Cessna 170 Accident #2

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by GAHorn »

Location: Valley Center, KS
Accident Number: CEN20TA088
Date & Time: 02/16/2020, 1502 CST
Registration: N170RH
Aircraft: Cessna 170
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Loss of control in flight
Injuries: 1 Minor, 3 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal

On February 16, 2020, about 1502 central standard time, a Cessna 170 airplane, N170RH, impacted terrain during takeoff from runway 17 at the High Point Airport (3KS5), near Valley Center, Kansas. The airline transport pilot sustained minor injuries and the three passengers were uninjured. The fuselage was substantially damaged during the impact. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed in the area about the time of the accident, and the flight was not operated on a flight plan. The local flight was originating from 3KS5 at the time of the accident.

The pilot reported that he was taking off when the accident occurred. He conducted a preflight inspection of the airplane, and also determined the weight and balance of the airplane was within the airframe manufacturer's limits. He estimated that the takeoff ground run distance was about 1,400 ft, which was about 70% more than the owner's manual performance value for a normal takeoff with no wind using a level, paved runway. He walked some of the takeoff area and determined the grass runway was "wet, but a solid surface." The windsock indicated about 8 knots at 160°. With over 2,200 ft of runway available and a slight downhill gradient, he deemed the available runway length to be adequate. He held the brakes letting the airplane reach maximum power before he released the brakes.

The pilot reported that the aircraft was indicating 60+ mph with about 500 feet of runway left when he considered aborting the takeoff, but determined that was not safe due to the road that ran perpendicular to the end of the runway. He continued to accelerate and rotated at the end of the runway. The aircraft abruptly pitched up and the pilot lowered the nose. The aircraft began sinking and was not accelerating. the pilot determined the best course of action would be to land straight ahead in an open field. After touchdown the aircraft's right side spring landing gear broke and the spring leg dug into the ground. The airplane subsequently rotated, and the fuselage sustained substantial damage.

The pilot indicated that there were no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane during the takeoff, and that the airplane had accelerated normally.

Pilot Information

Certificate: Airline Transport; Flight Instructor; Commercial
Age: 44, Male
Airplane Rating(s): Multi-engine Land; Single-engine Land
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Unmanned (sUAS)
Restraint Used:
Instrument Rating(s): Airplane
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): Airplane Multi-engine; Airplane Single-engine; Instrument Airplane
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 1 Without Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 10/22/2019
Occupational Pilot: Yes
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 05/16/2019
Flight Time: 6200 hours (Total, all aircraft), 8 hours (Total, this make and model), 5000 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 84 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 21 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 0 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: Cessna
Registration: N170RH
Model/Series: 170 Undesignated
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture: 1947
Amateur Built:No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 18030
Landing Gear Type: Tailwheel
Seats: 4
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 12/09/2019, Annual
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2200 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection:
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 3593.6 Hours
Engine Manufacturer: Continental
ELT: C91A installed, activated, did not aid in locating accident
Engine Model/Series: C145
Registered Owner: On file
Rated Power: 145 hp
Operator: On file
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KAAO, 1421 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 8 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 1454 CST
Direction from Accident Site: 133°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Visibility: 10 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility (RVR):
Wind Speed/Gusts: 7 knots /
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: Wind Direction: 180°
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual:
Altimeter Setting: 29.91 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 13°C / 4°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Valley Center, KS (3KS5)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Valley Center, KS (3KS5)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1502 CST
Type of Airspace: Airport Information
Airport: HIGH POINT (3KS5)
Runway Surface Type: Grass/turf
Airport Elevation: 1395 ft
Runway Surface Condition: Soft
Runway Used: 17
IFR Approach: None
Runway Length/Width: 2400 ft / 100 ft
VFR Approach/Landing: None

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 1 Minor
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 3 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 Minor, 3 None
Latitude, Longitude: 37.842778, -97.351389 (est)


Discussion/Questions:
1-Does an airplane accelerate better in wet grass... or ground effect? (60 mph was achieved at 3/4 rwy length)
2-IF / When ...do YOU decide to abort a takeoff? IE, do you pre-determine a point on the rwy that you will reject the TO before brake release? EVERY TIME?

3-The pilot’s wt/bal reported was 2182 lbs at TO with 108 .bs of fuel. https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/63500-63999 ... 633837.pdf

3-Anyone notice something unusual about this airplane?

01857150-95F8-4A03-A0C5-EF9B0DA94855.jpeg
CE82B0D2-4031-4DF3-AADE-1B554D5010AB.jpeg
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
sfarringer
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:49 pm

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by sfarringer »

Vortex generators!
My '48 (with vortex generators) would be able to fly in ground effect
at 60mph indicated.
Ragwing S/N 18073
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

I've been based at an operated out of some tuff short runways. Both grass. Both basically oneway in and one way out. Taking off down wind and landing downwind were routine. We always evaluating our weight, the ground conditions and winds. We knew what to expect and how far down the runway our abort point was so we could stop by the end of the runway. We operated with a wide margin of error in our favor or we didn't operate.

