Sign in to follow this  
Fielder

Canadian fatal wingwalk stunt.

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

A stunt sadly gone wrong and RIP to the individual involved. The article however doesn’t give any indication of the exact type of aircraft involved and I cannot think of any sort of ‘small Cessna’ that would allow anyone to easily climb out onto a wing, other than the 188 Agwagon and as far as I know that is a single seater. Does anyone have any further information on this?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, scianoir said:

A stunt sadly gone wrong and RIP to the individual involved. The article however doesn’t give any indication of the exact type of aircraft involved and I cannot think of any sort of ‘small Cessna’ that would allow anyone to easily climb out onto a wing, other than the 188 Agwagon and as far as I know that is a single seater. Does anyone have any further information on this?

Bill

Just a guess, but it could be a Cessna 152 flying inverted with the doors off. Some 152s were stressed for aerobatics to +6/-3 G and had removable skydiver doors (A152 and FA152 Aerobat models). You can usually tell one of these from its chequered paint job. If you flew one of those inverted (which it is cleared to do), you you certainly walk on its wing and use the strut for a grip.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Chock said:

Just a guess, but it could be a Cessna 152 flying inverted with the doors off. Some 152s were stressed for aerobatics to +6/-3 G and had removable skydiver doors (A152 and FA152 Aerobat models). You can usually tell one of these from its chequered paint job. If you flew one of those inverted (which it is cleared to do), you you certainly walk on its wing and use the strut for a grip.

Many years ago in my real world flying days I did a little aerobatic training in the Aerobat but I have to say I never even contemplated the idea of the FA152 being used inverted for wing walking!!! I guess with an aircraft as light as a 152 the weight of someone on the wing could cause a wing to drop and the ailerons may not be powerful enough to overcome that which would explain the fact that the aircraft entered a spiral dive. Unfortunately my attempts at aerobatic training did not last very long due to a tendency to feeling motion sickness particularly when the instructor was doing the flying although it was not too bad when I was flying the manoeuvers myself, I guess because I was better able to anticipate the forces and sensations.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, not saying it's a good idea, but if I was going to suggest a suitable Cessna in which to try that kind of thing, the A152 would be the one I'd select out of the lot of them, since it is small, relatively light and easy to get out of a spin. It probably wouldn't be too out of balance with someone near the door, although really, the facility to wear a 'chute in the A152, where you can remove the seat cushions to do so, was I think more about being able to bail out if something went awry when doing aeros as opposed to turning it into some kind of super stunt aeroplane. After all, the fact that it was cleared for aeros was about the G loads it is certified for, and doesn't suddenly turn it into a Spitfire in terms of control or power.

This is of course all speculation because we don't even know if it was an A152 they were using; you know what news places are like, they're inclined to identify every small GA aeroplane as a 'Cessna'. Presumably there is video footage of the incident, since as far as I'm aware, the stunt was supposedly intended for some kind of rap music video although these days, why you couldn't CGI it instead is beyond me. I mean, did this guy really think all those movie stars actually do all those mad on-screen stunts for real?

Share this post


Link to post

I was being flown by a friend in a 182 once, and had a friend along with me, when the pilot "friend" suddenly says "here we go" and did a barrel roll over the city of Napa.  Being used to roller coasters I was not phased but my other friend was not amused by the stunt, it made him very sick and we put down at Schellville before the short hop back to Napa.  A dangerous and illegal stunt in a 182, we never flew with him again.  I am sure he pulled it off well, but a young pilot showing off that way is not a good one, and he did not own the plane, he was doing a check on it after performing some work for his client.

John

Share this post


Link to post

Over on pprune someone is saying it was a Cessna 180 where he was planning to parachute after holding onto the strut, and got too far out on the strut or was grabbing the actual wing edge? Plane lost enough altitude after being thrown out of balance that he didn't have time to open his chute after letting go. And then maybe someone in the media got carried away with the "wing walking" description.

Makes more sense than an inverted stunt anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted - I posted something really awful....but also funny.  On second thoughts I have deleted it.

Edited by MarkW

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

Over on pprune someone is saying it was a Cessna 180 where he was planning to parachute after holding onto the strut, and got too far out on the strut or was grabbing the actual wing edge? Plane lost enough altitude after being thrown out of balance that he didn't have time to open his chute after letting go. And then maybe someone in the media got carried away with the "wing walking" description.

