Cessna 162 Skycatcher Crashes
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My hard deck is 50ft agl.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FTDK, if you watched Top Gun you'd realise that the hard-deck is a theoretical lower limit of a sequence of, in this case aerobatics. If they were operating at 5,000ft the hard deck might be 3,000ft. A sensible way to operate. My hard deck is 50ft agl.
And VH-XXX's aerobatic training consisted of 16 serious sessions of that movie Top Gun!
J
skycatcher
My recovery from spins in the C150A and C152A was relax backpressure and opposite rudder. No ham fisted flying. The 152 was very docile where as the 150 definitely had a bight. The one thing I remember distinctly (this happened in 1994) was the spin on this occasion looked much flatter than usual. After the event I accurately calculated our CofG and it was just in the rear limit. I have also heard of a similar thing happenning to Cape York Air a few years later in their C150A.
Forky, as mentioned a hard deck in Aero’s is a theoretical level that you don’t go below. Mine was 3000.
My recovery from spins in the C150A and C152A was relax backpressure and opposite rudder. No ham fisted flying. The 152 was very docile where as the 150 definitely had a bight. The one thing I remember distinctly (this happened in 1994) was the spin on this occasion looked much flatter than usual. After the event I accurately calculated our CofG and it was just in the rear limit. I have also heard of a similar thing happenning to Cape York Air a few years later in their C150A.
Forky, as mentioned a hard deck in Aero’s is a theoretical level that you don’t go below. Mine was 3000.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
I don't recall suggesting that you were ham fisted, I was merely making the general observation and I'm sure there would be a few instructors who would agree, that an overenthusiastic recovery can put you right back from whence you were.
I suspect the aircraft you were flying probably had a colorful career and may not have passed a rigging check. I am very respectful, seriously nervous actually, in fact I avoid it where at all possible flying "club" aircraft. I have seen the results of unreported "frights" where a previous pilot has found him/herself and the aircraft beyond their own personal and aircraft envelopes. I have even watched heart in mouth a trainer with solo pilot execute a manoeuvre (out of control actually) that should have been fatal and must certainly have stressed the aircraft (it did) but for dumb luck got away with it. Back to base, park the aircraft pay the bill and scarper he does. Operator could not prove a thing and almost got sued for suggesting the culprit was the culprit.
Its a tribute to the robust design and construction of these fully certified aircraft that they keep all but the most foolish out of strife.
I don't recall suggesting that you were ham fisted, I was merely making the general observation and I'm sure there would be a few instructors who would agree, that an overenthusiastic recovery can put you right back from whence you were.
I suspect the aircraft you were flying probably had a colorful career and may not have passed a rigging check. I am very respectful, seriously nervous actually, in fact I avoid it where at all possible flying "club" aircraft. I have seen the results of unreported "frights" where a previous pilot has found him/herself and the aircraft beyond their own personal and aircraft envelopes. I have even watched heart in mouth a trainer with solo pilot execute a manoeuvre (out of control actually) that should have been fatal and must certainly have stressed the aircraft (it did) but for dumb luck got away with it. Back to base, park the aircraft pay the bill and scarper he does. Operator could not prove a thing and almost got sued for suggesting the culprit was the culprit.
Its a tribute to the robust design and construction of these fully certified aircraft that they keep all but the most foolish out of strife.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ops
It certainly does. Used to be a secret until I forgot and mentioned it.
Hows the death pencil working for ya? I hear rumors another shift is imminent?
hows the rickster? is she who wears the pants still torturing his little feet?.
It certainly does. Used to be a secret until I forgot and mentioned it.
Hows the death pencil working for ya? I hear rumors another shift is imminent?
hows the rickster? is she who wears the pants still torturing his little feet?.
Tailwheel:
...And it spent years in a back yard in Williamstown, no more than three blocks from here. Your memory is excellent. It's now on display at Point Cook.
At least one Avro 707 ended up in Australia, Melbourne I think from memory?
