AOPAs Richard McSpadden accident, fatal

[form810]

Richard McSpadden, Senior VP of AOPAs Air Safety Institute perished in the crash of a Cessna 177 Cardinal today along with another unidentified person in an accident on takeoff from Lake Placid, NY. In addition to being Senior VP of the ASI, McSpadden was a former career F-15A/C Eagle fighter pilot in the USAF and a former Commander of the USAF Thunderbirds from 2002-2003.

Air Safety Institute's Richard McSpadden Dies In Crash - AVweb

Richard McSpadden, the senior vice president of the AOPA Air Safety Institute, died, along with one other person, in the crash of a Cessna 177RG near Lake Placid Airport in upstate New York Sunday. McSpadden was in the right seat. Russ Francis, a former NFL tight end and the new owner of Lake...

www.avweb.com

Sucks. I'll miss him. RIP.

Still, see what "speculating" about safety gets you? That's the ironical part.
McSpadden's predecessor, Señor Bruce (now at NTSB), may now become Richard's accident investigator. That's the weirdly, potentially coincidental part.

 

[Murdoughnut]

It sounds like one of those jokes you'd tell.

"What do you do if you lose your AI in IMC?"

"Yank hard and kick a rudder!"

I recently heard an aerobatics guy tell a story of an instructor friend of his who got trapped above the overcast layer in some aerobatics aircraft without an AI (maybe an Extra?). Anyways, he says the instructor, running out of options, put the plane into a spin - because a spin is a coordinated maneuver that would get him below the bases where he could come out of it. Thought that was kinda neat.

 

[form810]

Damn. I always praised him for being the anti-Gryder/Blonco•tardo. If that guy could die in a GA accident, what hope do any of us have?

Every time you drive to work, you're taking on a statistically very great risk. Microwaving plastic is right up there, too, just not as immediate. Lower, but still relatively high - Every hamburger. Every bag of GM 'tater chips (or, even, just the regular kind). Act accordingly.

Back in the ethereal misty times when 'Murica was Great Again, Bubba used to be the go-to guy for pistons. Now? IDK, do most "certified" (oh, no, snap - it's "certificated") wrenches even know the 4 cycles of an ICE, let alone why those engines have push rods? Itty bitty pistons maintained by the local village idiot seem inherently something I -for one- would rather not engage in these days. But, that's just me.

 

[trafficinsight]

I recently heard an aerobatics guy tell a story of an instructor friend of his who got trapped above the overcast layer in some aerobatics aircraft without an AI (maybe an Extra?). Anyways, he says the instructor, running out of options, put the plane into a spin - because a spin is a coordinated maneuver that would get him below the bases where he could come out of it. Thought that was kinda neat.

When I was a new apprentice mechanic decades ago someone rented one of our 172's and got stuck on top of a layer at night. He was talking to atc who was trying to help him and he suddenly told them he found a hole and was going to spin down through it.

It was the top of a hill. He got the airplane stuck in a tree, but miraculously walked away.

 

[CFI A&P]

I recently heard an aerobatics guy tell a story of an instructor friend of his who got trapped above the overcast layer in some aerobatics aircraft without an AI (maybe an Extra?). Anyways, he says the instructor, running out of options, put the plane into a spin - because a spin is a coordinated maneuver that would get him below the bases where he could come out of it. Thought that was kinda neat.

This is sort of a common discussion with the idea of a spin through undercast being the best-worst idea in the situation. A no gyro descent in IMC won’t go well, and as long as there is enough ceiling below to recover, a spin would eliminate the inherent risks of VMC into IMC. Except for the violation of a few regulations that would occur.

Then again, not getting yourself into the situation is the best course of action.

 

[inigo88]

I recently heard an aerobatics guy tell a story of an instructor friend of his who got trapped above the overcast layer in some aerobatics aircraft without an AI (maybe an Extra?). Anyways, he says the instructor, running out of options, put the plane into a spin - because a spin is a coordinated maneuver that would get him below the bases where he could come out of it. Thought that was kinda neat.

I’m not sure how true this is but I’ve heard spinning through clouds and overcast layers dates back to WWI. Because WWI airplanes didn’t have gyroscopic attitude instruments, pilots who entered the clouds could get vertigo and end up in an unusual attitude and crash. Conversely entering IMC in an upright spin you’d know you’ll leave the cloud bases still in an upright spin… as long as you have enough altitude to recover.

 

[inigo88]

This is sort of a common discussion with the idea of a spin through undercast being the best-worst idea in the situation.

I like “best worst idea”. That is a very fitting description.

 

[form810]

I recently heard an aerobatics guy tell a story of an instructor friend of his who got trapped above the overcast layer in some aerobatics aircraft without an AI (maybe an Extra?). Anyways, he says the instructor, running out of options, put the plane into a spin - because a spin is a coordinated maneuver that would get him below the bases where he could come out of it. Thought that was kinda neat.

I don't know about pulling that crap in IMC, but it IS a fine technique to use at an airport a few thousand feet above pattern altitude.

 

[CFI A&P]

I like “best worst idea”. That is a very fitting description.

Oh yeah, and it is very plausible too. I’ve spent plenty of time flying cross country day VFR only airplanes at 8,500 or 9,500, then the ceilings aren’t forecasted and down to 6,500/ 5,500… a few minutes later, not quite good there either, try 4,500 or 3,500… not much better… 3,000 or 2,500…. Well, I guess I better start working on a diversion airport and report the conditions as per 91.183(b) even though I’m VFR.

Or, just stay on top, back yourself into a corner, once you’re out of options go for the stall, kick, PARE and recover before the cumologranite.

