Good speakist lost

[elaw]

https://www.flyingmag.com/air-safety-in ... 4997023H6X

[Gabriel]

RIP. I hope they didn't stall-spin while trying to making the impossible turn to return to the runway.

It is not that they are any more or less dead, but if the vice president of the AOPA Air Safety Institute falls into that trap, what's there for the rest of us.

[3WE]

…what's there for the rest of us.

A 7X disaster rate as compared to automobiles…

Yeah, [italics ABSOLUTELY on]we always want to remove the I’d-never-do-that instances and pat ourselves on the back, but you also have to remove drunk, excessive-speed, no-seatbelt stats from cars and maybe it’s still 7X.

Definitely some ironing, and he was definitely one of the better speakists, but light aircraft stuff contrasts with ITSflyboyDummyworld.

One other comment: If you want to survive an engine failure, a 172 is better than a 177.

[Gabriel]

One other comment: If you want to survive an engine failure, a 172 is better than a 177.

Not familiar with the flying characteristics of the 177, but the full flaps 1G stall speed in worst conditions (MTOW and and most fwd CG) is still 46kts, not far at all from the 172's.

[3WE]

I remember a funny discussion there when stoner Kent lamented a short period where crashes were happening almost daily…”umm, yeah, that’s sort of the long term trend, Mr. Insider.”

Gabe- not sure why 172s are better, I just get the feeling that they are, including comparisons of similar stall speeds…(more forgiving stall behavior?)

Anyway, another plane, with a different type of speakist also crashed on takeoff.

Crashes are sad…as is 7X.

…I know we have suggested banning of takeoffs before, as that would be highly effective and less draconian than Not_Karl’s suggestions.

A7F1FC5B-F5E4-46B6-A5FE-B3A5DDE102AE.jpeg (350.65 KiB) Viewed 1039 times

[elaw]

In a development that I doubt will surprise anyone here, an investigator apparently is saying the plane lost power shortly after takeoff: https://www.boston.com/sports/new-engla ... aturestack

[3WE]

Ericiees link:

The pilot, or pilots in this case, turned back toward the runway. Gunther said the plane hit a berm at the end of the runway and fell about 30 feet into a ravine, according to the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.

We will need information on HOW they hit the berm…reasonable attitude and in control or banked or out of control…

I’m guessing that maybe they had enough altitude for the impossible turn, just not_enough to make the runway…

Counter argument: A Cessna on a typical (excess) length runway shouldn’t wind up not_making the runway. Not sure emoji.

[3WE]

For Armchair investigation:

F69EE5B9-F82A-4D84-ADC0-C52BC1CCEB18.png (5.55 MiB) Viewed 1024 times

[elaw]

A couple of other speakists speak with unusual passion about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaM5xiTCMlc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UkZ2nU1Tew

[3WE]

[Speakist pontification]

I’m going to run my mouth with very little hard info…the pictures don’t look stall-spin-crash-burn…

I’m ass-hat speculating they clipped a tree and unfortunately, were then aimed pretty poorly at a pile of dirt

Footnote: The crash was apparently just across the stream just off the SE threshold.

[elaw]

Preliminary report is out: https://flyingmag.sfo3.digitaloceanspac ... _21-PM.pdf

[3WE]

Much detail.

I read a mechanically updated engine with two suspicious, but inconclusive fuel anomalies: loose something or other and broken idle mixture link- but could have broken in the crash.

It’s also unclear- the engine sounded off, but they took off, and it even implies they were maneuvering for photography followed by a transmission and sharp turn.

I dunno shoulder shrug emoji.