Grandpa Aerotart
Skycatcher like 404, and I suspect a few other ex Instructors, I had a similar experience teaching spins in a C150 back in the mid 80s. Entered at 4000' and recovered under 500', and probably closer to 200', agl.
I tried letting everything go as soon as it was obvious the normal recovery method wasn't working..I sat there for 3 turns waiting for it to recover. It didn't and everything I could think of after that didn't work either...I tried every combination of aileron/power/elevator and rudder, holding each for a couple of turns...and then something I was told never to do 'worked'. Perhaps I leaned forward as I slammed the control wheel to the fwd stop and that is what actually broke the stall. I'll certainly never know for sure.
My student had actually been signed out for solo spinning, by me, some weeks before and I had showed him the 'let everything go' method then. We were only doing a spin this day because he wanted to do one for fun. As the wing dropped he applied out spin aileron which may have aggravated the spin but I had corrected that before we were half way around the first turn and he released the controls so I held it in for a few more turns before applying opposite rudder and easing the stick forward. It just spun faster and faster and faster - you'd be amazed how fast the little Cessna spins when you get up around 15 turns. Years before when I was a Student just signed out for solo spins I read in the POH 'The spin characteristic changes after 6 turns' and wondered how it changed - so the next solo trip to the training area I held it in a spin for 8 turns. It just spun faster but still recovered in the manner 152s are rightly famous for. I handed the aircraft to the engineers after we landed and they found no fault. I never received a definative answer as to what happened that day.
For a long time after the thought of my student spinning into the ground waiting for it to recover itself because I told him it would sent a shudder down my spine.
In fact the student just thought I was showing him a long spin...he didn't realise how much **** we had been in until I handed over to him as we climbed away from the ground and he noticed I was shaking. "Whats the matter?" I pointed at the altimeter and we were still under 1000' in an area that was around 300-500' amsl.
As a funny aside he rang me at home a fews days later to thank me for saving his life. "Sorry mate, I was saving mine - you just happened to be there to see it"
Meuller - Beggs is not a 100% money back guarantee.
I tried letting everything go as soon as it was obvious the normal recovery method wasn't working..I sat there for 3 turns waiting for it to recover. It didn't and everything I could think of after that didn't work either...I tried every combination of aileron/power/elevator and rudder, holding each for a couple of turns...and then something I was told never to do 'worked'. Perhaps I leaned forward as I slammed the control wheel to the fwd stop and that is what actually broke the stall. I'll certainly never know for sure.
My student had actually been signed out for solo spinning, by me, some weeks before and I had showed him the 'let everything go' method then. We were only doing a spin this day because he wanted to do one for fun. As the wing dropped he applied out spin aileron which may have aggravated the spin but I had corrected that before we were half way around the first turn and he released the controls so I held it in for a few more turns before applying opposite rudder and easing the stick forward. It just spun faster and faster and faster - you'd be amazed how fast the little Cessna spins when you get up around 15 turns. Years before when I was a Student just signed out for solo spins I read in the POH 'The spin characteristic changes after 6 turns' and wondered how it changed - so the next solo trip to the training area I held it in a spin for 8 turns. It just spun faster but still recovered in the manner 152s are rightly famous for. I handed the aircraft to the engineers after we landed and they found no fault. I never received a definative answer as to what happened that day.
For a long time after the thought of my student spinning into the ground waiting for it to recover itself because I told him it would sent a shudder down my spine.
In fact the student just thought I was showing him a long spin...he didn't realise how much **** we had been in until I handed over to him as we climbed away from the ground and he noticed I was shaking. "Whats the matter?" I pointed at the altimeter and we were still under 1000' in an area that was around 300-500' amsl.
As a funny aside he rang me at home a fews days later to thank me for saving his life. "Sorry mate, I was saving mine - you just happened to be there to see it"
Meuller - Beggs is not a 100% money back guarantee.
About 20 years ago the FAA issued a bulletin or alert to flight instructors about spin and recovery characteristics of Cessnas. The same information was in Flight International magazine of October 1978.
