The NTSB says a partial loss of engine power and an aggressive maneuver at low level were the main factors in a crash that killed AOPA Air Safety Institute VP Richard McSpadden and former NFL tight end Russ Francis at Lake Placid Airport on Oct. 1 2023. Absence of a weight and balance calculation was also cited. The NTSB said its calculations showed the center of gravity would have been at least an inch forward of the CG limit. Francis was reported to be flying his Cessna 177RG when one of the pilots reported the engine trouble and said they were returning to the airport. The NTSB says the plane stalled and descended rapidly to crash short of the runway. It’s not known who was flying at the time of the crash but the report says Francis had performed a similar maneuver during a practice flight for the photo session when a baggage door opened shortly after takeoff. AOPA created this video about the crash.
Multiple witnesses reported the plane seemed slow to accelerate and climb and one reported white smoke briefly coming from the exhaust. The NTSB found no anomalies with the engine that would explain the power loss. Both pilots had thousands of hours of flight experience and Francis had 10 hours in the Cardinal. The aircraft climbed to about 400 feet AGL before making a sharp right turn and hitting a bank about 440 feet short of the runway. Both men were killed.
The mission was a photo flight with the Cardinal as the subject. Francis was to do the takeoff and climb behind a Beech Bonanza photo ship with the door removed. McSpadden, former Team Lead of the Air Force Thunderbirds, was to take over flying for the formation part of the flight. The photos were to be used in a feature in AOPA Pilot Magazine. The full NTSB report is below:
Tragic tale, whatever the cause. RIP.
It’s almost hard to believe this sad day was over two years ago.
Another wake up call to always treat this hobby, or lifestyle we enjoy, with a healthy respect.
If it can happen to them, it could happen to anyone. Although the odds are always in our favor, as even these little old airplanes were designed with safety and reliability in mind.
This situation is an eye opener for myself. As I had previously determined, through practice at altitude, that 400ft was the absolute minimum altitude for an attempted 180 turn back to the runway, while retaining about 50ft of altitude for lineup and flare. (Cessna, 14-16lb/sqft wing loading). It appears by the ADSB track, these fellows did indeed successfully complete the entire “impossible turn”, and were already lining up with between 100-150ft altitude to spare. This was probably because the engine was still producing some power. Yet somehow they were unable to complete the landing from this enviable position.
Takeaways: My new minimum to attempt a return is 500ft. Below 200ft; aggressive slip to land on remaining runway, unless the runway is unusually short. Between 0-500ft, resolve to land straight ahead, or within 30 degrees of runway heading: Select the best emergency off-airport option before takeoff by a review of the area, drive around the block, review satellite images with maps app, etc. These items are getting written on a new pre-takeoff checklist.
From the video of the accident airplane just prior to impact, and from photos of the wreckage, the landing gear appeared to be in transit. The logical assumption was the pilot selected gear down during the approach. That Cessna gear produces prodigious drag while it’s in transit. That certainly didn’t help, but I’m surprised the NTSB didn’t even mention it.
Actually: There appears to be noticeable discrepancies in altitudes given and ground track between the image in this article, and that presented in the AOPA video.
In reality, the aircraft never reached anywhere near 400ft. Only 174-183ft AGL as given. This was absolutely a point of no return if the engine was not producing thrust. Straight ahead to an off-airport field would likely be preferable where a steep embankment drops off, such as this.
I wonder if shoulder harnesses were installed or used?
The 180 degree return is for only you and a particular airplane in which you have practiced the maneuver repeatedly, and assuming that is your only best choice. In my Aeronca Chief, after lots of practice including building in five seconds of denial, it was an easy four hundred feet AGL. With each airport I would tell myself before hand what was 400′ agl in msl for those 400′, I would anticipate an engine failure. Would I try it in a Cherokee or any other airplane, no!
There was a great open field just to the right at the time of the incident. The return to the runway and to deploy the landing gear in an attempt to save the airframe caused the fatalities instead of an insurance claim. My thinking has always been that during any engine power loss at any time, the insurance company now owns the airplane and my job is to survive.
Why is there a rush to retract the landing gear in a single engine aircraft? As the plane has successfully lifted off, leave the gear alone until it becomes obvious that it won’t be needed anytime soon. It seems that anytime landing gear is retracted the drag increases as doors, wheels, gear legs disrupt the minimal drag created when down and locked. Take a look at the modern fast composite machines all with fixed gear. What’s not to like?