C-182 crash May 7, 2002

[diverdriver 7]

Here is the NTSB link to the C-182 crash at Skydive Las Vegas May 7, 2002. Non-Fatal.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020510X00659&key=1
Chris Schindler
ATP
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[pdj6p 0]

Would you care to break this information down and tell us what this means in terms non pilots can understand?
Death is so permanant, and I'm just not ready for that kind of committment.

[PhreeZone 20]

Funny... that plane just went up for sale not even 2 weeks ago since SDLV got a new Caravan or something..... Guess there is a discount on it now...
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[scottbre 0]

Let's just call it a deep discount.
A very down-to-earth price.
Don't bother, I can probably figure out how to ridicule myself.
Turn off the world before you come to bed.

[diverdriver 7]

Ok, this is the preliminary report and stuff can change before the final report comes out so check back once in awhile to see what changes (if any) have been made and a "cause" has been determined.
But.....it says that the plane was started and run up with some jumpers on board. The engine didn't run correctly at that time so it was brought back and shut down. Later, it was started up, run up and it seemed fine so a load was put on the aircraft. During the takeoff the pilot reported that it was producing the expected power but after liftoff they were not climbing as expected. It says he tried to return to the airport and land. They had some, but not much climb rate initially. As the aircraft came around to land they were no longer able to maintain altitude and were in jeapordy of colliding in flight with power lines. The pilot says that he elected to put the plane down before having an inflight collision and the landing did not go so well. The plane has damage.
In the follow up report you will see a greater detail of the damage to the aircraft and a break down of what tests were done to the engine to determine why it did not develop full power bringing a normal climb.
Chris Schindler
www.DiverDriver.com

[pdj6p 0]

Ok I understood the part you whent over. However was the leaning of the mixture the way the pilot described it proper? what does the account of the other jumpers mean in reference to the controls and gages compared to the pilots?
Death is so permanant, and I'm just not ready for that kind of committment.

[diverdriver 7]

That I can't speculate whether it was proper or not. That is one of the things they will determine for the final report. I will say this.....in higher elevation airports, with warm temperatures, you will need to lean the engine to maximum performance. Lean too much and you will have reduced performance and MAYBE increased engine temperatures (which over time can POSSIBLY cause accelerated engine wear). Don't lean enough and you can foul the plugs and/or reduce the combustion efficiency in the engine. These are issues that will be determined for this particular flight. What I have covered here is only general info for opperating at higher density altitude airports. It has no bearing on whether this flight was conducted correctly or not. There very well could have been a mechanical problem that has not been found yet and could not have been known before takeoff.
If you want to read about other Cessna 182 accidents go to my site and look in the Accidents section. Last year there were several 182 accidents. (Mostly because there are more 182s flying than any other jump plane.) Peruse the files there and see for yourself what issues jump planes face in the recent past.
Chris Schindler
ATP
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[billvon 3,107]

>Ok I understood the part you whent over. However was the leaning of the mixture
> the way the pilot described it proper?
No way to know yet. At a sea level airport, full power is all three controls (throttle, prop, mixture) forward. This is the full power at low speeds configuration, which is what you need during takeoff (and landing, if a goaround is required.) At higher altitudes, sometimes the engine will produce more power if the engine is leaned. (A slightly too rich mixture is no big deal; pilots sometimes use a rich mixture to cool an engine. A severely rich mixture can cause loss of power, such as you might see during takeoff at a 5000 MSL airport.)
>what does the account of the other jumpers mean in reference to the
>controls and gages compared to the pilots?
In a normally aspirated reciprocating engine airplane with an adjustable-pitch prop, you can't rely on RPM reading alone to determine how much power is produced. Instead, you use manifold pressure (really vacuum) in combination with prop RPM A low manifold pressure indicates low power, since the throttle plate is almost all the way closed. Normal takeoff power setting is generally a high prop RPM (most thrust at low speeds) and a high manifold pressure.
There's a gotcha, in that the manifold pressure gauge reads absolute pressure. With the engine off you might read 29 inches at sea level but 25 inches at a high elevation airport. Without a turbocharger or turbonormalizer you can't get the pressure any higher than the outside air, so max pressures during operation will drop correspondingly. This becomes intuitive when you realize that performance drops off as well at higher altitudes.
Airspeed is pretty important too. Depending on what the issue is (max climb rate or max angle, to clear a tree at the end of the runway) different speeds (Vx and Vy) are maintained. Climbing with the nose too high causes a lower-than-ideal airspeed, and this actually reduces climb rate or angle.
During a landing with engine trouble, it's absolutely critical to maintain airspeed to avoid the stall/spin during turn to final problem, a problem that has killed a lot of pilots.
-bill von