The unstallable plane that stalled
fearoflanding.com
The unstallable plane that stalled
1–10 of 183 posts
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#2Life jackets seem like they’d be problematic in an enclosed cabin where their use is if you’ve crashed and are taking on water. That’s a bit different compared to a pleasure craft or other vessel that has an outside deck and likely more time to react.
But I don’t really know things. Perhaps most float plane emergencies that require life jackets don’t suffer from my perception of the issue.
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#3>“I let it lift off by itself. It was well-trimmed and it lifted off normally by itself.”
It sounds like the pilot wasn't fully prepared and engaged to compensate for propeller torque at the moment the aircraft left the surface of the water. At full takeoff power in a single engine aircraft this can be very intense and jarring, particularly with a high pitch ascent and full prop pitch. All it took was a momentary lapse in keeping the wings level to stall out at that speed.
>The indirect causal factor was the pilot’s lack of experience with stalling the aircraft. He told the investigation that he had never stalled the aircraft, which meant that he was unable to recognise the stall during the take-off.
It's this lack of stick and rudder skills at the root of the incident.
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#4Life jackets seem like they’d be problematic in an enclosed cabin where their use is if you’ve crashed and are taking on water. That’s a bit different compared to a pleasure craft or other vessel that has an outside deck and likely more time to react. But I don’t really know things. Perhaps most float plane emergencies that require life jackets don’t suffer from my perception of the issue.
Indeed, passengers inflating their life jackets too early directly caused many of the deaths on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 [0]. This is why the modern safety briefing includes the bit about waiting until you've exited the cabin to inflate your life jacket.
I have no clue how this applies to floatplanes, though—I'm curious for more details about when the article says "there are approved life jackets which could be used to deal with these circumstances".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#5Life jackets seem like they’d be problematic in an enclosed cabin where their use is if you’ve crashed and are taking on water. That’s a bit different compared to a pleasure craft or other vessel that has an outside deck and likely more time to react. But I don’t really know things. Perhaps most float plane emergencies that require life jackets don’t suffer from my perception of the issue.
It sounds like the two surviving passengers would have died if they had life jackets on. I can’t imagine getting out of an inverted, flooded 185 cabin with a life jacket on.
I think there was some sense to not requiring life jackets on seaplanes. They’re much more confined spaces than most pleasure boats, not to mention that you’re usually on a boat rather than in it. The flooding is also usually just about instant as the airplane rolls over.
Seems common for reactive legislation to not actually fix the situation that’s being reacted to. Requiring shoulder harnesses during takeoff and landing (which is the case in the US) would have actually kept the deceased passenger conscious to escape, as said in the report. But they didn’t change that law.
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#6Life jackets seem like they’d be problematic in an enclosed cabin where their use is if you’ve crashed and are taking on water. That’s a bit different compared to a pleasure craft or other vessel that has an outside deck and likely more time to react. But I don’t really know things. Perhaps most float plane emergencies that require life jackets don’t suffer from my perception of the issue.
Indeed, passengers inflating their life jackets too early directly caused many of the deaths on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 [0]. This is why the modern safety briefing includes the bit about waiting until you've exited the cabin to inflate your life jacket. I have no clue how this applies to floatplanes, though—I'm curious for more details about when the article says "there are approved life jackets which could be…
> I'm curious for more details about when the article says "there are approved life jackets which could be used to deal with these circumstances"
In context, that says:
“Floating and automatically operating life jackets aren’t practical, specifically because of cases like this where the occupants have to dive out of the capsized aircraft in order to escape the cabin. However, there are approved life jackets which could be used to deal with these circumstances.”
So, I guess there are approved life jackets that do not automatically inflate and are neutrally buoyant, thus minimally hindering attempts to leave a submerged plane while wearing one.
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#7Life jackets seem like they’d be problematic in an enclosed cabin where their use is if you’ve crashed and are taking on water. That’s a bit different compared to a pleasure craft or other vessel that has an outside deck and likely more time to react. But I don’t really know things. Perhaps most float plane emergencies that require life jackets don’t suffer from my perception of the issue.
