misjudged the flightpath of the aircraft? And at what point did they recognise the bathers with respect to the last point at which they could have turned clear of them towards the water?

Whilst I accept that turning towards the water and ditching was an obvious viable option up to a certain point of the approach, there are several factors that could/would have affected their decision making which resulted in them adopting a flightpath which, sadly, resulted in these fatalities. They may have been grossly negligent but this could also have been an error of judgement.

This will be a difficult investigation because as far as we know there is no video of the complete approach, either onboard or external, and no FDR. As you say, whatever the outcome of the investigation, they will have to live with the consequences of their actions.

PrivtPilotRadarTech

13th Aug 2017, 23:16

there are several factors that could/would have affected their decision making which resulted in them adopting a flightpath which, sadly, resulted in these fatalities.

I'd like to see a factor added to that decision-making process. Don't bring shame to the flying community. Be a hero, not a zero. For example, here's a hero. Footage shows lifeguards rescue hero pilot who crashed plane into sea to avoid killing sunbathers - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/footage-shows-lifeguards-rescue-hero-8230567)

Here's another. Herne Bay Air Show crash pilot forced to plunge plane in sea 'became trapped in cockpit after wearing WRONG lifejacket' - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/herne-bay-air-show-crash-10962684)

That's what I expect, bravo.

Regarding the forward slip, I don't remember how I learned it. Maybe my flight instructor covered it in forced landings, he definitely trained me to trim for best glide speed and look for the best landing spot. In any case, it differs from a slide slip in that you push the nose down, and descend steeply without gaining airspeed, because the fuselage is somewhat sideways, creating a lot of drag. In a forced landing (or a glider landing!) you want to conserve altitude in case you need it. So you arrive too high. The forward slip bleeds off that energy safely. See Wikipedia, "Slip (aerodynamics)". I only used it for fun, or once when I started my descent too late and was way too high approaching to land.

Famous application, the celebrated Gimli Glider. Now that's a heroic yarn.