Makes more sense than an inverted stunt anyway.

Well if that's the case then it would seem to be a very badly planned escapade. Any sort of fancy stuff I've ever done in an aeroplane had me running the H.A.S.S.L.E. check prior to doing them, (Height, Airframe, Straps, Security, Lookout, Eventualities). Two of these - Height and Eventualities - would have prevented this from ending the way it did, i.e. have enough height to do what you plan to do and consider what eventualities might occur that need to be planned for.

It's sad that someone has died, but frankly - and we say this all the time at work - you can't be blasé around aeroplanes, they are just waiting to bite you in the @ss if you aren't vigilant. Unfortunately it seems this is what has occurred.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a candidate for a Darwin Award.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, DavidP said:

Sounds like a candidate for a Darwin Award.

Have to say, that thought occurred to me too.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Chock said:

...it could be a Cessna 152 flying inverted with the doors off. If you flew one of those inverted (which it is cleared to do), you you certainly walk on its wing and use the strut for a grip.

Neither the 150 nor the 152 are cleared for inverted flight since they don't have an inverted fuel and/or oil system.

Furthermore with the NACA 2412 a  150/152 wouldn't be capable of inverted level flight, let alone with someone on top of the inverted wing!

Edited by J35OE

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2018 at 12:38 PM, J35OE said:

Neither the 150 nor the 152 are cleared for inverted flight since they don't have an inverted fuel and/or oil system.

Furthermore with the NACA 2412 a  150/152 wouldn't be capable of inverted level flight, let alone with someone on top of the inverted wing!

True of the standard 150 and 152, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it would be a good idea either, but I said the Cessna A152 Aerobat, not the standard 150/150. The A152 is indeed cleared for inverted flight since it has to be because it is cleared for several aerobatic maneuvers including various rolls, cuban eights, vertical reversements and immelmann turns, all of which have the aircraft being inverted during the maneuver, although in fairness, these maneuvers are either only inverted for very short periods, or will tend to keep 1G positive on for much of the time, at least they will if you do them right lol!

Pretty much any aerofoil will fly inverted providing you have the power to keep it at a suitable angle of attack to give it a temporary airflow profile suitable for generating lift whilst inverted. After all, even the crew of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 (an MD83 with a DSMA-433A aerofoil) had a go at trying to fly their crippled airliner upside down when the tailplane screw jack failed forcing its elevator into a down position, and that's hardly an aerofoil designed for doing economical inverted flight, but they would have known it at least could fly upside down. Sadly, the broken tailplane was too much of an issue for that flight to recover successfully.

But power would of course be the problem with an A152, not the aerofoil; most of them only differ from a standard 150/152 in terms of the airframe, not the engine, which is essentially the same as on a standard 150/152, i.e. the A152 has stronger wing spars, bigger and stronger wing struts and a bigger and stronger tailplane spar, but it's no more powerful than a standard Cessna. You could swap out the engine for a 130hp IO-240-A, which has a TCM fuel injector instead of the carburetor of the standard engine, but 130 horses is still not going to make it a powerhouse and you'd probably have to sort out the oil system too. Anyone who has ever flown some aeros in an A152 (which is good fun incidentally, lots of energy management required) will know that they tend to chuck oil out all over the inside of the cowling if you put any significant neg G on them, so it is true that the oil system on a standard one isn't designed for sustained neg G without modifications, but that said, there is even a Cessna Trophy competition class offered by the British Aerobatics Association, although admittedly there have been a few years where it wasn't even contested, which is hardly surprising when a Pitts S2 is cheaper to buy than a 152.

Anyway, this is all rather a moot point, since it apparently wasn't a 152 in the incident.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Chock said:

True of the standard 150 and 152, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it would be a good idea either, but I said the Cessna A152 Aerobat, not the standard 150/150. The A152 is indeed cleared for inverted flight since it has to be because it is cleared for several aerobatic maneuvers...

Again, no it's not. It looks you don't know what inverted flight actually means in this context. Every airplane has a positive and a negative g-limit, Aerobatic or not, but that's a different story.

Every Cessna 150/152 Aerobat version has the same text in e.g. the type certificate (and usually a placard in the cockpit):  INVERTED FLIGHT IS PROHIBITED.