 

[form810]

Oh yeah, and it is very plausible too. I’ve spent plenty of time flying cross country day VFR only airplanes at 8,500 or 9,500, then the ceilings aren’t forecasted and down to 6,500/ 5,500… a few minutes later, not quite good there either, try 4,500 or 3,500… not much better… 3,000 or 2,500…. Well, I guess I better start working on a diversion airport and report the conditions as per 91.183(b) even though I’m VFR.

Or, just stay on top, back yourself into a corner, once you’re out of options go for the stall, kick, PARE and recover before the cumologranite.

That might better have been "TURN AROUND" ... a few thousand feet ago.

Unless yer flyin' Alaskan, in which case 15AGL is still TOTALLY VFR. And, when your ASS is puckering, you can still TOTALLY say ASS around here.

 

[///AMG]

You guys are talking about min radius turns, but i dont think you know what that means. Is there a published speed/load factor/bank angle for that? We train to min radius turns, but have the benefit of an AoA and G readout, and have aerodynamic data that quantifies speed (assuming constant AoA) and turn radius. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist.....of course it does for any plane, but the amount of people that would kill themselves in an accelerated stall even just “practicing” this maneuver is probably non-zero. Not saying people shouldn’t learn their plane, but this sounds like a good way to die if you dont know what you are targeting in said maneuver.

 

[JordanD]

You guys are talking about min radius turns, but i dont think you know what that means. Is there a published speed/load factor/bank angle for that? We train to min radius turns, but have the benefit of an AoA and G readout, and have aerodynamic data that quantifies speed (assuming constant AoA) and turn radius. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist.....of course it does for any plane, but the amount of people that would kill themselves in an accelerated stall even just “practicing” this maneuver is probably non-zero. Not saying people shouldn’t learn their plane, but this sounds like a good way to die if you dont know what you are targeting in said maneuver.

There seems to be so much “if this then that, well maybe then… you have to be perfectly on it” that I feel like I’d just take my chances going on straight ahead and under control, under most circumstances.

 

[guywhoflies]

I don't know about pulling that crap in IMC, but it IS a fine technique to use at an airport a few thousand feet above pattern altitude.

Depends, do you have a parachute and/or are you conducting CFI training?

 

[MikeD]

You guys are talking about min radius turns, but i dont think you know what that means. Is there a published speed/load factor/bank angle for that? We train to min radius turns, but have the benefit of an AoA and G readout, and have aerodynamic data that quantifies speed (assuming constant AoA) and turn radius. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist.....of course it does for any plane, but the amount of people that would kill themselves in an accelerated stall even just “practicing” this maneuver is probably non-zero. Not saying people shouldn’t learn their plane, but this sounds like a good way to die if you dont know what you are targeting in said maneuver.

Yup. Said the same thing above. Wrap it around a turn and watch the nose cease tracking, as the VVI rapidly increases downward.

 

[///AMG]

Yup. Said the same thing above. Wrap it around a turn and watch the nose cease tracking, as the VVI rapidly increases downward.

Consider me just underlining everything you said. People get killed trying to do fighter **** in not fighter planes. There is a physicist or aerodynamicist answer to this question, but it is based on assumptions of data that you dont have in these planes. And real fighter aircraft dont really have an accelerated stall......at worst, they wallow a little bit before pointing at the ground and resuming aviation.

 

[MikeD]

Consider me just underlining everything you said. People get killed trying to do fighter **** in not fighter planes. There is a physicist or aerodynamicist answer to this question, but it is based on assumptions of data that you dont have in these planes. And real fighter aircraft dont really have an accelerated stall......at worst, they wallow a little bit before pointing at the ground and resuming aviation.

Some of the recommendations being proffered here, and by some “professor”, are going to succeed in creating a vertical smoking hole in the ground after the plane departs controlled flight, unscorable at 9, if that advice was taken verbatim.

 

[form810]

Depends, do you have a parachute and/or are you conducting CFI training?

Nah. Just descending safely and efficiently. I reckon in this day and age, the FAA actually finally denoted a spin as an aerobatic maneuver, eh? 91.307(c) and so whatnot? And, all y'all are the ones continuously screeching 'bout BIG Gub'mint, and so forth?!? LOL.

FLY yer plane. Or... you know, don't. I'm really starting not to care anymore.

These days, I'm kinda thinkin' we all might do well to wear a parachute on our drives home from the airport.

 

[form810]

You guys are talking about min radius turns, but i dont think you know what that means. Is there a published speed/load factor/bank angle for that? We train to min radius turns, but have the benefit of an AoA and G readout, and have aerodynamic data that quantifies speed (assuming constant AoA) and turn radius. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist.....of course it does for any plane, but the amount of people that would kill themselves in an accelerated stall even just “practicing” this maneuver is probably non-zero. Not saying people shouldn’t learn their plane, but this sounds like a good way to die if you dont know what you are targeting in said maneuver.

I have no idea when we started talking about MinRadiusTurns, but I'll agree, wholeheartedly, with your analysis. That said, I'll agree based on current training. Given better training, every student could easily execute an accelerated (high bank angle, big pull) stall with little fear or even thought of crashing or dying. (Again, I'm not even sure that's what we're talking about right now.)

 

[SteveC]

... Given better training, every student could easily execute an accelerated (high bank angle, big pull) stall with little fear or even thought of crashing or dying...

???

 

[///AMG]

I have no idea when we started talking about MinRadiusTurns, but I'll agree, wholeheartedly, with your analysis. That said, I'll agree based on current training. Given better training, every student could easily execute an accelerated (high bank angle, big pull) stall with little fear or even thought of crashing or dying. (Again, I'm not even sure that's what we're talking about right now.)

Min radius normally occurs well below corner speed, so high G isn’t a thing. But when we are talking airplanes that will enter an accelerated stall at a couple Gs, all bets are off