Man falls from single engine airplane

[GoldenRivet]

BRADLEY COUNTY, TN (WRCB) -- Bradley County Fire and Rescue Officials confirm they have located a the body of a student pilot who fell from an aircraft.

WRCB has a reporter on the scene and is working to get more information.

The missing pilot's instructor managed to land the single engine plane safely, after the aircraft went into a nose dive.

Authorities say the pilot fell some 2,500 feet from a two-seater plane.

"The people inside the plane were not wearing seat belts," EMA director, Troy Spence says. "So when they lost control of the plane, in an attempt to regain control of the plane, the passenger was ejected."

The co-pilot was taking lessons from a more-experienced pilot when the plane took a nose dive.

"Had some kind of malfunction with the plane and had a rapid decent," says Spence.

The instructor was able to gain control and safely land at the Collegedale Municipal Airport, about eight miles from where his co-pilot likely fell.

Bradley County search teams focused on the area near Weatherly Switch Road.

The instructor was able to gain control and safely land at the Collegedale Municipal Airport, about eight miles from where his co-pilot likely fell.

Bradley County search teams focused on the area near Weatherly Switch Road.

"Due to GPS coordinates and pinging of the cell phone, this incident is in Bradley County," Collegedale officer Melvin Taylor says. "Those emergency personnel are on the ground looking for the party."

According to flight aware records, the Zodiac 601 belonged to 82-year-old Clarence Andrews, who built it.

Andrews died last December in a plane crash not far from the Collegedale airport.

His family sold the aircraft to the student pilot earlier this month.

"I would think that it's probably a recovery at this point, but we are taking it very seriously and we're going to do everything we can," says Spence.

Bradley County search teams stayed out overnight looking for the missing pilot.

Officials are working to notify his family members before releasing his name.

The FAA and NTSB have both been notified and will arrive this weekend to investigate.

When flying, I rarely ever remove my safety belt... It appears that this zodiac is a low wing, glass canopy aircraft and that during the recovery the canopy separated from the airframe during either an inverted or zero-G portion of the recovery leaving the unbuckled person to fate.

What a terrible way to go. :nope:

[Feuer Frei!]

Terrible indeed. Link?

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/21834733/police-in-tenn-find-man-who-fell-from-plane

[Feuer Frei!]

So, after looking at pics of this type of aircraft, the cockpit is enclosed. Educate a layman about how the canopy came off, and secondly, if the instructor wasn't wearing a seatbelt either, how come he wasn't ejected as well?

[GoldenRivet]

Initial reports are always lacking. I think just one person failed to wear the safety belt. This is an upward opening plexiglass canopy, with enough weight of the individual and force, say from zero g maneuvering, an unbelted passenger could float into the plexiglass canopy forcing it open (or smashing. The glass out altogether) then there is only a lot of air molecules between him and the almighty.

Not sure how that happened to be honest, but 2 went up and 1 returned sans canopy

I call shenanigans

[August]

Initial reports are always lacking. I think just one person failed to wear the safety belt. This is an upward opening plexiglass canopy, with enough weight of the individual and force, say from zero g maneuvering, an unbelted passenger could float into the plexiglass canopy forcing it open (or smashing. The glass out altogether) then there is only a lot of air molecules between him and the almighty.

Not sure how that happened to be honest, but 2 went up and 1 returned sans canopy

I call shenanigans

I'm suspicious as well. I'd like to know what if any personal relationship there was between the instructor and student.

[Wolferz]

Nuff said.:shifty:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Oooh, a lot of questions in my head, never mind the FAA and NTSB.

And seeing the word student I was wondering about a Darwin nomination, but he was 77 so that's probably out of the question.

[GoldenRivet]

here is another area the media often gets wrong

calling the man a student pilot, when in fact he may have already carried one or more licenses or ratings.

in this case he was probably flying with an "instructor" to get familiarized with the aircraft type as pilots normally do

here is a pic of the type

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297396729655_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x&stmp=1364761563685

based on the source of the image - this *may* be the accident aircraft :hmmm:

my theory is that the "instructor" was hot-shottin' it a little bit to demonstrate the airplane without realizing his passenger was unbuckled and may have performed a zero g nose over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_WgYOMaXk8

without a safety belt fastened - everything that is not secured would have done just as in the above video

mid maneuver the man just pulled a superman right out the top of the airplane

considering some models of this aircraft are equipped a canopy opens INTO the slipstream you might find it hard to believe that someone could accidentally open it enough to fall out. (other models feature a canopy that opens from port to starboard being hinged on the co-pilot side.)

but "Zero-G- nose overs" are performed on an arc first marked by a climb followed by a sudden push over and prolonged parabolic sort of decent.

at the "top of climb" at the moment of nose over the aircraft would have been flying at a minimum controllable airspeed not much faster than a stall which for this aircraft is about 40 mph

my second theory is the student was practicing a stall, went into a spin, and was ejected during the instructor's recovery

[mookiemookie]

That is one itty bitty plane. Sheeshk! Call me chicken, but I'd be really scared to get up in that thing. And if I did, you bet your butt I'd be locked, strapped, clenched and tied in to that thing.

[August]

That is one itty bitty plane. Sheeshk! Call me chicken, but I'd be really scared to get up in that thing. And if I did, you bet your butt I'd be locked, strapped, clenched and tied in to that thing.

Not me. I'd wear a parachute. If it comes time to terminate my relationship with the aircraft I don't want to fumble with belts and straps while the thing augers in.

