LOW PASS - Embraer Sêneca

Maybe I am a little slow and/or missing something, but why the low pass in a Seneca? Was there an air show going on???????
 
Seggy said:
Well, when one says, 'watch this' good stuff doesn't happen. It also may be illegal to do something like that here in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17plane.html?_r=0

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/risky_maneuver_caused_2010_pla.html
Click to expand...

In the first story, it sounds like they exceeded Vne and lost control after a flight control surface separated from the aircraft. In the second story, the wing structure failed following a pull-up maneuver in which the pilot over-stressed the aircraft by exceeding G-limitations. Neither of your examples are direct results of low flying. They are both the results of pilots purposefully exceeding the operating limitations of their aircraft while showboating, which is certainly careless and reckless operation (because Part 23 only leaves a 1.5 safety factor and the airplane WILL break). But to say that low approaches should be considered "careless and reckless" because some pilots chose to irresponsibly exceed operating limitations while doing so (probably to impress their passengers) is the definition of a straw-man argument.

People like you are why we can't have nice things.
 
It is the same incident.

And the worst thing to say in aviation is "HEY WATCH THIS". You may not mean to stress out the aircraft during a low pass, when you are doing a low pass, just to do a low pass. But it increases your chance of that and other issues that arise for no real reason, except you want to do it, to do it.
 
Seggy said:
It is the same incident.

And the worst thing to say in aviation is "HEY WATCH THIS".
Click to expand...

Apologies for the reading comprehension failure. The first story sounded like they lost a piece of the airplane structure on approach, while the second was following a pitch-up maneuver after their low pass.

To add, had it occurred in the approach phase, control surface separation due to exceeding Vne and resulting aeroelastic flutter would have been likely... as seen in the Jimmy Leeward Reno Air Race accident in 2011 (with the elevator trim tab).

bilde
 
Last edited:
inigo88 said:
control surface separation due to exceeding Vne and resulting aeroelastic flutter would have been likely... as seen in the Jimmy Leeward Reno Air Race accident in 2011 (with the elevator trim tab).
Click to expand...

If you're going to mention this, it has to be taken in context.

The Leeward crash had root causes in aerodynamic and structural modifications as well as poor maintenance/worn parts. From the NTSB summary:

The investigation determined that the looseness of the elevator trim tab attachment screws (for both the controllable left tab and the fixed right tab) and a fatigue crack in one of the screws caused a decrease in the structural stiffness of the elevator trim system. At racing speeds, the decreased stiffness was sufficient to allow aerodynamic flutter of the elevator trim tabs
Click to expand...

So, the issue wasn't "exceeding Vne" in causing the flutter and trim tab failure.
 
Hey Seggy, let me tell you something about when you said "people like you"
First: You don't know me, you never know how I fly and you don't know the pilot in command of low pass in the video.
Second: HERE, and in many countries is absolutely normal take off and fly low over the runway surface, principally when you have obstacles ahead the runway heading and need to gain speed. Consider this and see the video again.

I made this video to incentive new and tired pilots with beautiful scenes saw by my eyes. JUST FOR IT! I never said "hey, you need to fly like me and, please, judge me". If it seen a problem to you, please, forget the video and keep fly safe. I'm safe too! -)
 
First, @caiopicinini, let me give you some context.

The articles I linked, I met the guy who was the owner/pilot of the airplane. He came in the first week I was flight instructing as a CFI and asked for a BFR/Insurance Check Out for his first airplane he bought, a Piper Arrow. I refused to sign him off. There was a reason for that. He got pissed and went to another instructor.

Secondly (@USMCmech and @ppragman please read this), that, coupled with what happened during @Derg and @MikeD last class at Riddle has seared into my mind that just because it is 'fun' doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Thirdly, I am sure you are a great pilot along with the PIC of the Seneca. I just want to raise a few questions for others who may want to try to copy what your video is showing.

Fourthly, yes, the scenery is beautiful.
 
Hacker15e said:
If you're going to mention this, it has to be taken in context.

The Leeward crash had root causes in aerodynamic and structural modifications as well as poor maintenance/worn parts. From the NTSB summary:

So, the issue wasn't "exceeding Vne" in causing the flutter and trim tab failure.
Click to expand...

Good call, I wasn't that familiar with the Leeward crash and spent some time yesterday reading about it. You're absolutely right that the root cause of the issue were the structural modifications as well as re-using single use locknuts on the elevator trim tab, which subsequently caused a fatigue crack that led to the flutter and separation. But according to the 2011 Reno Air Race Crash, "There was evidence of extreme stress on the airframe demonstrated by buckling of the fuselage aft of the wing and gaps appearing between the fuselage and the canopy during flight (clearly visible in high resolution photographs taken by spectators)."

From an engineering standpoint, I'm sure you know that most airplanes are speed limited with Vne based on the vibrational responses of the aircraft structure to the oncoming air, which depends on the input oscillations from the oncoming air and the response of the structure based on its stiffness and natural resonant frequencies. In other words it's probably a safe bet to put the red-line on the airspeed indicator below any speed at which the airplane structure starts acting like the collapsing Tacoma Narrows bridge. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule on aircraft like the SR-71, which is probably speed limited by skin-friction heating rather than aeroelasticity.

By virtue of wanting more speed, race planes are pushing that Vne limit up by making structural reinforcements and modifications to increase the structural stiffness and resonant frequencies. But in the case of that particular accident, it sounded like the reinforcements weren't enough to counteract the high speed he pushed to (as evidenced by the structural buckling), even though it was ultimately the locknut loosening that caused the failure. Since most of us aren't privy to being able to make engineering modifications to stiffen the structure of the airplanes we fly and raise their Vne, I figured a simple "don't exceed Vne in a dive or else bad stuff happens" would suffice. :)
 
Last edited:
Seggy said:
The articles I linked, I met the guy who was the owner/pilot of the airplane. He came in the first week I was flight instructing as a CFI and asked for a BFR/Insurance Check Out for his first airplane he bought, a Piper Arrow. I refused to sign him off. There was a reason for that. He got pissed and went to another instructor.
Click to expand...

Dang, sounds like you had good instincts and made the right call. It's unfortunate that there are instructors out there willing to sign off anyone if the money's right.

that, coupled with what happened during @Derg and @MikeD last class at Riddle has seared into my mind that just because it is 'fun' doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Are you at liberty to tell the story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top