Video of midair with tow rope

CNN got really interested in the Cirrus parachute thing after the Cory
Lidle crash, in which a parachute wouldnt have helped.

Ive heard a story of a 172 that actually flew into a kite string in
Florida and had to make an emergency landing. I guess that having the
string, or rope in this case, really screws up the engine. I have no
idea why. Maybe it causes enough drag on the prop to stop the engine,
im not sure

I find it funny that a poster on a glider forum declares that just
because someone was flying a homebuilt airplane, they must have been
oblivious to everything going on around them. Why? because that is
what Ive heard for so long from power pilots talking about glider
pilots. and many of us are flying homebuilt gliders! I am, and Im also
listening and talking on my radio.

Jack wrote:
James D'Andrea wrote:
Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30


What was it about the collision that made the aircraft unflyable and
required use of the parachute? Apparently the pilot used the parachute
simply because he had it available.

More importantly, what was the outcome for the glider? Was the glider
still being towed, or had it already released prior to impact?

Had a collision not happened this would have been the most boring
possible video. I wonder if the position of the camera obscured the
pilot's view of traffic.


Jack

wrote:

Ive heard a story of a 172 that actually flew into a kite string in
Florida and had to make an emergency landing. I guess that having the
string, or rope in this case, really screws up the engine. I have no
idea why. Maybe it causes enough drag on the prop to stop the engine,
im not sure

The engine/prop could be so unbalanced that it would be necessary to
shut the engine down to keep it from vibrating heavily enough to damage
the structure of the aircraft. This is what happens when a prop blade is
lost, for example.

However, as we are well aware, an operating engine is not necessary to
continue controlled flight. So the question remains: why was it
necessary to use the parachute? Was the terrain unlandable, or was the
pilot more conscious of the parachute's capabilities than the aircraft's?


Jack

Jack wrote:
However, as we are well aware, an operating engine is not necessary to
continue controlled flight. So the question remains: why was it
necessary to use the parachute? Was the terrain unlandable, or was the
pilot more conscious of the parachute's capabilities than the aircraft's?

He was also trailing an unknown quantity of rope that was doing unknown
and possibly unpleasant things to his airframe, plus unknown damage from
the collision itself.

And of course, while we do unpowered landings routinely, it's truly an
unexpected and unwelcome emergency for a power pilot. After experiencing
the shock of a mid-air he was faced with a choice of going ahead with an
unfamiliar procedure or hitting the parachute, and I can't blame him for
going with the devil he knew.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:

And of course, while we do unpowered landings routinely, it's truly an
unexpected and unwelcome emergency for a power pilot. After experiencing
the shock of a mid-air he was faced with a choice of going ahead with an
unfamiliar procedure or hitting the parachute, and I can't blame him for
going with the devil he knew.

How many times had he pulled the parachute? And don't these power boys
practice engine-off landings?

On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.

Ian

On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.


See and be seen means just that. If indeed this was a tug and glider
there were at least two other sets of eyes that were supposed to be
looking!! Let us not be too quick to cast stones. This is another in
a long list of incidents we should be aware of and learn from.
Thankfully this one ended well.

Fly SAFE--

Skip Guimond

wrote:
On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.


See and be seen means just that. If indeed this was a tug and glider
there were at least two other sets of eyes that were supposed to be
looking!!

.... in a combination whch had right of way over our hero.

Thankfully this one ended well.

Inasmuch has he is a) alive and b) deprived of his aircraft, yes, I
think we can count it a happy ending.

Ian

Ian wrote:

Michael Ash wrote:

And of course, while we do unpowered landings routinely, it's truly an
unexpected and unwelcome emergency for a power pilot. After experiencing
the shock of a mid-air he was faced with a choice of going ahead with an
unfamiliar procedure or hitting the parachute, and I can't blame him for
going with the devil he knew.

How many times had he pulled the parachute? And don't these power boys
practice engine-off landings?

But the parachute has a huge amount of confidence-inspiring paperwork that
goes with it which says that it'll function as claimed. Of course we know
that this is no guarantee of success, but I can certainly envision a type
of pilot who would trust a parachute manufacturer that he can sue if
something goes wrong over his ability to land his plane unpowered.

Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
that they really don't like the idea at all.

For what it's worth I agree with you completely that the parachute should
have been avoided. I can just see why someone in that situation might risk
the parachute rather than his rusty off-field engine-off landing skills.

On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.

I can understand failing to spot it until it was very close, it can be
hard to see things. What I don't understand is that even when the tow
plane went right in front of him, he did almost nothing. From the video it
seems there was at least a full second from when the tow plane came on
camera to when impact occurred. During this time, the pilot did nothing
but raise the nose a bit. I would like to think that I would have
instantly put in full rudder and aileron to turn and drop out of the way,
and one second is plenty of time to get such a maneuver underway.

I try to give this guy the benefit of the doubt simply because I don't
have all the information and it makes it much less embarrassing to face up
to my own mistakes when they inevitably happen.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:
Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
that they really don't like the idea at all.

Not sure if that was aimed at trike and utralight pilots or power
pilots in general. My observation is that most trike landing are made
with engine at idle but I have not flown one.

As a power pilot and instructor I practice and teach accuracy landings
with simulated engine failure. It's not quite as easy to land exactly
on the chosen spot as with a glider but it's just as much fun to try.

Some power pilots even look out of the windows as they fly!

Andy

Andy wrote:

Michael Ash wrote:
Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
that they really don't like the idea at all.

Not sure if that was aimed at trike and utralight pilots or power
pilots in general. My observation is that most trike landing are made
with engine at idle but I have not flown one.

Still, having the engine available adds a great deal of reassurance to the
pilot's mental state if he's not well prepared for a true engine-off
landing.

As a power pilot and instructor I practice and teach accuracy landings
with simulated engine failure. It's not quite as easy to land exactly
on the chosen spot as with a glider but it's just as much fun to try.

That's very good, and I'm sure that practice will save somebody's bacon
one day if it hasn't already. I just get the impression that this is more
of the exception than the standard practice. I could easily be wrong, but
then maybe the pilot in question was in the exceptional "didn't practice
it much" group in that case.

I don't mean to denigrate power pilots in any way, I just get the
impression that having your engine quit is a lot more stressful than just
not having one in the first place, and this sort of emergency could easily
put a pilot into a frame of mind where he loses confidence in himself and
just hits the parachute.

Some power pilots even look out of the windows as they fly!

No doubt. I just have doubts about this one guy, not power pilots in
general.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:
hard to see things. What I don't understand is that even when the tow
plane went right in front of him, he did almost nothing. From the video it
seems there was at least a full second from when the tow plane came on
camera to when impact occurred.

Fairly typical reaction time. Within that second things like

"What the hell was that"
"Ok, it was a plane"
"****, that was a plane, and it had a cable behind it"
"Bugger, now what"
"Ok, probably should try and do something to avoid the cable"
"Up, or down"
"That cable probably had a glider on the other end, if I go down that
could be worse"
"Up"
"Ok arm, pull back on that there sticky thing"

are going through his head. It will take a surprisingly long time to
react to a situation like that, you have to examine the situation,
think of a plan, and implement that plan, a second is probably pretty
good.