 

Edited by J35OE
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've actually had the pleasure of flying the 152 Aerobat (it's what I did my spin training in) and can confirm what J35OE is saying.  Aerobatic certification is very specific in terms of what maneuvers are and are not permitted.  In the case of the 150 and 152 Aerobat, NO negative G maneuvers are allowed (which of course includes inverted flight) due to the aforementioned lack of inverted fuel and oil systems.

It's a fun little plane capable of some cool stuff, but ya can't fly it inverted.  And, BTW, it's a hoot to do fully developed spins in and is very easy to recover.

Scott

Edited by tttocs

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, tttocs said:

It's a fun little plane capable of some cool stuff, but ya can't fly it inverted.  And, BTW, it's a hoot to do fully developed spins in and is very easy to recover.

Have you ever done a spin without your instructor or on your own? I never got the nerve up to do one alone but in Canada it was a requirement for flight training. We had a trusty old 152 Aerobat in my old flight school as well. Loved that little plane 😎

Edited by Matthew Kane

Share this post


Link to post

A few skin ripples is getting off lightly if someone was trying to do flicks in an H 800. They were lucky not to rip the tail off the thing putting those kind of loads on it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Chock said:

A few skin ripples is getting off lightly if someone was trying to do flicks in an H 800. They were lucky not to rip the tail off the thing putting those kind of loads on it.

If correctly flown a snap roll doesn't put a lot of load on the airplane since it has to be performed at a rather low speed, well bellow VA. It's nothing more than an accelerated horizontal spin.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Have you ever done a spin without your instructor or on your own? I never got the nerve up to do one alone but in Canada it was a requirement for flight training. We had a trusty old 152 Aerobat in my old flight school as well. Loved that little plane 😎

In the US, the FAA had shifted their emphasis to spin avoidance in training so spins weren't actually required.  My instructor was kinda old-school however and had all his students do them, so up we went and I'm glad we did.  This was shortly before my flight test.  It was a confidence builder and as I said, a whole lotta fun.

However, that session was the last time I flew the Aerobat and I never did spins again.  Formal aerobatic training was always on my wish list, but like so many things I never got around to it.

Scott

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, if correctly flown in an aeroplane stressed for it, a flick doesn't put an excessive load on the airframe, but it certainly does put a load on the tail, since you are inducing a sideways load on the rear of the aeroplane to get the thing to yaw quickly, thus stalling one wing only. It's usually not that the tail cannot withstand the amount of deflection which is the problem, it's that the load this induces can come on very quickly, i.e. far quicker than you'd normally make a rudder input for most normal maneuvers; a bit like if I pressed down on someone really hard with my fist as opposed to suddenly punching them with it, the amount of movement I apply might be the same for both things, but it's how quickly the force is applied which alters the result. If you imagine rocking a fence post, which is stuck in the ground, back and forth to break it, as opposed to slowly trying to bend it one way and hoping it will snap, this is exactly why the tailplane of American Airlines Flight 587 - the Airbus A300 which crashed over Queens NYC - lost its tailplane, it was basically levered off by having repeated loads put on it very quickly.

Whilst it can help a bit to sort of think of a flick roll as a 'accelerated horizontal spin', it's not really the same as what is going on in a traditional spin; the analogy only works, up to a point. A spin entry requires that both wings are stalled, since this is what induces the nose drop as both wings of the aeroplane stop flying, with the lift differential between the wings at the the point where they stalled asymmetrically producing the autorotation part of the spin. Whereas in a flick, you definitely only want one wing stalled, so you get the autorotation from that, but not the drop which would occur from having both wings stalled.

Rudder inputs will always put a sideways load on the tailfin, especially during a flick, since the rapid input of the deflection is what induces the yaw to make one wing stall before the other. If flown sloppily, it will all go a bit pear shaped and certainly if flown at too high an airspeed it can potentially go really badly, which is why if you look in even the pilot notes for things like the Supermarine Spitfire - an aeroplane designed to be flung around in combat - it actually states that flick maneuvers are prohibited!

