We had an accident in Utah last year that involved two employees of the USDA that were out shooting coyotes in a Husky. Beautiful day, cool morning, clear skies, experienced pilot, expert marksman.........and it all ended in a smoking hole in the ground.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_ ... 142&akey=1

This accident has always bothered me, perhaps because when I'm daydreaming its me that is flying low level in a Husky in Southern Utah. I know these guys weren't joy-riding, they were doing dangerous low-level work but they had done it for years.

Fast-forward to last weekend when I flew up to Idaho to visit family and my uncle came out to the airport to fuel me up on Sunday. I went into his shop to pay my bill and noticed a killer, bright yellow SuperCub in his shop. I enquired about the plane and he told me it belonged to the government for predator control and it had flown 643 hours since he had replaced the engine in October. Wow, that is some flying!

He began to tell me about the good pilots that flew the Cub and I asked him if they knew the crew of the Utah Husky that crashed, which they did. I asked my uncle if they had any inclination of what caused the crash and he recounted the following about the Idaho pilots:

"They (Idaho pilots) had crashed a Husky a few years ago and they won't fly them anymore. They were circling coyotes and they flew back into their own wake and wham! the pilot sees a windscreen full of dirt, tail high in the air, gives it full power and managed to flare, bounced hard, crashed, walked away but with compression fractures. They fly SuperCubs exclusively now".

Interestingly, the NTSB talks to this point in their report on the Husky crash.

I was just curious if any in the group has any info or opinions on this subject. I've wondered if there is anything to this "Husky wake".

SixTwoLeemer,

I am not a professional when it comes to shooting coyotes, but I was trained by the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife (NDOW) back in the mid-1980's as a gunner. I don't ever remember these guys ever "circling" dogs. So I am a bit confused as to what some of these guys are doing. The way NDOW flew coyotes when they were gunning them was to spot one from the air, come back around, no tight turns really, make a low pass on the dog to get him running, then come back around on the firing run. It was more like flying a crop duster pattern than anything else. I don't remember any real slow airspeeds and I don't recall what sort of flap settings they may have used (none that I can remember). NDOW trained us because we were going to shoot coyotes on a large ranch there in northern Nevada and they wanted us to do it safely. Although I was not a pilot at the time I do not recall any manuver that appeared to be unsafe or that the pilot I was flying with (on the ranch) commented as being unsafe.

I don't know if they still fly coyotes like this in northern Nevada, perhaps Coyote Ugly can shed some light on the subject. Those guys were based out of Battle Mountain, I believe, but they covered an awful lot of country and may not have had a permanent base, I don't know where either of them lived.

The only thing that I can think of is that there may be some other techniques for flying coyotes that I am not familiar with and that there may be some safety issues with. If flown the way I described, I don't see how these accidents occur and I really don't agree with the notion that it is the fault of the aircraft.

Jim

I looked into purchasing a Huskey over 10 years ago and heard similar stories. My memory is foggy that far back, but I remember something about the Border Patrol or US Customs testing them and concluding that flying back through the wake resulted in loss of control. I also remember discussions about cubs crashing in what was termed a Moose Stall when equipped with large tires that were suspected of blocking air flow over the tail in low and slow tight turns. I could be all washed up on this as it was quite awhile ago when I ran across this info, but I would also be interested if someone has updated information.

Oh, boy, the BS starts once again.....

The airplane which crashed in Utah was not hunting at the time it crashed. They were circling, waiting for a hunter to get there on the ground-slow lazy circles. I was told that the accident was a stall/spin. There was "talk" of a tail stall, such as apparently experienced by BP in the late 80's, but according to a guy on the scene, there was rotation at arrival, hence, a spin. Again--they were not on a shooting pass when it departed.

And, APHIS still does use Huskys, as well as Super Cubs. Border Patrol also now uses both types currently.

State of South Dakota crashed two Huskys in the last couple of years, TRYING to hunt coyotes. Both flew into the ground, a more likely scenario when gunning than loss of control. They didn't hire very experienced pilots, and they wrecked a couple airplanes.

Continue with the rumors now,

MTV

This link does away with the moose stall I mentioned previously. So much for relying on my memory.

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?se ... int_page=y

That article is spot on (though pretty kind to the dipsticks in the FAA and NTSB who wanted to ground every airplane with big tires, because that was what was causing all the accidents--duh), and pretty accurately describes the tire deal. The Alaska Region of FAA got a lot of egg on their faces in that process, though the NTSB should have been egged pretty hard as well, cause they were just as dumb in this regard, and pushing the FAA all the way.