Some extracts relevant to recent posts on Cessna 150/152 here:
“…. Some pilots of modern aeroplanes say that ‘if you let go of everything, it’ll come out on its own.’ Using some spectacular film and figures, he showed the result of doing this in ... the 152. …
… company’s recommended recovery technique …
(1) Check that ailerons are central and throttle is in idle position.
(2) Apply and hold full rudder, opposite to the direction of rotation.
(3) Just after the rudder reaches the stop, move the control wheel briskly forward far enough to break the stall.
(… full down elevator may be required at aft c.g. loadings.)
(4) Hold these control inputs until rotation stops. …
The same information is in Kershner's book, The Basic Aerobatic Manual - essential reading for anyone instructing spins and/or aerobatics in the Cessna.
Beggs confirmed Kershner's tests of the Beggs-Mueller method on the Cessna 150 - it doesn't work in some spin modes to the left. Refer his article in the October 1985 issue of Sport Aerobatics and his comments on the above method - full forward yoke used in that spin where Beggs-Mueller doesn't work.
It’s a lot easier these days to obtain factual information (as well as rubbish) on the internet. Happy to send more details in pdf to anyone.
Some extracts relevant to recent posts on Cessna 150/152 here:
“…. Some pilots of modern aeroplanes say that ‘if you let go of everything, it’ll come out on its own.’ Using some spectacular film and figures, he showed the result of doing this in ... the 152. …
… company’s recommended recovery technique …
(1) Check that ailerons are central and throttle is in idle position.
(2) Apply and hold full rudder, opposite to the direction of rotation.
(3) Just after the rudder reaches the stop, move the control wheel briskly forward far enough to break the stall.
(… full down elevator may be required at aft c.g. loadings.)
(4) Hold these control inputs until rotation stops. …
The same information is in Kershner's book, The Basic Aerobatic Manual - essential reading for anyone instructing spins and/or aerobatics in the Cessna.
Beggs confirmed Kershner's tests of the Beggs-Mueller method on the Cessna 150 - it doesn't work in some spin modes to the left. Refer his article in the October 1985 issue of Sport Aerobatics and his comments on the above method - full forward yoke used in that spin where Beggs-Mueller doesn't work.
It’s a lot easier these days to obtain factual information (as well as rubbish) on the internet. Happy to send more details in pdf to anyone.
Grandpa Aerotart
djpil now THAT is interesting.
20 odd years ago would be 2+ years after my episode.
While neither myself or the student were overweight (at the time ) we were both over 6' tall and had the seats all the way back. We were in a left spin. I don't remember it being/or becoming particularly flat - certainly not compared to how flat the Traumahawk spun.
I had been taught NEVER to move the stick briskly forward all the way to the down elevator stop because you risked bunting the aircraft past the vertical and then having to pull back through the vertical (and risk structural failure). This actually happened on the day but I pushed then rolled right way up before pulling out into a climb. I am certain that had I pulled back through the vertical we would have hit the ground. The other thing I am certain of is that aerobatics and spinning was very much 'my thing' in those days and that was also a factor in our survival.
I believe the generally benign spin characteristics (99% of the time anyway) of the Cessna 150/152 series aircraft had lulled the entire training industry into a false sense of security. The reason the Traumahawk flies and spins as it does is because when Piper asked the industry what they wanted in a primary trainer they said "Not a C152" which was viewed as too benign - as in it, the 152, was difficult to actually force into a 'proper' spin and more inclined to spiral dive.
Several times over the intervening decades I have run into information like your post that fills in another piece of what may have happened that day.
Thanks for that!!
20 odd years ago would be 2+ years after my episode.
While neither myself or the student were overweight (at the time
) we were both over 6' tall and had the seats all the way back. We were in a left spin. I don't remember it being/or becoming particularly flat - certainly not compared to how flat the Traumahawk spun.I had been taught NEVER to move the stick briskly forward all the way to the down elevator stop because you risked bunting the aircraft past the vertical and then having to pull back through the vertical (and risk structural failure). This actually happened on the day but I pushed then rolled right way up before pulling out into a climb. I am certain that had I pulled back through the vertical we would have hit the ground. The other thing I am certain of is that aerobatics and spinning was very much 'my thing' in those days and that was also a factor in our survival.