This pilot did not leave himself any room for error. He thought he should have been off at 1400ft which was a 70% increase over performance numbers yet when he was at 1800ft he just reached 60 mph. That is 400ft past when he thought he should be flying. He obviously never considered when to abort.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by GAHorn »

sfarringer wrote:Vortex generators!
My '48 (with vortex generators) would be able to fly in ground effect
at 60mph indicated.
I believe ALL 170 models will fly in ground-effect at 60 quite well, regardless of VGs.

I believe EVERY takeoff should consider distance available, distance required, and point-of T.O. rejection (Accel/STOP) before brake-release (which should include a static-RPM check as full throttle is achieved. If I don’t have 2300 RPM there’s something not right.)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
bat443
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 am

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by bat443 »

Whoever checked him out in the airplane did him a great dis-service if they left him with the impression that he needed to be doing in excess of 60 mph to "rotate". To be doing 60 mph plus he need to be forcing the airplane to be stay on the ground with the tail high. A fly by the "numbers" guy who didn't let the airplane do what it wanted to, which was fly. My gut feeling is that the 60+ mph number may be what the pilot thought the FAA inspector wanted to hear and he was not that fast, or else he climbed out of ground effect and the airplane settled back on to the ground.

Sorry to admit that I infrequently consider the potential need to reject a take off in normal operation, then again with 180 hp and on a 5000 ft paved runway I could take off and land twice in the available distance. I do check all of the engine gauges early in the take off roll. Now, on Saturday I gave friends and their children rides from the hay field next to their house, in that case I did, and in addition I made the first take off solo until the operation was proven.

For what it is worth, my normal take off is what most people wound call a soft field take off. Flaps 10 degrees, the tail lifting on its own to reduce drag, then maintaining tail low, fly off when the airplane is ready, accelerating in very low ground effect to best rate climb speed, then pitching to maintain best climb speed until accelerating to a cruise climb.

Tim
User avatar
mit
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:54 am

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by mit »

Does it have metalized wings?
Tim
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by GAHorn »

bat443 wrote:Whoever checked him out in the airplane did him a great dis-service if they left him with the impression that he needed to be doing in excess of 60 mph to "rotate". To be doing 60 mph plus he need to be forcing the airplane to be stay on the ground with the tail high. A fly by the "numbers" guy who didn't let the airplane do what it wanted to,....

For what it is worth, my normal take off is what most people wound call a soft field take off. Flaps 10 degrees, the tail lifting on its own to reduce drag, then maintaining tail low, fly off when the airplane is ready, accelerating in very low ground effect to best rate climb speed, then pitching to maintain best climb speed until accelerating to a cruise climb.

Tim
I concur in being surprised an ATP would not have considered Accel/Stop ... or a rejection point,... because an ATP would or Should be familiar with flying “by the numbers”.

I also concur with your (bat443) takeoff technique. It is what the book (OM) calls for as well.
But I can tell you that when I returned to flying a taildragger/C170 after many years away from taildraggers... the professional pilot who owned an A-model and who agreed to give me a “170 checkout” to meet my insurance requirement when I first bought my 170.... gave me a curious instruction for takeoffs: He (an ATP and CFI who had owned his A-model for decades) instructed me to “Hold the yoke full- back until lift-off.”

That’s not what I do or recommend.
After confirming take-off power is achieved...

On soft/short fields I do as bat443 does....making certain not to retract flaps until obstacles are cleared and a safe altitude is reached.

On hard pavement, I begin the TO roll with Zero flaps and the elevator in the neutral position and let the tail come up on it’s own.... This is indicated when the nose drops toward the horizon. I wait (with the elevator still in the neutral position) until a secondary “drop” of the nose occurs (indicating the tail is now fully-flying) at which point I gently apply back-pressure and the airplane levitates off the pavement. I then allow it to accelerate to the best rate-of-climb speed until 500 AGL before seeking my desired cruise-climb speed.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
bat443
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 am

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by bat443 »

George, I have an ATP with type ratings in piston, turbo prop and jet aircraft, and a CFI. I do not calculate the accelerate/stop distance for my 170B. Accelerate/stop distance is not applicable to single engine piston aircraft. Where do you find the data for accelerate/stop in the Cessna 170 AFM. I don't have the slightest idea what the rotation speed is for my 170B, which depending on weight could be to slow or to fast for the current weight resulting in a reduction in performance. I do know what my best angle and rate of climb speeds are. Though, you can feel the increase in performance when you hit that speed while accelerating in ground effect. My statement about the pilot being a by the numbers guy was to imply that he had no feel for what the airplane was dong but was looking for a number he either heard, read or was told. I let the airplane fly off when it wants to, which is always the correct speed for it's current weight. The only time I will delay a lift off is to accelerate to a higher speed in gusty wind conditions. One of the saddest things I have heard in aviation was a conversation I overheard at an FBO in Duluth, MN on my way back from Idaho where an Instructor was working with a primary student to calculate the rotation speed for the Cirus they were flying that day. The fun in flying, which was why I got into it, was being replace by this is how we fly to get a job at the airline.