Sorry, folks, it just ain't that simple.

MTV

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id= ... 117&rpt=fa

The pilot of this SD Husky had at least 16,000 hours hunting coyote and fox in a Super Cub that I know of. It was green and based at the Sturgis airport.

Quote from the other crash.

STURGIS, S.D. (AP) -- Looking back on those tense moments before the crash, Tony DeCino still doesn't know how things went so wrong so fast.

The airplane was running fine. The wind was light. A low pass over the brown pastures of the Cheyenne River breaks put him and gunner Dan Turgeon within 50 yards of the furry targets below.

And the 12-gauge shotgun bucked repeatedly against Turgeon's shoulder, firing clusters of heavy steel shot that sent two coyotes tumbling into the grass.

To that point, it was a perfect run.

"We'd killed both coyotes. We'd already pulled up, cleared the terrain and were in a descent to go back and check on the animals," DeCino said. "Over the course of a couple of seconds, things changed from perfectly fine to me trying to maneuver that airplane and us being in the dirt."

Let me start by saying I lost a very good friend in that accident in Utah almost a year ago today. I too fly for USDA doing predator control, and I too fly an early model A1 Husky exactly like the accident aircraft. Its been a roller coaster of a year trying to sort thru all the what if's of this accident. I was on the USDA's internal accident investigation team and was on site the day of the wreck. We will probably never know the precise thing that brought that airplane down, however there were many factors that may have accumulated and contributed.
1. High density altitude
2. Inversion type wind conditions (virtually no air movement)
3. Continuos circiling over one one small area for aprrox. 30 min
4. Wing tip vortices
5. Low level flight operations
6. Distractions (ground operations)
7. Aircraft limitations
8. Unknowns

I have never personally had any issues with the Husky, but i've only got 1200 hour or so in one. Some of our other pilots have reported having the Husky do some very unfavorable things in wake turbulence, but only once in a while. One of our pilots has 6000 hours in a Husky and has only had severe wake turbulance problems twice, both times he was able to avoid ground contact. Almost all of our Husky pilots have a story to tell of some sort. Some of our pilots, as you mentioned have elected to switch to a Super Cub. I personally am flying my last month in a Husky, switching to a Super Cub for personal reasons. Again we may never know what caused that accident, I think like most accidents, it was not one specific thing, but a multitude of factors that came together and resulted in this horrible accident.
If I learned anything from this whole thing, it would that we all need to think ahead of our aircraft, assess the risks of our decisions before acting upon them, fly our aircraft with-in its capabilities at all times, and maximise our margins for error by making wise choices.

Joecub,

Thanks for the insight. I'm sure there are a few factors that we may never know about as well.

I watched the news that day and remember thinking "this is quite possibly the perfect flying day, and still an aweful crash?" I am bothered by it as well when pilots with a million more hours than I meet their fate in perfect conditions (other than high DA's).

Glad to see someone else thinking of them.

Well, I for one think that there is definitely something going on... There is just too much evidence and too many incidences have occured... I mean, I'm hearing about it way out in the middle of Nevada.... Also, I have never even heard of this kind of problem with Super Cubs even though they are doing the majority of this kind of low level work. In my opinion, for what it's worth, someone -- needs to look into this problem in depth and figure it out. Do the testing at altitude and determine what is happening, and try to save the lives of other unsuspecting pilots that may be completely unaware of this particular bad habit. Granted it may not happen often, but in Utah, and even here in Nevada, once was one too many times. These government coyote pilots, every one of them, are the best of the best, high time, highly trained and very proficient from doing the job daily and attending numerous trainings and safety seminars. When something like this happens, I feel that it is extremely unfair to just place the blame on them, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves.

I also realize that there could be a terrific economic impact in several directions concerning these implications, and I understand that the Husky is a good airplane, but I still think that the only honorable way to handle this problem is to tackle it head on, then try to fix it. You know, maybe something as simple as adding vortex generators on the tail, but we can no longer just pretend that there is nothing wrong.

Well, what do you say about that MTV?

If anyone has a question as to why Aviat changed the wing, all they need to do is fly a new wing Husky and it will be quite clear. The new wing has greatly increased roll rate, less adverse yaw, a slower approach speed and greater descent rate due to the larger flaps.