[TLAM Strike]

here is a pic of the type

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297396729655_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x&stmp=1364761563685

based on the source of the image - this *may* be the accident aircraft :hmmm:

Tail number says it is registered to someone in Signal Mountain Tennessee, so I would say that is the aircraft..

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N999NA.html

I find it interesting that the FAA's website does not list the tail number N999NA as being use on an active aircraft. I don't know if that means the aircraft was never inspected for safety or what.

You can search their DB here:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnum_inquiry.aspx

[GoldenRivet]

thats the previous owner, the one who died and who's estate sold the fall victim the airplane... that site info is not the most current apparently (probably takes a while to update... perhaps quarterly).

as for the FAA site not showing the tail number... i dunno, perhaps it might have something to do with it being listed as experimental - beats me.

EDIT:

the canopy in the picture... pilot side, the plexiglass looks jagged compared to the other half.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Not me. I'd wear a parachute. If it comes time to terminate my relationship with the aircraft I don't want to fumble with belts and straps while the thing augers in.

The lowest I've jumped is 6k feet, and after jumps of between 12-14k that felt awfully close to the ground. 2.5k would be well into 'aaaaaaargh' territory for me.

It may be different for the static liners amongst you.

[Jimbuna]

Well whatever happened will be uncovered by the investigation hopefully but only the instructor will know the truth.

[gimpy117]

When flying, I rarely ever remove my safety belt... It appears that this zodiac is a low wing, glass canopy aircraft and that during the recovery the canopy separated from the airframe during either an inverted or zero-G portion of the recovery leaving the unbuckled person to fate.

What a terrible way to go. :nope:

it also sounds like it already has a shady safety record....:hmmm:

[August]

The lowest I've jumped is 6k feet, and after jumps of between 12-14k that felt awfully close to the ground. 2.5k would be well into 'aaaaaaargh' territory for me.

It may be different for the static liners amongst you.

True dat. Hop and pop would be your only chance at that altitude.

[Schroeder]

I don't get it, why would anybody remove his safety belt in such an aircraft? I don't even do it while riding passenger liners but in such a small aircraft you have always to expect some bumbs during the ride, let alone an idiot pilot who pushes negative Gs to show off.:-?

[GoldenRivet]

let alone an idiot pilot who pushes negative Gs to show off.:-?

Please keep in mind there is no proof that this is what happened, only one of a handful of possibilities

[Jimbuna]

Speculation is sure to evolve from such an incident...human nature.

[GoldenRivet]

Speculation is sure to evolve from such an incident...human nature.

Agreed

And I even "speculated" that it was a possibility that he was show boating

I think it was either that or a spin recovery.

The spin and recovery theory also holds water, the various forces at work during a spin and recovery could eject an unsecured man from an aircraft. Especially if by some reason the canopy opened on him.

With the limited info available its got to be one of the two scenarios because I can think of few ways a man could be thrown out of an unpressurized aircraft that hasn't disintegrated around him.

[Platapus]

I remember going through spin training. The forces can surprise you. :yep:

So do you think the canopy was not properly secured/locked?

[Schroeder]

Please keep in mind there is no proof that this is what happened, only one of a handful of possibilities
I wasn't referring to this very case but to flying in general. There are quiet some pilots out there who like to pull stunts.:-?

[GoldenRivet]

So do you think the canopy was not properly secured/locked?

good question

there are a number of aircraft canopies where it is not just a matter of closing it and thats that, i have seen many where there is some sort of latching mechanism which must be manipulated in some way or another in order to secure it.

perhaps the student was unfamiliar with the canopy and didnt properly close it correctly and the instructor failed to notice this.

I look forward to the report from the NTSB/FAA inspectors etc

I wasn't referring to this very case but to flying in general. There are quiet some pilots out there who like to pull stunts.:-?

ah i see

no doubt about that.

[Platapus]

I remember the 150s I flew as a student (crikey that was 29 years ago!):o. The doors were secured by a friction latch.

Good thing: In a crash, the door could always be kicked open

Bad thing: If you were not wearing a seat belt and went into a violent spin... you might have a harder time maintaining proper terrain separation.

I wonder if the canopy if the accident aircraft had a similar friction lock in case of emergencies?

[GoldenRivet]

Beats me... i do love a good 150 though

The grumman Cheetah,Tiger,Traveler etc all had a canopy mechanism which you had to slide the whole canopy forward, then cycle the handle to the open then closed position. (think toilet flush handle)

bad news with those was - you tweak the airframe in an off airport landing... its probably going to be jammed

good news - free air conditioning on the ground (and in flight you could open it up about 10-13 inches)

[em2nought]

Fall from plane or die in nursing home? Hmmm, tough decision.

[GoldenRivet]

damned easy decision if you ask me

i hate falling

but i love nursing. i could do that all day

[Madox58]

The lowest I've jumped is 6k feet, and after jumps of between 12-14k that felt awfully close to the ground. 2.5k would be well into 'aaaaaaargh' territory for me.

It may be different for the static liners amongst you.
Ya. An 800 foot drop DOES give you a 'tippy tingler'.
:o
Combat height is more around 500 feet.
You get no reserve for those.
( not enuff fall height/time anyway!)

If you want real fun?
Drop at around 2000 feet and have someone 'steal' your air!
I ran off of more then one 'chute in my time.
:haha:

[Herr-Berbunch]

If you want real fun?
Drop at around 2000 feet and have someone 'steal' your air!
I ran off of more then one 'chute in my time.
:haha:

No thanks. :D I like to be under canopy by 3k to chill out and enjoy the view.