Cessna 172 prop strike
Chris Buss
off the airport, MO6). The pilot already held her certificate but was
receiving additional instruction with a CFI. They were performing touch
and gos when (according to eye witnesses and the local fire chief) on
the prop struck the runway. There was a small piece of debris on the
runway. They proceeded to takeoff and climbed to some where between 150
and 200 feet when the plane crashed (supposedly nose dived in). The
plane ended up on it's back and is a total loss.
My questions are: Would it not be fairly difficult to get a prop strike
on a touch and go? On all the touch and gos I have done the nose tends
to stay high due to the flare at landing and then the acceleration
effect as you throttle back up to take off. Would the pilot not have
realized something had hit the runway that shouldn't have? It seems to
me that a strong enough prop strike to cause a failure that fast would
get your attention when it happened. And if they did realize they had
prop strike would it not have made sense to reject the take-off (the
runway is 3300 feet)? I am guessing they landed hard enough to get the
prop strike. I guess if I had just landed that hard I would want to take
a look and wake sure nothing was damaged before getting airborne again.
Any insight the group can provide would be appreciated.
On a side note: I was impressed with the news coverage I saw. It was not
sensationalistic other than the promo as the news started. It was the
sixth story so they didn't try to make it more than it what it was. They
correctly identified the aircraft and didn't call it an engine failure.
They stated that flight training was a common thing at the airport that
nothing unsual was going on. They talked with FBO owner and didn't try
skew his statements on the FBO safety record (first accident in 40,000
flight hours and four years in business). They didn't try to come to any
conclusions on their own (just what the fire chief stated which included
the eye witness reports) and said the FAA and NTSB were continuing to
investigate. They didn't bring up any of the negative comments that the
media usually uses with regard to GA.
Thanks
Chris
Student Pilot
Ron Natalie
Chris Buss wrote:
>
> My questions are: Would it not be fairly difficult to get a prop strike
> on a touch and go? On all the touch and gos I have done the nose tends
> to stay high due to the flare at landing and then the acceleration
> effect as you throttle back up to take off.
That presumes that she landed on the mains to begin with. Could have
bounced it hard on the nosegear. Also, when you push full power in
with full flaps and don't have the wheel back, it's pretty easy to
come up on (or stay up on) the nose gear.
Peter Duniho
news:3CC6D7C0...@boeing.com...
> My questions are: Would it not be fairly difficult to get a prop strike
> on a touch and go?
Define "difficult". :)
Using one definition of "difficult", many kinds of accidents are difficult
to accomplish. And yet, pilots do have them all the time.
Certainly it wouldn't be impossible to have a prop strike in a 172. Maybe
harder than in a retract, or even a tailwheel airplane, but not impossible.
Failure to flare with an especially hard nose-first landing could do it.
Trying to keep the airplane on the runway at well above lift-off speed could
also do it. A poorly performed soft-field takeoff, accelerating in ground
effect and accidently pitching down, could do it.
Most accidents are due to pilot error. And by definition, "pilot error"
means the pilot did something they shouldn't have. And typically, one could
argue after the fact that the pilot should have noticed something was wrong.
Some pilot error is harder to accomplish than others, but if it were
impossible, you'd never see that kind of pilot error.
I guess you could say that every pilot has their own strengths and
weaknesses. Along those lines, some pilots are better at crashing than
others.
You didn't mention, and I almost hate to ask for fear of hearing the worst,
but...did the occupants of the plane make it out safely?
Pete
JerryK
and noticing that the prop blades are curled.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited downloads - 19 servers ==-----
John Gaquin
>
> My questions are: Would it not be fairly difficult to get a prop strike
> on a touch and go?
>.....Would the pilot not have
> realized something had hit the runway that shouldn't have?
>...would it not have made sense to reject the take-off (the
> runway is 3300 feet)?
One thing I've learned in thirty-some years in airplanes is that I will
nevermore be amazed at the things airplanes can be made to do, or the things
pilots may do, when the pilot input gets out of synch with unbridled
physical forces.
JG
clyde
ago. He was with his instructor, landed hard, started to porpoise, the
instructor took control and pulled it up. They noticed a small vibration,
brought it around and landed. When the engine was shut off they found the
prop tips bent.
Clydenews:3CC6D7C0...@boeing.com...
Ricky Robbins
<NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
>You didn't mention, and I almost hate to ask for fear of hearing the worst,
>but...did the occupants of the plane make it out safely?