I have been in wake turbulence in a number of different aircraft, including a Husky. In each instance, if it had occurred close to the ground, at a slow speed, it might have resulted in a crash. There seems to be a suggestion that a Husky has a more severe vortice than a SuperCub, and that somehow it is OK to fly through your own vortice low and slow in a Cub but not a Husky. I have no idea how the vortice of a Husky compares to a Cub, but I think it makes absolutely no sense to fly through any vortice slow and low to the ground, whether it be from your own aircraft or another.

George

Had it happen in a Super Cub at 200 ft. agl - I was climbing out behind a Champ of all things.

Suddenly I'm going sideways at full power, nose down with the ground coming up in my face. Nothing I did made a difference. Once the aircraft got out of the wake though it responded quickly. But I'm really glad there was 200 feet to use in that situation.

That one has stuck in the back of my mind over the years and I'm always conscious of where strong wake turbulence might occur, either of my own doing or another plane.

Brad

Could it be that it was just a moments inatention on the pilots part ?

I've mustered cattle in an A1A, and it seems fairly foregiving to me.

FWIW, the elliptical wing planform like on a SC has less induced drag because it has a smaller, less powerful vortex.
The elliptical wing is harder (more expensive) to mass produce though. I think you will find most modern designs don't have an elliptical wing for this reason more than any other.
I would think that a similar aircraft without rounded wing tips would have stronger wing tip vortices?
OK I'm sure a SC isn't a pure elliptical wing, but you get the point.

Again, the question is what does one do with this information? It sounds like saying it is OK to cover part of your body with the muzzle of a .357 but not a .44 magnum. It seems to me that you don't cover your body with the muzzle of any handgun and you don't fly through your own or someone else's wake vortice low and slow. And if you do, and you get bit, it is pilot error.

For interesting reading, here is the NTSB on a T34 that crashed at McCall due to a wake turbulence encounter with either a Beaver or a Husky.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id= ... 196&rpt=fi

George

Well I think that there is a really big difference between flying in someone elses wake turbulence, and hitting your own, after you have circled back around. This is like apples and oranges... and really not a similar comparison. I also know that not everyone is going to agree on a problem like this, but... Would I ignore this if it was my company???? Hell no... Would I like to see them try to come up with a fix? Hell yes...

During the course of this investigation, the retired/contract test pilot for Aviat Aircraft was contacted regarding the flight characteristics of the accident airplane during low-level, orbiting flights, and testing that was accomplished in the early 1990s. He reported that as a result of two Border Patrol accidents, Aviat was requested to flight test the Husky A-1 airplane for its flight characteristics when encountering its own wingtip vortices. During calm wind conditions, in a full flap configuration, approximately one out of seven attempts to fly through the airplane's wingtip and flap vortices would result in a pitch down. At altitude, the airplane would fly out of the pitch down, but the test pilot warned at a low altitude the pilot may not have time to recover the airplane prior to ground impact. The test pilot advised that the best way to avoid this condition was to alter the flight path when performing low-level, orbiting flights to prevent encountering the airplane's wake.

Does a Cub do this? Hell no.....

Those that are certain that a Cub is immune to problems with wake vortices, and that it is safe to fly through them at low altitude, should carefully read the eyewitness account of the tragic crash that took Shaun Lunt's life Friday evening:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/429625.html

Coyote,

George is correct. Your assessment that "Also, I have never even heard of this kind of problem with Super Cubs even though they are doing the majority of this kind of low level work." simply suggests that you haven't looked at the NTSB accident record.

Have you ever heard of the infamous "moose stall"? This has been discussed ad nauseum on several lists, and amongst many in the Super Cub community as well, and I have lost several good friends in these kinds of accidents, while flying Super Cubs. That doesn't mean the Super Cub is more or less dangerous than the Husky--they are both just flying machines, after all. Treat them both with respect and skill and you'll generally do just fine.

BUT, looking at things on the ground while circling, as was apparently the case in the APHIS accident is just plain a VERY bad idea.

a64--The Super Cub does NOT have an elliptical wing. It does have a rounded wing TIP (even the tip isn't elliptical, actually). You are probably correct that the wingtip vortex from a round tip is different than from a square or drooped tip, but I can assure you that these kinds of accidents have been participated in by Super Cubs with both tip types. I have a hard time buying that the difference in tip vortices between different tip types makes all that much difference, actually. In any case, there are examples of both in the NTSB database.

MTV