You give it some up elevator before kicking the rudder on in a flick, in order to get the wings close to the critical angle, it is then the large and rapid rudder deflection which causes a lift differential to make just one wing stall, but unlike with a spin entry, you don't actually want both wings to stall, since it is the lift from the wing which is still flying that induces the roll. The tricky part is that ideally, the rudder deflection is applied when the input from aft elevator is at its peak effect-wise, which isn't the same as the wing being at the critical AoA, it's when the effect of the pull up itself is at its peak as the pull up rises to the point where a break with lots of yaw on will stall one wing cleanly and not the other one. This is the bit people cock up and the bit which needs practice, and why pilots can risk putting too much rudder on at the wrong speed in an attempt to really force the maneuver if they don't understand all the mechanics behind what they are trying to achieve, which is almost certainly what was occurring to over-stress the airframe in that pic of the business jet with a load of skin rippling.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yup, if correctly flown in an aeroplane stressed for it, a flick doesn't put an excessive load on the airframe, but it certainly does put a load on the tail, since you are inducing a sideways load on the rear of the aeroplane to get the thing to yaw quickly, thus stalling one wing only. It's usually not that the tail cannot withstand the amount of deflection which is the problem, it's that the load this induces can come on very quickly, i.e. far quicker than you'd normally make a rudder input for most normal maneuvers; a bit like if I pressed down on someone really hard with my fist as opposed to suddenly punching them with it, the amount of movement I apply might be the same for both things, but it's how quickly the force is applied which alters the result. If you imagine rocking a fence post, which is stuck in the ground, back and forth to break it, as opposed to slowly trying to bend it one way and hoping it will snap, this is exactly why the tailplane of American Airlines Flight 587 - the Airbus A300 which crashed over Queens NYC - lost its tailplane, it was basically levered off by having repeated loads put on it very quickly.

Whilst it can help a bit to sort of think of a flick roll as a 'accelerated horizontal spin', it's not really the same as what is going on in a traditional spin; the analogy only works, up to a point. A spin entry requires that both wings are stalled, since this is what induces the nose drop as both wings of the aeroplane stop flying, with the lift differential between the wings at the the point where they stalled asymmetrically producing the autorotation part of the spin. Whereas in a flick, you definitely only want one wing stalled, so you get the autorotation from that, but not the drop which would occur from having both wings stalled.

Rudder inputs will always put a sideways load on the tailfin, especially during a flick, since the rapid input of the deflection is what induces the yaw to make one wing stall before the other. If flown sloppily, it will all go a bit pear shaped and certainly if flown at too high an airspeed it can potentially go really badly, which is why if you look in even the pilot notes for things like the Supermarine Spitfire - an aeroplane designed to be flung around in combat - it actually states that flick maneuvers are prohibited!

You give it some up elevator before kicking the rudder on in a flick, in order to get the wings close to the critical angle, it is then the large and rapid rudder deflection which causes a lift differential to make just one wing stall, but unlike with a spin entry, you don't actually want both wings to stall, since it is the lift from the wing which is still flying that induces the roll. The tricky part is that ideally, the rudder deflection is applied when the input from aft elevator is at its peak effect-wise, which isn't the same as the wing being at the critical AoA, it's when the effect of the pull up itself is at its peak as the pull up rises to the point where a break with lots of yaw on will stall one wing cleanly and not the other one. This is the bit people cock up and the bit which needs practice, and why pilots can risk putting too much rudder on at the wrong speed in an attempt to really force the maneuver if they don't understand all the mechanics behind what they are trying to achieve, which is almost certainly what was occurring to over-stress the airframe in that pic of the business jet with a load of skin rippling.

One thing I found different in real life vs. a sim was how atmospheric dynamics, such as chop, could yaw the aircraft and create side force on the airframe, which I could feel in the "seat of the pants".  Some aircraft were more susceptible to this than others, and flying trikes I did not feel it at all since one only has the wing and no airframe for side forces to be exerted on.  Also did not notice this in the sailplane rides I have been on, since those aircraft have skinny airframes without much side area to them.  Also never noticed this much in heavy jets as they are of course, heavy and harder for chop to exert side forces against.  Puddle jumpers were more prone to this feeling, especially when their pilots landed them in gusty crosswinds.  For realism I try to fly my sims with variable wind speed and directions, which simulates chop as well as it can be simulated and makes landings much more interesting and a challenge.

John

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Chock said:

Whilst it can help a bit to sort of think of a flick roll as a 'accelerated horizontal spin', it's not really the same as what is going on in a traditional spin; 

So Neil Williams (and other famous aerobatic pilots) are wrong….hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this