I believe the generally benign spin characteristics (99% of the time anyway) of the Cessna 150/152 series aircraft had lulled the entire training industry into a false sense of security. The reason the Traumahawk flies and spins as it does is because when Piper asked the industry what they wanted in a primary trainer they said "Not a C152" which was viewed as too benign - as in it, the 152, was difficult to actually force into a 'proper' spin and more inclined to spiral dive.
Several times over the intervening decades I have run into information like your post that fills in another piece of what may have happened that day.
Thanks for that!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of info on spinning the 150/152 here.
SPIN RECOVERY AND SPIN TRAINING
SPIN RECOVERY AND SPIN TRAINING
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks as though the "pops and sparks" was the BRS deploying (and failing)
Last edited by BPH63; 26th Sep 2008 at 05:00.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Avweb today
SkyCatcher Crash Update
The test pilot for the Cessna 162 SkyCatcher LSA prototype that crashed last week was spin-testing the airplane and put it into a cross-controlled, power-on stall, Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver told AVweb this week. "He got into a flat spin and couldn't recover," Oliver said. The airplane, which was one of several used in the test program, remained intact until it hit the ground. The spin testing started at about 10,000 feet, and the pilot bailed out safely at about 5,000 feet above the ground. The kind of testing it was undergoing was beyond what is required for the airplane's intended ASTM light sport aircraft certification, Oliver said. He added that the accident is still under investigation but he doesn't expect the findings will result in any plans to modify the design. The airplane was equipped with a BRS ballistic recovery parachute, which was activated by the test pilot but failed to deploy.
Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work. "It looks to me that the parameters were pretty exceptional," he said. "It was an unusual situation." He added that BRS is working with Cessna and the NTSB to determine what happened, and he might have more information later in the week. Williams added that the BRS design has proven to be robust across a wide range of situations, but if this event shows that the design could be improved to increase its range of effectiveness, his team is ready and willing to learn and make changes. Oliver, of Cessna, noted that the BRS system on the accident aircraft was a standard chute and was not a specially designed spin chute, which is sometimes used in flight testing.
SkyCatcher Crash Update
The test pilot for the Cessna 162 SkyCatcher LSA prototype that crashed last week was spin-testing the airplane and put it into a cross-controlled, power-on stall, Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver told AVweb this week. "He got into a flat spin and couldn't recover," Oliver said. The airplane, which was one of several used in the test program, remained intact until it hit the ground. The spin testing started at about 10,000 feet, and the pilot bailed out safely at about 5,000 feet above the ground. The kind of testing it was undergoing was beyond what is required for the airplane's intended ASTM light sport aircraft certification, Oliver said. He added that the accident is still under investigation but he doesn't expect the findings will result in any plans to modify the design. The airplane was equipped with a BRS ballistic recovery parachute, which was activated by the test pilot but failed to deploy.
Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work. "It looks to me that the parameters were pretty exceptional," he said. "It was an unusual situation." He added that BRS is working with Cessna and the NTSB to determine what happened, and he might have more information later in the week. Williams added that the BRS design has proven to be robust across a wide range of situations, but if this event shows that the design could be improved to increase its range of effectiveness, his team is ready and willing to learn and make changes. Oliver, of Cessna, noted that the BRS system on the accident aircraft was a standard chute and was not a specially designed spin chute, which is sometimes used in flight testing.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere that looks a lot better when I close my eyes
Age: 37
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that the C150/152 crashed three or four times during its flight test program. Anyone know how true that might be?
Personally, I hate the skycatcher. It looks too much like a Jabiru and it's made of fibreglass, glue and the prayers of a thousand engineers. That said, I have to applaud Cessna for finally getting off their fat, business jet-focused collective backsides and offering a C150/152 replacement from a proven and reliable manufacturer.