Indeed, passengers inflating their life jackets too early directly caused many of the deaths on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 [0]. This is why the modern safety briefing includes the bit about waiting until you've exited the cabin to inflate your life jacket. I have no clue how this applies to floatplanes, though—I'm curious for more details about when the article says "there are approved life jackets which could be…
"Many of the passengers survived the initial crash, but they had disregarded, did not understand, or did not hear Leul's warning not to inflate their life jackets inside the aircraft, causing them to be pushed against the ceiling of the fuselage by the inflated life jackets when water flooded in. Unable to escape, they drowned."
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#8>“I let it lift off by itself. It was well-trimmed and it lifted off normally by itself.” It sounds like the pilot wasn't fully prepared and engaged to compensate for propeller torque at the moment the aircraft left the surface of the water. At full takeoff power in a single engine aircraft this can be very intense and jarring, particularly with a high pitch ascent and full prop pitch. All it took was a momentary lap…
> The pilot had set the trim so that the aircraft would lift off from the step and begin to climb away. The rudder trim was set almost as far right as it could go. The pilot described the take-off as quick and easy. “I let it lift off by itself. It was well-trimmed and it lifted off normally by itself.”
Further down.
> The maintenance team discovered an incorrect right wing geometric twist, which was unrelated to the hangar roof collapse but probably happened during repairs done previously in the USA. As a result, the aircraft had a tendency to roll and had been uncomfortable to fly because of a lack of aileron trim. This might explain why the pilot had the aircraft trimmed full right rudder on take-off: to correct for this roll.
He may have actually had too much rudder. They don’t say this explicitly, but correcting for roll with rudder means you’ll be cross controlled.
He was dangerously near stall speed without realizing it. Some turbulence could cause a small partial stall.
If the airplane was straight, it would have just dropped the nose a bit and corrected. But with a twist in one wing and 2/3 of rudder trim engaged, it’s more like it entered a snap roll. One wing was stalled, one was still making lift.
The airplane felt fine to the pilot, but it was essentially modified to be a snap roll machine. I don’t think a stock 185 would have even been capable of what happened here.
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#9Just so we're clear, there's practically no such thing as an "unstallable plane". If some pilot believes that then their license should be revoked. Even jet engines can experience stalls internally on the compressor blades, and even helicopters can experience stalls on their retreating blade. I would compare it to someone believing that their car cannot possibly lose traction.
Exceptions, which of course must exist, include some fly-by-wire setups which limit the actuation of flight surfaces so that it should be theoretically impossible to put an aircraft in that situation, and rumored properties of some abnormal constructions like the An-2. Although even there you should repeatedly get comfortable with what happens in/around a stall, at least in simulators.
The fact that air started to separate and the end of the wing, and not at the root, is scary. It means the pilot wouldn't get the normal warning in the form of airframe shaking. Bad modification.
Re: The unstallable plane that stalled
#10Life jackets seem like they’d be problematic in an enclosed cabin where their use is if you’ve crashed and are taking on water. That’s a bit different compared to a pleasure craft or other vessel that has an outside deck and likely more time to react. But I don’t really know things. Perhaps most float plane emergencies that require life jackets don’t suffer from my perception of the issue.
It sounds like the two surviving passengers would have died if they had life jackets on. I can’t imagine getting out of an inverted, flooded 185 cabin with a life jacket on. I think there was some sense to not requiring life jackets on seaplanes. They’re much more confined spaces than most pleasure boats, not to mention that you’re usually on a boat rather than in it. The flooding is also usually just about instant a…
My reflex is to never mandate safety procedures. To put it simply, why should the state use force to mandate something like safety. The implication being if someone refuses the force of the state is used on them… which is definitely not good or improving safety.
Mandating the seatbelts exist, sure. Mandating people wear them? Idk about that.
In the case of tractors for instance, wearing a seatbelt is downright dangerous. You cannot jump out then, and will be killed by a tractor if it flips.