I was at a local flyin cruise in today. This pilot over shot final. Then he over corrected. He should have gone around at that point. He tried to correct again, but he was to low and caught a wing tip. Sometimes we just need to admit a landing isn't working and start over. It was a good landing, everyone walked away.

That looks expensive.

While a good landing, not an excellent landing since the aircraft could not be reused.

TD

So the plot thickens. Revised description. The pilot flew a non standard pattern. You should fly the gap in the trees. That gives you a nice 1 mile final. This pilot decided to make the base turn on the runway side of the trees. This means when you turn final you are already over the runway. This would be the hold my beer and watch this pattern. Super Cub recommended.

Rob, where was this at? The first thing we practice in training is go arounds. I want my students to know there's no shame in a go around. Also, it gets them in the mind set that not every landing approach necessarily leads to a landing.

WTH was he or she thinking? Or not thinking?

That short final (all I saw in the video) was just gross. Firewall that sumbeech and try again.

The plane's avionics may be salvageable but the rest, maybe not so much.

It looks like he tried to avoid flying the notch between the tall trees and made the hard dog leg in front of them. Not sure a go-around could have improved that choice of approach. I landed there once, and flying through the notch was my favorite part.

Like Rob, the crop duster, said in another post, it is unsafe to fly differently than what you have practiced and are proficient in.

There is nothing inherently wrong with low and close patterns. Pattern altitude was 600' for many years. We taught, however, descending turns at 60 degree bank and the need to get the turn started steeper than necessary. We need to have room to get the wing level before pull up or going over wires and other obstacles.

If our orientation is to be go around, rather than to manage energy in such a way as to get down slow and soft in the first part of the landing zone, then we need emphasize early go around. Fatality rates tend to be quite high in going around when compared to stall and or spin on landing due to slowing down.

And if we mess up whatever technique and are going to smite the ground, it is generally better to level the wing even if not aligned with the runway.

I've landed at Sandy. Nice place. Not real long but OK; about 2,000' IIRC. Close to sea level so that's OK, but it has been HOT here lately (100+) in the desert) so that may have been a factor regarding DA and screwing up the pilot with airspeed vs. perceived ground speed. He also had a full plane.

I thought the 'notch' was cool also and seemed self explanatory. I still don't quite know how the pilot got into that situation but I do know how to get out of it. Things HAD to look bad through the windscreen BEFORE the footage the news showed started. THAT'S when to make the call and go around.

Glad everyone is OK, and that others can learn from it.

Yesterday here at OSH, the wind shifted to favoring 9, but it was a quartering gusty wind, and a good many were having some trouble managing it well. I watched a Skylane come in, too fast with full flaps, and the wind caught him, and a PIO began--but he was wise enough to pour the coals to it, went around, and his second try was on the money. There is no shame in going around, even when everybody and his brother are watching! There's a whole lot more shame in bending a good airplane in front of everybody and his brother.

Cary

From the Facility Guide:

Obstructions: 117 ft. trees, 600 ft. from runway, 100 ft. right of centerline, 5:1 slope to clear
60' TREE AT THRESHOLD AT 50' L OF CNTRLN. BEYOND ROAD, TREES TO 90' AT 400-730' FROM RWY END BOTH SIDES OF CNTRLN. OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE SLOPE IS 8:1; +100 TREES AT 50-100' L OF CNTRLN FLANKING RWY.

I don't get it. No reason for an approach like that with a loaded plane.

Glad everyone is ok!

Jim

Mountain Doctor wrote:I've landed at Sandy. Nice place. Not real long but OK; about 2,000' IIRC. Close to sea level so that's OK, but it has been HOT here lately (100+) in the desert) so that may have been a factor regarding DA and screwing up the pilot with airspeed vs. perceived ground speed. He also had a full plane.

I thought the 'notch' was cool also and seemed self explanatory. I still don't quite know how the pilot got into that situation but I do know how to get out of it. Things HAD to look bad through the windscreen BEFORE the footage the news showed started. THAT'S when to make the call and go around.

Glad everyone is OK, and that others can learn from it.

Amen.

Just imagine a lifetime of answering the question from fellow pilots, "Aren't you the guy who biffed at Oshkosh?"

For runways with no go-around option one could adopt an ABORT point.

I even understood all of Conact's comments in context this time.

Chris C

Zzz wrote:It looks like he tried to avoid flying the notch between the tall trees and made the hard dog leg in front of them. Not sure a go-around could have improved that choice of approach. I landed there once, and flying through the notch was my favorite part.

I agree with the notch commit. It is kind of freaky the way it looks coming through the notch, but not hard. If all you do is fly in and out of 2500+ foot paved runways, Mckinnon's is probably not the best place to start learning.

scottnt wrote:Rob, where was this at? The first thing we practice in training is go arounds. I want my students to know there's no shame in a go around. Also, it gets them in the mind set that not every landing approach necessarily leads to a landing.

Hey Scott: the flyin was at Mckinnon OG29

Any explanation for the right hand approach on a left pattern listed runway?

When there is significant crosswind, good wind management suggests giving way to other traffic and making base to final into the crosswind. I don't think a downwind base to final was the problem here, but it certainly makes the turn take longer and go wider unless bank is increased.

The downwind base to final skid stall spin is a limited bank problem. He had too little bank initially. A strong bank way back, letting the nose go down, and lots of rudder would have worked. Even skidding, with the nose down, would have lined him up without putting a wing into the ground. I expect he was having a bit of graveyard spiral problem. He needed to level the wing before any round out (pulling back on the yoke.). Mainly, during maneuvering flight, it is important to turn at whatever bank necessary to miss things and to get the turn around done in time to level the wing before impacting things with the down wing.

Bummer, something like that sure takes the fun out of a fly-in -- not least of all for the people in the accident airplane.
It also makes future fly-ins look less appealing for the sponsors....esp when there's plenty of cruise-in cars to take up the slack.

Hard to tell from the short clip of the approach/crash, but the trees didn't look like that big a deal considering Airnav says there's 3000' of runway. Even if you just go over them, keeping your airspeed under control and flying a full-flaps "stabilized approach" can still have you touching down not too far down the runway. With these kind of obstacles, I generally prefer a long-ish (1/2 mile) final approach if possible so I can have my airspeed & descent rate well under control early so I can concentrate on obstacle avoidance. I just went into a 1800' grass strip a couple days ago with similar trees at the approach end, went over some and alongside others and was stopped well before the end.

FWIW the overhead photo of OG29 on airnav.com looks like it was probably taken the day of one of their cruise-ins.

http://airnav.com/airport/OG29