The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll in Mackinac Island, Mich., the Cessna 182T visually appeared and felt to be accelerating normally, but the airspeed indicator never increased above 40 knots. He aborted the takeoff when the plane was halfway down the runway.
He used brakes to decelerate, but the 182 was skidding on the wet runway. He was unable to stop and went off the runway and hit a wood fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the right elevator.
Examination of the airplane found the pitot tube was filled with debris. According to the operator, the airplane was not equipped with a pitot tube cover.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s delayed response to abort the takeoff, which resulted in an excursion and collision with a fence. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to check the pitot tube for debris during preflight.
NTSB Identification: CEN13CA469
This August 2013 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Another VERY good reason to install an AOA system. The AOA indicator provides a very good indication of having the lift required for take-off and landing. Actually much better than an ASI.
I have Vx identified on my AOA, and use it as the rotation point for high DA take-offs. It makes high DA take-offs and climbs a no-brainer.
About 20 years ago the same thing happened to me at the same airport and the same runway. In my case I noticed no ASI reading on takeoff roll and aborted, After taxiing back to parking area I sucked on the tube and spit it out at the speed of light so I can’t tell you what it was, but whatever it was did the trick and the ASI was back into working order and I was on my way to Traverse City which was my home field…
One week later my Skyhawk had a pitot tube cover ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PS I don’t recommend this procedure …….unless of course your hungry…
Since my primary training was in a 1946 J-3, and the ASI isn’t exactly known for accuracy on ours (especially at low speeds), I was taught to fly it by feel. Takeoff and landing can both be safely accomplished with power settings and visual cues. Wait ’til she dances, then let her lift off. Pick up a little speed in ground effect then establish a climb. With no ASI, it would just be a slower climb to ensure stall avoidance. As Comanche-Indian described, one would simply fly a longer pattern. If the runway I had departed from was too short to make a safe long landing, I’d fly with normal cruise power setting/attitude/altitude to another airport with a longer runway I could comfortably land at using an extended pattern.
In this case, however, since the runway was wet I must wonder if he was taking off into IMC. There is no mention of whether this was on an IFR plan or not, just that the runway was wet (and must have been significantly so). Flying a pattern blind with an ASI out is a bit different than flying with an ASI out under VFR.
Not passing judgement on the emergency braking call because I wasn’t there. However, on preflight, I was taught to inspect the pitot tube. Looking for insects/spiders in particular. You can’t see more than an inch or two up in there, but often that’s all it takes. The report dues not say whether the obstruction would have been visible if peering into the tube without disassembling it.
I obviously chose the wrong side of this particular analysis. I actually did fly a Champ and a C 120 during training for my tail wheel endorsement and IIRC they both have relatively slow stall speeds. My Glasair I stalls at 70 mph and I just saw stall speeds in the 56-67 mph range listed for “generic” (non-STOL) Skylanes.
If the incident pilot had opted to continue the take off and stalled the plane either in the pattern or over the runway there could have been much more damage and the NTSB report would have concluded “Pilot chose to ignore an abnormal ASI reading and continue the takeoff. The eventual crash was attributed to (a) low time in type, (b) decision to take off with a known instrument defect, and (c) failure to maintain an adequate margin of safety on final approach.”
Seat of the pants feel, visual and aural feel of the airplane is a common thread in many of these posts arguing against aborting the takeoff particularly considering the runway was wet and prone to skidding with heavy braking, to which I wholeheartedly agree. I am reminded of the AF447 accident in which basic airmanship based on the aforesaid was totally missing in deference to a plethora of digital gadgetry which had it all wrong while the cockpit crew continued to aggravate and worsen the situation based on those false digital indications. Not once during their high sink rate descent (5000 fpm) did they give even the slightest consideration to fundamental recovery techniques taught to all ab initio students for an aerodynamic stall, albeit a deep aero stall in their Airbus, as they rode the airplane from FL300 to the surface of the Atlantic finally uttering near the end the words “…we’re going to crash” which was the only true statement the cockpit crew made during that 6 minute descent.
On an editorial note: Perhaps GA News might want to actually READ titles to posted reports to catch obvious typos… like the one for this article. 😉
All pilots should learn to take off and land their planes without ASI, find yourself a good instructior to show you. Also, the more familiar you become with your airplane the more you know from the other indicators wether your setup is in the ballpark. Then a missing ASI will not have to turn into an emergency.
Had a similar thing happen to me: On the first takeoff after an annual on my Comanche everything appeared to be normal but there was no airspeed indication. Since everything else, RPM, acceleration, MP etc. was correct I did not abort and established climb with VSI, altimeter, RPM. Flew an extended pattern to make sure nothing else was wrong, configured the trusty Indian for landing on a long final and made one of my best landings ever.
I already knew and you may have guessed it, the mechanic forgot to hook up the little hose after inspecting the perfectly clean pitot tube. I hope my story helps other pilots not to panic if there is no ASI on takeoff.
Brett, your CFI sounds a lot like mine was back in the day 🙂 One day he would would cover the ASI, the next day VSI. He said the same thing…”you need to feel the plane and learn visual cues.” To this day, I still cover one of the primaries to stay sharp
WHY,WHY,WHY, another case of lack of basic stick and rudder skills, my private students had to be able to takeoff and land without A/S or i would not sign them off, ATTITUDE, ATTITUDE, ATTITUDE.
Mr. Wesley, did you and I both read the same article? The incident pilot wisely made the decision to abort the take-off when one of his primary instruments was not reading correctly. He never went flying, and accordingly did not have to meet your high standards for airmanship.
The NTSB issued knee-jerk, bone headed conclusions eg. (a) failure to abort sooner (like, was the pilot on a 12,000ft runway?), and (b) failure to inspect the inside of the pitot tube. Frankly, I have never seen that particular procedure included in a preflight checklist and wonder how one would accomplish it.
As usual, the take-away NTSB pearl of wisdom is simply not to get anywhere near a small aircraft: no matter what happens the pilot is always to blame.
Brett, I completely disagree with you.
A similar thing happened to me in the champ, in my case it was water, but I was trained to listen to the airplane and estimate my speed without any supporting instruments (which helps a lot on landings btw) , so it was a non issue. This is not black magic, I simply had to land (many times) with my CFI in the back and the ASI covered until I learned to “feel” it… took a while, but I got it, and it serves me ever since.
The very low time (223 hr total, 169 PIC, 10 in type) pilot’s action suggests he was not familiar with his aircraft systems, nor was he aware of the difference between an “abnormal” indication and an “emergency” indication. Weather was good VFR with reported calm winds, 10 mi vis, base of lowest clouds at 4500′ MSL (field was 730′ MSL). Loss of ASI under these circumstances is an abnormal indication that does not warrant emergency braking action as would loss of power, fire/smoke, or a control malfunction. It would have been prudent to continue the takeoff, remain in the pattern and land immediately. A normal pattern as determined by indications from other instruments (altitude, VSI, altimeter, etc.) and most importantly – outside indications – sounds and feel – would have provided adequate cues for a safe flight and landing. It was not necessary to apply emergency braking on a wet runway, and it arguably would have been much more hazardous to do so than takeoff and return to land with the single instrument inop.