Cessna 172 down in ORL, caught on tape

[g159av8tor]

There will be a memorial service at ORL's Showalter Aviation on Saturday, January 15 at 1030. If you want further information, visit www.showalter.com/home/index.php4.

Tailwinds...

For all those that put this kind of human tragedy and learning experience into perspective and can walk the fine line between tact/humility and thoughtless hero-pilot banter, you are appreciatedby those near to this loss. Those of you that can't (we know whom they are), go f*ck yourselves.

 

[Bryan D]

Crashed Plane Had Dangerously Low Oil Levels

POSTED: 5:42 pm EST January 13, 2005
UPDATED: 6:08 pm EST January 13, 2005


The small plane that crashed at Dubstread Golf Course in Orlando on Wednesday took off with an alarmingly low amount of oil.

Investigators said the engine in the airplane had only 10 ounces of oil in it, WESH NewsChannel 2 reported. A Cessna 172 crashed into a concrete pole at Dubsdread Golf Course in Orlando Tuesday.

Normally, an engine in a Cessna 172 would have anywhere from 6 to 8 quarts.
A hose from the engine to the oil cooler will also be examined because it has a suspect spot on it, possibly indicating a leak.

The pilots -- Dan Lawlor, who died in the crash, and Steve Schieber, who is still recovering -- reported a total loss of oil pressure before attempting to make an emergency landing.

The plane hit the power pole instead.

 

[apcooper]

Watching this video always makes me wonder what I'd do if I lost the engine over a major city at night! That definitly gives me the chills to think about. I will not monday morning QB their decision making skills but since I am scheduled for some dual on Sat I'm going to definitly practice a sim engine failure forsure. I consider myself a very safe and proficent pilot and from my perspective almost every flight where there is not an emergency seems easy. As others posted it does seem as though he did everything to avoid killing others in the way.


God Bless this man and his family

 

[Tinstaafl]

It's wrong to give hard & fast rules about what you can do above/below 1000'. Several reasons:

* Height AGL isn't usually accurate unless the altimeter is set to the pressure setting for the intended landing point. You could be anywhere above or below the nominal 1000' so setting 'hard' rules doesn't work.

* There's lots of things that aren't visible at 1000' AGL that warrant a smart change of plan when observed later eg powerlines, fences, some ridges & gullies.

* Misjudged the approach leading to under- or overshoot.

 

[PropsForward]

Please excuse the intrusion by me on this topic, as I feel akward saying anything because of my inexperience. But I thought the article posted here was interesting... It mentioned that they had decreasing oil pressure and were not going to make Orlando Exec, and had picked a landing site at a high school football field. They then chose a different landing site (apparently this one?) and tragically didn't make it.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I hardly have any right to be making judgement calls, but during my PPL training my CFI told me that once I have chosen a forced landing sight, I was to treat it like a normal pattern at 1000 ft (i.e. NEVER do a long final), and NEVER start changing landing areas once I'd chosen one. Obviously you have to do something if you notice your first spot has power lines or some such thing, but the article makes it sound like they had at least a little time to find a place to ditch. I wonder if they fell into the changing landing areas trap?

It sure as hell would be hard for me to decide what to do if I was losing oil pressure but still making power. I wouldn't want to ditch immediatly if it was just oil pressure loss, but if I noticed the pressure going down and the oil temp shooting up, I would probably look immediatly for a place to land and follow through. A very sad and unfortunate circumstance, but hopefully low time guys like me can learn something from it.

I have started a thread in "Training" called Forced Landings practice and proficiency.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=46238

 

[surfnole]

I used to fly out of ORL. Its in the middle of the city with a large expressway running next to it. The golf course is about 3 miles from the airport. Dubsdread would have been one of my preferred sites to force land (crash). There is not much else around except congestion. I often wondered if I could have landed it there. These two pilots have far more experience than I.

#18 is a 500 yard par 5, with large oak trees 50-70 feet tall around it. There is a two lane road which cuts across the middle of it...so the pilot had about 1500 feet to land after clearing the trees. The road cutting across the hole is residential and has little traffic. The road parallel to the hole has heavy traffic, oak trees and power lines.