Tim
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by GAHorn »

Yes, Tim, I agree with what you last posted.
I did not intend to declare that an actual “accelerate/stop” distance was calculated for a 170... or that such documentation exists.

What i meant was for a pilot ...when pulling onto the runway ...to visualize WHERE on THIS runway should I expect to reach flying speed.... And if I haven’t reached flying-speed.... WHERE on THIS runway should I reject the take-off and still have sufficient runway remaining to be capable of stopping.

I remember as a 50-hour private pilot taking a Cessna 150 down to a relatively unknown grass strip (Almeda-Genoa) just south of Houston...purely for the thrill of taking off on it’s almost unusably-short grass crossing runway. If a brake release takeoff were performed in that little ‘59 straight-tail 150 on that little short runway... the cockpit and fuselage would pass between the trees while the lower-surface of the wings would brush the leaves at the tree-tops. It was such a thrill.
It was years later before I reflected on how many times I’d foolishly tempted fate with that exercise just for the “rush” it gave. At least I was all-alone and not risking others.

Anyway, my earlier post was a poor attempt to prompt readers to consider at each takeoff the possibility of a failure at some point on each takeoff.... and to plan for retaining the option to reject.
.
If you are all-alone and on a minimum-length runway and it’s gonna take every INCH of it to get airborne.... FINE! Go for it!
But it’s not right to do that when you’ve got passengers relying upon YOUR judgment to keep them safe.

That was what i was hoping for. Maybe I missed the target.

Addendum: If, reading thru the data on takeoff/landing distance in the Owner’s Manual, ... It is determined that 2000 feet are required to clear a 50’ obstacle... and the notes state that 40% of that distance is “ground run”... then that means 800’ should be the point at which the airplane is capable of lifting off. The rest of that distance, 1200’ is required to clear that 50’ obstacle.
In that scenario, if one were to pull onto a 2000’ rwy .. I think it would be prudent to consider the half-way point to be where one should have reached flying-speed.... and if NOT...that is where the reject should also be initiated.
My own technique is to consider the reject (stopping distance required) to be the same as the ground roll required.... 800 feet. Having experimented with this in my own airplane, 800-feet to stop a 170 from 60 mph (tail in the air) is what is required (at a minimum on turf.)
(If on a 5,000’ rwy... it still takes almost a thousand feet to stop a 170 that hasn’t reached flying speed..... so planning for that is a good idea, IMO.)

If a pilot were to visualize this requirement before beginning the takeoff roll... is what I was meaning when I wrote “accellerate/stop” in this context.
And it has nothing to do with how many engines are installed.

PS: The A-model OM suggests 50 mph as the typical lift-off speed.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
bat443
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 am

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by bat443 »

Thank's George. I believe we are on the same page. I also have a spot where I expect to be off the ground in mind on every take off, and I have and do review the performance data but infrequently use runways or have loads I am not familiar with. I was kind of stirring the pot with my post but wanted pilots not as experienced or familiar with the 170 to realize that you can not just look up the number and if it checks it is good to go. One of the basic problems in this accident is that the pilot though relatively highly trained and experienced with advanced certificates had limited experience in the 170 and was attempting an operation that in my opinion was approaching the limits of the capability of a stock 170. Experience in make and model is important, it lets you start with larger safety margins and reduce those margins as you perfect your technique and increase your knowledge of what your airplane will do. Because of his limited time in make and model this may have been his first flight at near gross weight. I usually fly solo and find the difference in performance at gross weight noticeable even with the 180 hp engine. If he had had more experience in the 170 he may have chosen to go with one less passenger for this flight to increase his safety margin. This pilot was interested in doing the safe and prudent thing, he walked the runway to assess the condition, did a performance calculation including a substantial additive for the runway surface condition and yet it did not result in a positive outcome. Anyway, a good subject line to get people to start thinking about how they operate their airplanes and better assess and mitigate risk.

Tim
User avatar
3958v
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:00 am

Re: Cessna 170 Accident #2

Post by 3958v »

Interesting report. I really don't consider my 170 much of a four place airplane. That said last weekend I took four people who were close to the same weight up. Out of an abudance of caution I had the lightest passenger stay on the ground for trip around the pattern. Satisfied that there was enough of a safety margin I returned to pick up the final passenger. I don't really trust the numbers in the handbook for a seventy year old airplane in fact I jokingly tell my pilot friends if I need to refer to the handbook to feel safe its too close to my personal limits. Some of you probably think that is not a vey sophisticated attitude but it has served me well for the past 25 years. You should always leave your self an out if your plane is not performing up to your expectations. I want to be out of ground effect while still having enough runway to abort the takeoff. Be safe be cautious. Bill K
Polished 48 170 Cat 22 JD 620 & Pug
Post Reply