The pilot reported that, during a cross-country flight over mountainous terrain, he had a tailwind and allowed the Cessna 172 to get too close to terrain.
He initiated a right turn to avoid rising terrain, but the terrain was “getting close very quickly.”
He increased the bank angle, and the nose dropped. The pilot then applied forward pressure on the yoke, and full throttle had already been applied. The airplane stalled and then hit terrain near Port Angeles, Washington.
Both wings and the fuselage sustained substantial damage, while the pilot sustained minor injuries.
In the recommendation section of the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aviation Accident Report, the pilot reported that his decision to delay the turn away from rising terrain was impulsive and the main reason for this accident. The pilot added there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The pilot’s exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack during a turn away from terrain, which resulted in an accelerated stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision to delay the turn to avoid terrain.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA248
This May 2018 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.
Since these abbreviated reports are intended to be educational and this one happened in an area that I am familiar with and also having flown in, I decided to do more research and leave the snide remarks to others.
The departure airport and the destination airport are both under 300ft elevation, about 55 nm apart. A direct course requires flying over extremely rough and steep terrain with maximum elevation of 8100 ft. Flying around the terrain to the East might have added an additional 10-15 nm to the trip, but at a lower altitude and much better terrain.
The report doesn’t mention why the PIC chose the route that he did, but it certainly is a good lesson in Aeronautical Decision Making.
By the way stalling and crashing is not CFIT, the NTSB report does in fact describe it as “non-CFIT” event.
When you get behind the plane you run out of alternates.
Short memory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_New_York_City_plane_crash
“The NTSB’s final hearing on May 1, 2007, determined that “the pilots’ inadequate planning, judgment, and airmanship in the performance of a 180-degree turn maneuver inside of a limited turning space” caused the crash.[29] The investigation was unable to determine whether Lidle or his flight instructor was at the controls. Although there was 2,100 feet (640 m) of space available, the aircraft used only about 1,700 feet (520 m) of width in which to make the 180-degree turn—but this distance was effectively reduced to 1,300 feet (400 m) by the 13-knot (24 km/h) easterly winds that day. A bank angle of at least 53 degrees would be required to successfully execute a 180-degree turn in this distance.”
You question, typical put down, reminded me immediately of this crash and that they had winds that were blowing them into that building. That they did not bank at > 53 degrees is what one would like to know.
Further, this plane had a ballistic chute, and I believe they were high enough to deploy it.
A tailwind caused CFIT? In a 172? This guy should stick to the ground.