Recently got an up close look at a Boomerang and a Liberty XL. When I talked to the Liberty marketing bloke he was talking it up as a basic trainer, a 152/Thawk reaplacement. Naturally, the first question I asked was 'what does it spin like?' His response (somewhat quizzically): 'Oh, you can't spin it...it's not approved.' What is the f*$#ing point of a basic trainer you're not allowed to spin?!
I think the Boomerang is over-priced for what it is. $120k or whatever they're asking I feel is too much for something that looks like the cardboard box aeroplanes I used to make in the backyard as a kid, with an avionics and interior fitout that looks like so many spares orphaned from a LAME's hangar...but at least you can spin it. You CAN spin it, right...?
So in short, to Cessna: I don't like your new plane, but it's a sh#tload better than some of the other stuff out there. Thankyou for that.
Personally, I hate the skycatcher. It looks too much like a Jabiru and it's made of fibreglass, glue and the prayers of a thousand engineers. That said, I have to applaud Cessna for finally getting off their fat, business jet-focused collective backsides and offering a C150/152 replacement from a proven and reliable manufacturer.
Recently got an up close look at a Boomerang and a Liberty XL. When I talked to the Liberty marketing bloke he was talking it up as a basic trainer, a 152/Thawk reaplacement. Naturally, the first question I asked was 'what does it spin like?' His response (somewhat quizzically): 'Oh, you can't spin it...it's not approved.' What is the f*$#ing point of a basic trainer you're not allowed to spin?!
I think the Boomerang is over-priced for what it is. $120k or whatever they're asking I feel is too much for something that looks like the cardboard box aeroplanes I used to make in the backyard as a kid, with an avionics and interior fitout that looks like so many spares orphaned from a LAME's hangar...but at least you can spin it. You CAN spin it, right...?
So in short, to Cessna: I don't like your new plane, but it's a sh#tload better than some of the other stuff out there. Thankyou for that.
According to Avweb, Cessna has redesigned the tail to counter this type of accident.
Cessna Revises SkyCatcher Design
Good on you Cessna for taking it seriously
Now about the oh sh*t parachute...
I guess that you'll be pleased to learn that it's mostly old fashioned sheet metal. Most people I know are actually critical of this choice but understand that this is what many flight schools want.
Cessna Revises SkyCatcher Design
Good on you Cessna for taking it seriously
Now about the oh sh*t parachute...
Originally Posted by Aerohooligan
Personally, I hate the skycatcher... it's made of fibreglass...
I had a 150F which was the first of the swept tail Cessnas. Now They reckon that the previous models, with the straight tail recovered better from a spin then the "F" and after models. I had converted mine to a taildragger and the conversion prevented ( legal ) spins. Let's say that the spin recovery of the "F" was likely to raise the blood pressure. I never tried an "E" or ealier but maybe someone has and can make comment.
Hmmm, rather a 150 than a Terrorhawk
Can't say it really floats my boat
but I've spun a 150/152 a few times and really don't see the tail as the weakest link (that's me!). I'm not unpleased to hear the 162 is mostly ally, perhaps I'm old-fashioned but it's something I understand & see as more easily repairable than a composite machine. I've had to do the odd little bit of panel-beating to the wee Cessna's before, typical hangar rash & small collisions that in the case of a composite machine would have been much more serious...
FP.
Can't say it really floats my boat
but I've spun a 150/152 a few times and really don't see the tail as the weakest link (that's me!). I'm not unpleased to hear the 162 is mostly ally, perhaps I'm old-fashioned but it's something I understand & see as more easily repairable than a composite machine. I've had to do the odd little bit of panel-beating to the wee Cessna's before, typical hangar rash & small collisions that in the case of a composite machine would have been much more serious...FP.
I did my power training in a Tomatohawk, and spun it several times and didnt think much of it (Iwas a glider driver) until one of my instructors did the spin and told me to look out the back at the tail, now that was sacrey. I cant remember spinning a Tomatohawk after that.