Back to Squawk list
  • 22

Pilot error likely in first in-service Skycatcher crash

What appears to be the first in-service crash of a Cessna C162 Skycatcher - the company's new light sport entrant - will likely be ruled as pilot error. ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

madtrader 1
This is obviously pilot error. I've got about 10 hours in a 162. It's a fun little plane. I don't know what goes through someone's mind to think an intentional downwind takeoff is a good idea. One thing that might be a contributor to the pilot's decision is just how quick a 162 can get up and it's climb performance. I'm tickled at how quick one gets off the ground and it's climb rate even at gross (field elevation about 400' MSL). I went up with a co-worker recently on a day where the density altitude was about 4000' and we still had plenty of power and climb.

Incidentally, I too have done a takeoff downwind in a 162. This was inadvertent, and caught me off guard. I was up practicing landings at my local field (controlled) and the wind changed direction in a very short time. I had done about 5 landings and on my next time around the pattern I noticed that my crab angle on the base leg seemed wrong to maintain the right ground track. I proceeded on and noted that my ground speed seemed a bit high. Then I seemed to drift further down the runway than normal in the flare. It's a 6000 foot runway, so I wasn't concerned about running out of space, but the 'go' part of the touch-and-go took up a lot more room than I expected. On climb out I heard the tower say to someone (as if the mike was keyed unintentionally) "yeah I know, it just happened, I'm going to have to turn it all around". He then instructed me to maintain heading while he sorted everyone else out before issuing me instructions to turn around and cleared me for a touch-and-go in the opposite direction and announced a new weather observation was active. Anyway, I'm low-time, so it was all a new experience for me to be a part of and I enjoyed it.
Kawaiipoint2 0
@MANBOI, you are an idiot. Cessna's are not built in china. Thats not even funny..
Greg Creedon 0
From Wikipedia:
Chinese production controversy

On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[18] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[19]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[20][21]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009. Customer deliveries started in December 2009

Toby Sharp 0
doesn't really matter if it was made on the moon, when you take off in conditions like that Yeager would have had a hard time getting that 100hp off the ground.
Pike Aviation 0
The 162 is built in China and assembled in the US.
Chris Owen 0
And not assembled by Cessna FWIIW
Joseph Terry 0
Greg had the only valid point in this whole discussion. Where the aircraft was manufactured or assembled had nothing to do with the fact that the pilot was attempting to take off from an airport that was above the service ceiling of his aircraft, and was doing so with a tailwind.
larry clement 0
"Pilot stupidity" would be a better term than "pilot error". It would be interesting to know how many people crash on the way to or from Oshkosh every year. As several have noted, it makes no difference where the pane was built.
chalet 0
I think that this is a fine aircraft; granted the 100 horses make it underpowered for high altitude departures. In this case it does not say which runway the pilot used, the longest available is about 8,000 ft. long. No question that really cost him dearly was the quarterly gusts up to 32 kts., even more powerful and heavier aircraft can not handle it safely that is.
Jeff Lawson 0
Very fortunate that the pilot and passenger were uninjured.
alistairm 0
And the Darwin Award goes to...
"Gotta get there"-itis is a powerful mental affliction. I know I've been guilty of having this as well, but have luckily walked away from it all so far. It's important that we all learn something here and take away something we can apply to our own piloting. I do have to say that I see things like this all too often though, but after managing the airport in Leadville, CO, I have a huge respect for winds, density altitude, runway length available, and horsepower vs. weight. Planning for your flight doesn't end after the private pilot checkride...
Chris Bryant 0
Yeah, I've gotta go with the dip-stick award for this guy. 1,000' above max t/o alt., and a quartering tailwind?!? What was this doofus thinking??? I wouldn't try that in a turbocharged bird, let alone a light-sport.
Toby Sharp 0
@ Chris...on his way home from Osh. "Gotta Go's" thankfully his airplane was the only thing lost. Bet he wont do that again. Lessons Learned
Troy Raiteri 0
Well now my Flight School has one now...hmmmm
abqscan 0
It's terrible that this pilot didn't put more effort into his preflight and ruined his aircraft!
mrhelio 0
Get home-itis afflicts more pilots than I care to mention. Having an airplane built in China or Bosnia does not excuse using common sense or better yet your darn check-list. Use this as a tool for safety the next time you and your instructor have a meet..
Barbara Davis 0
It is a Cessna designed aircraft, built in China and assembled by an approved service facility (not Cessna owned). Regardless, as several others have stated no aircraft can survive a stupid pilot. Remember all the hype about the little girl "flying" cross country who crashed in Cheyenne? She had a flight instructor with her who apparently had no experience with mountain flying. If you don't think you have to follow the laws of physics, eventually they will get you.
meeverett 0
I'm not exactly a fan of Cessna's new strategy, but as others have said, it really doesn't matter in this case. If you're interested, the plane is apparently available here:

What I can't figure out is why taking off with a quartering tail-wind seemed like a good idea. I have accepted the fact that a lot of pilots don't understand/bother with density altitude (I don't understand why), but surely the asos would have alerted this pilot that maybe he should have taken off the other direction.

Never mind, I read the narrative. It says the pilot "estimated" the winds were light and variable and weather was approaching. I agree, this is definitely "pilot stupidity."
And he made into and out off Oshkosh w/o cracking it up!


還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!