This link shows the layout.

http://www.historicaldubsdread.com/golf/proto/dubsdread/course/course_tour.htm

 

[starcheckdriver]

For those of you wondering and who have the crappy a$$ guts to even make a judgment on what the pilot did/didn't do.....Dubstread Golf Course fairways' are very narrow, maybe 40-80 feet wide with trees on both sides whose branches extend out 10-15 feet from the trunk. That narrows the fairway even more. The location where he was trying to land was a 500 yard fairway, but the tee box is 30 yards long and the green is 30-40 yards deep. His engine failure would have occurred at an altitude below 1600 feet as he was underneath the MCO Class B airspace. So, that left him maximum 1450 feet to the ground after the failure and with a 1000 foot fairway that was maybe 40-60 feet wide.

I bet there is no one on this board who has taken a C-172 with no engine power and the stress of an emergency and put it onto something so small with so little time to think. So, next time you decide to judge someone, think before you speak and stop with the diahrrea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

 

[Capn Lucky]

A few things to consider about this wreck.

I live about a mile from the wreck and can tell you that unless you are above 1000 agl, you are not going to be able to pick out those fairways. There are too many trees. Also, that is one of the busiest golf courses in town as its a public course. If the pilot did pick a suitable runway, I'm sure that he factored in people on the ground.

imo

 

[Sundevil]

Stop second guessing

You second guessers are a bunch of no talent a$$ clowns!

Why does this have to happen after every incident? Everyone is quick to judge and come to a conclusion with only a fraction of the evidence, usually learned from what TV or the newspaper reported.
This seems to be a common problem these days in our society. I liken it to what I have seen in some high profile trials lately. All of the people that know what the verdict should be go out and hold their little signs and protest in front of the courthouse when they haven't heard a single day of the real evidence.
Give these guys a break. I'm sure they did everything in their power to sustain their own lives and those of others. Please avoid comment/judgements until you have all of the facts, which.. now that I think about it, you will never have. As a matter of fact, the NTSB will probably never even have all of the facts because, like you, they weren't in the plane trying to save their own lives either.
But I know you all want to be the "expert". Just give it a rest and hope that when your time comes you are golden enough to get it right. But I'm sure that you know that you will be.

 

[wrxpilot]

You second guessers are a bunch of no talent a$$ clowns!

Why does this have to happen after every incident? Everyone is quick to judge and come to a conclusion with only a fraction of the evidence, usually learned from what TV or the newspaper reported.
This seems to be a common problem these days in our society. I liken it to what I have seen in some high profile trials lately. All of the people that know what the verdict should be go out and hold their little signs and protest in front of the courthouse when they haven't heard a single day of the real evidence.
Give these guys a break. I'm sure they did everything in their power to sustain their own lives and those of others. Please avoid comment/judgements until you have all of the facts, which.. now that I think about it, you will never have. As a matter of fact, the NTSB will probably never even have all of the facts because, like you, they weren't in the plane trying to save their own lives either.
But I know you all want to be the "expert". Just give it a rest and hope that when your time comes you are golden enough to get it right. But I'm sure that you know that you will be.

You're right... It's real easy to second guess, as having to actually deal w/ that emergency is impossible to hypothosize (sp?). I haven't noticed anybody here being critical of these guys, who of course did everything they could.

It's definitely humbling, as I like to think that I'll be able to determine a good option if I have an engine failure. If I didn't think that way, I wouldn't step foot in a single engine plane again. So when I see extremely experienced guys like that go down it's hard not to try and figure out something I could learn right away from it. I'm just starting out at this thing, and if I have a catastrophic failure I'm not going to have a bag of experience to pull a tool out of. All I can count on is lessons learned on behalf of others. Pretty selfish, but what else am I supposed to do? Just hope that I happen to be on downwind at some place like KMIA? Even after NTSB reports, I agree it's hard to place blame unless somebody was blatantly reckless. Pilot error seems overused as an accident cause at times.