>
>Pete
>
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3123799.htm
Peter Duniho
news:n41ecuoqc7bmehehv...@4ax.com...
> http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3123799.htm
Bummer. Sorry to hear that.
Dan Thomas
The nosegear attaches to the firewall with relatively small bracketry,
and the firewall suffers accordingly.
I'm a flight instructor/and aircraft mechanic. The most common
scenario for bending nosegears is either ballooning in the flare and
running out of airspeed at 15 or 20 feet or pushing the column forward
to fix the balloon. In the first case the airplane stalls and sticks
its nose down and bites the runway. In the second the pilot realizes
he's high and shoves the column forward, and things happen real fast
at that point. The safest thing to to get full power on and hold a
relatively level attitude until you have some airspeed again.
Other problems include those who fail to fet the approach speed
right and come in too high or too fast or both. They dive at the
runway or float three-quarters its length and finally force it on. If
they have lots of flap in, it will touch down first on the nosegear,
and it becomes a nasty taildragger.
The accident in question likely bent the nosegear when the prop
struck, and the prop was probably damaged enough that it couldn't
produce sufficient thrust, or the crank was bent and seizing in the
bearings.
Dan
C J Campbell
prop strike on a 172. You will also likely get the 172 to bounce into the
air. The article says 50 feet, which is not unreasonable. It is possible
that once they bounced the pilots had no control over the plane at all.
"Chris Buss" <b107...@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3CC6D7C0...@boeing.com...
Cub Driver
>effect as you throttle back up to take off. Would the pilot not have
>realized something had hit the runway that shouldn't have? It seems to
You'll know you hit something, not necessarily that it was the prop.
Trying to make my first wheel landing in a Piper Cub, I jammed the
stick forward to hold the plane on the ground, with such success that
I was rewarded with a WHUNK!
I said to the instructor: "Shall I taxi up to the pump and check the
landing gear?"
He said nah, take it around again and this time I'll land it and you
follow me through.
So I took off, flew the pattern, and handed the plane over to the
instructor for a wheel landing. Then I taxied up to pump, shut down
the engine, and behold!
The prop tips were both bent over like a limp hand.
So yes, it's possible to hit the runway with a bump, then take off and
fly around the pattern, without knowing anything is amiss with the
prop. Neither the instructor and I noticed anything wrong.
all the best -- Dan Ford (email: webm...@danford.net)
see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
David Rind
And the original poster, Chris Buss, initially wrote:
> The plane ended up on it's back and is a total loss.
I have to say, when I read this I just assumed there were
no serious injuries or loss of life. Maybe I'm just in a bad
mood this morning, but it seems pretty callous to comment
on the damage to the plane, but not to the people. Who gives
a damn that the plane was a total loss under these
circumstances....
--
David Rind
dr...@caregroup.harvard.edu
Chris Buss
wanted to taxi off the runway and check things out before i took off
again. Maybe I am overly cautious but anytime I hear an unusual sound
coming from the plane (or any vehicle I operate) I like to check it out
whether this means getting out of plane and looking around if on the
ground or double checking your instruments and verifing your option if
in the air.
Thanks for all your reponses. There is always something new to learn.
Chris
Student Pilot
Chris Buss
reason, I can't recall at the moment, I felt it wasn't a good idea at
the time I wrote the first post.
The man was the CFI and woman supposedly already held her PP-ASEL.
Nothing I have seen listed flight hours for either.
Chris
Student Pilot
David Rind
>
> I didn't mean it to be callous and I apologize if it did. For some
> reason, I can't recall at the moment, I felt it wasn't a good idea at
> the time I wrote the first post.
And as mentioned, perhaps I was just being overly touchy this
morning....
--
David Rind
dr...@caregroup.harvard.edu
toecut...@yahoo.com
wrote:
snip
>My questions are: Would it not be fairly difficult to get a prop strike
>on a touch and go? On all the touch and gos I have done the nose tends
snip
Had to go check out a later model 310 after the guy renting it dinged
both props landing it (with the gear down-and-locked).
Talked to the guy in the tower that "saw the whole thing", he said
that he was surprised that the prop tips were the only thing that got
bent.
Same pilot owned a Cherokee 6-had to pull a runway light out of the
left wing-and a P-Nav-was putting gas in it one day, and saw the
perfect imprint of a Manairco runway light lens in the leading edge of
one of the prop blades.
Needless to say, the dual prop strike, while unique, didn't come as
much of a surprise...
TC
RT
John Gaquin <jga...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nCCx8.1686$8p3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Sounds familiar to me :-(