Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Pilot Crashes When Blinded by Sun Glare (Carbon Cub FX-3 - N358AK)

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Neal

Forums Chief Pilot
Staff member
Joined
Oct 31, 1996
Posts
1,480
Type aircraft owned
Carbon Cub FX-3
Base airport
KFCI
Ratings
COMM, IFR, MEL, SEL
This one was in today's General Aviation News email. Sadly, a Carbon Cub FX-3

CEN24LA116-Accident.jpg

 

Attachments

Certificate: Student
Flight Time: 203 hours (Total, all aircraft), 114 hours (Total, this make and model)
 
Interesting note that the ELT activated but did not help in locating which suggests that the ELT GPS did not work. I wonder if this was the carbon fibre seat blocking the GPS signal?
 
Interesting note that the ELT activated but did not help in locating which suggests that the ELT GPS did not work.

I think you will find the accident would have been immediately obvious to those in the vicinity. No need for an ELT and no reason to think it did not work.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. I took it as ELT not needed to find the plane. I wonder though how many in the field have their ELT off and don’t know it. I know of one that found theirs OFF.
 
Sadly, a Carbon Cub FX-3

The accident aircraft is registered as CCX-2000 but it has a 3 blade prop and an IO-390 engine.

What is an FX-3 these days?
 
I bet that is a mistake (IO-390). The 3 bladed prop did become available, it's a 78 inch if I recall and was NOT recommended.
 
I bet that is a mistake (IO-390).

It does seem like an error in the FAA registration record. The accident pilot declared the engine to be an CC363i in the NTSB Pilot Operator Report (NTSB accident docket).
 
Last edited:
The 3 bladed prop did become available, it's a 78 inch if I recall and was NOT recommended.

I thought the 3 blade would look cool, perhaps have lower vibration, and would certainly have better ground clearance. I immediately decided against it when I was shown the static thrust data for the three prop choices.
 
The biggest feedback I heard was it created a harmonic inside the airplane. The chord looked narrow and I wasn't thrilled with it only being 78 inches. Now if I could get a 3 blade 80 inch or better on the FX-3, I may have considered it. In the end, I think the 80/83 two blade sounds like the ideal prop for this plane. Performance is not an issue at sea level where I operate.
 
I agree on the three bladed prop - just decoration. Landing into the rising or setting sun is probably, in my not as experienced as most others here opinion, is probably one of the most difficult landings you can do. The strobe effect from the prop is very disorienting. Neal, tell me more about this harmonic, I still deal with my harmonic occasionally.
 
Neal, tell me more about this harmonic, I still deal with my harmonic occasionally.
John, I don't know other than what people described from their experience with the 3 blade vs the 2 blade. I don't think it's the sound you are getting which is seemingly from one of those tension rods in the wing or something?
 
Landing into the rising or setting sun is probably, in my not as experienced as most others here opinion, is probably one of the most difficult landings you can do. .

My research gave me this view on short final. Not somewhere I would have wanted to land even with ideal lighting. Crop in that field varies and appears to have been dead stalks at the time of the accident.

N358AK approach path 2.PNG
 
Based on the condition of the field in the original photo my hunch is landing there was not intended. Something must have led to landing in that location which we don't know about.
 
Based on the condition of the field in the original photo my hunch is landing there was not intended. Something must have led to landing in that location which we don't know about.
Look at the flight history for that aircraft. It had been there before.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom