There isn’t a pilot alive who has watched the remarkable video of the Super Cub replica heading for an emergency landing in Michigan last week who didn’t get that tightening feeling in the nether regions as he or she put themselves in the place of that remarkably cool pilot and his videographer companion. Video is below in case you haven’t read the story.
I came across this story initially by way of social media when the pilot posted a picture of the aircraft and said he was ferrying it across Canada just as serious winter is setting in. It interested me but not enough to write a story about it. Then a couple of days later, in my normal scan of news for AvBrief, I came across the same plane upside down on a runway in Michigan. We don’t normally write about minor crashes like this but because of my prior interest I looked a little further and ended up with the remarkable tale in today’s AvBrief.
When I saw the initial report out of Michigan I wondered what kind of in-flight issue would make putting a Cub down in 43-knot gusts the better option. The video sure answered that question. I’ve been trying to get hold of the pilot and videographer, but no luck so far. One thing is for sure. Getting that little plane on the ground in one piece was no small feat. I’ll bet the pilot’s right arm is still sore.
Of course, armchair analysis has begun in earnest, and in the past we’ve had some strict constraints on that kind of speculation. I have softened that position in recent years thanks mainly to the prevalence of video like this.
I’m guessing the purpose of the video was to show the aileron and shaking stick, maybe as evidence for investigators in case things didn’t work out as well as they did.
But along the way it captures some significant information as it pans across the panel, showing in graphic clarity the results of the pilot’s decision-making in that. Now, we don’t know what was happening before the passenger took out his phone, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the pilot had already tried to get rid of that flutter before beelining for the nearest runway. That’s just my speculation, but based on what I can see in the video it makes sense to me.
Others have chimed in and I suspect the comments will be lively once this goes out in the newsletter. I think there’s a lot to be learned from this kind of discussion, but we’re going out on a limb in allowing it. In past when we took the position that investigations be left to investigators, it was easy to just shut down the amateur analysis, particularly when it turned unfairly or unjustifiably nasty.
The existence of video like this, along with second-by-second flightpath and altitude tracking and sometimes the ATC exchanges, stuff that crash investigators used to have to tease from painstaking analysis of wreckage and witness reports, changes that dynamic. Our readers are smart and experienced aviators who can interpret all that evidence to allow for meaningful discussion about the incident and not just write it off as a bunch of wild guesses.
Meanwhile, investigators may be looking at that data and a lot more, interviewing the pilots and witnesses and getting the fullest picture possible of what happened. But it’s also possible the NTSB may not throw its full investigative weight against finding out what happened because it turned out to be such a minor thing, so you may never know how right or wrong you were.
Still, we’re interested in what you think about this incident and maybe what you might have done differently, but please be kind and respectful to the folks who were directly involved. After all, they were the ones who got that bad feeling down below while actually shuddering over the Michigan landscape in a howling near gale.
I’m reminded of the saying, “It’s too early to know, but never too early to speculate”.
I’m also reminded of the recent Airbus A320 / JetBlue sudden dive in which some commenters blamed the pilots for mishandling the automation. Who knew a software glitch was at fault?
In the case of this Piper Cub PA-12 replica, are the ailerons even balanced surfaces? Aerodynamically and/or weight-wise? Did the pilot panic and make a high-speed beeline for the nearest airport, exacerbating the flutter? Or did they try slowing down and found the resonance got worse (before it presumably would’ve gotten better)?
A picture’s worth a thousand words, and a video even more. But the video is just a few seconds in time. What happened before? Do we have the whole story yet?
Russ, thank you for soliciting comment.
An accomplished professional tailwheel and experienced factory corporate jet test and transportation pilot, I know enough not to comment on events like this for which I do not have enough data. Having said that, my personal policy, apart from what was my professional career is not to fly other people’s privately owned and maintained airplanes for this very reason.
Watching the video, my impulse was that I might have slowed down to a minimum controllable airspeed and chosen to land into the wind on the nearest clear open patch of earth rather than continuing to the nearest paved runway. But I’ll hasten to add that I wasn’t the one flying the airplane which disqualifies me from commenting with any certitude. They landed and apparently walked away from the inverted airplane. Having done that, regardless of their decisions which brought them to that moment, what more could they have wished for at that point?
I have to agree. It looks as if he was holding 110 mph and 2500 rpm. There was plenty of speed beyond stall to slow down.
It is not difficult to see the feedback loop in the video; flutter of the control surface and divergence within a wing unable to control its designed twist. At such a slow speed, it’s frightening to watch the video and imagining the limits being tested. From the pilot’s perspective, it must have been soul altering.
We are all observers here, of course. Watching a result and predicting the past like we know some empirical truth plucked from pure ether. But it’s certain the people in this plane had no interest in any of that.
Serious airframe failure seldom makes it back to the airport. We should be grateful for the lives spared and the chance to evaluate what truly happened.
The kicker is the flight simmers and other self appointed “experts” on social media who are happy to hang pilots or airframes out to dry with absolutely no possible expertise in the matter. There are even retired professional pilots, chasing the clicks, and therefore the subscribers and income who should know better and offer opinion – which is often demonstrably wrong or shown to be wrong when the NTSB report comes in – but no retraction is ever issued. But the clickbait headline got them their $$.
(..and to be fair there are those who correctly qualify their comments or simply report what is known in a way the public might understand…)
—
A recent fatal crash local to my community lead to some of the most ill informed and hurtful to the family commenting on social media that can be imagined. Especially as to any qualified pilot that looked at it – there were the obvious parts and a huge bunch of unknowns that even the NTSB preliminary didn’t answer.
While no one can be the “social media police” – I now keep the following on “Copy and Paste” to try and provide a measure of balance for some of the more egregious:
“If you are not a pilot – you simply are not qualified to comment. Incidents and accidents can be anything from engine out / medical factor / door opening in flight / gear failing to come up / who knows? Even if you are a dedicated “simmer” but non pilot. You don’t have the training or any idea what planes are capable of in the REAL world. Or what this pilot’s real experience was.
Some of the comments and second guessing on here – based on no REAL experience in the matter doesn’t help anyone and is downright wrong and insensitive to the family / friends. No pilots I know of are taking this trivially – but best leave it to the NTSB to figure what happened.”
He did a nice job. There is only one choice when your wing is doing that. LAND at the nearest airport (or field).
My only question would be what was his IAS in the video?
It seemed like he was at 2600RPM.
I would’ve flown at a slower speed to reduce the induced flutter.
respectfully submitted…
I’ve only experienced anything like that once and thank God it was in a simulator. The 20 and 30 series Learjets would do that in an overspeed as the shock wave moved back on the wing and blanketed one or both ailerons. It could become violent enough to break your wrist. The instructor demonstrated it and warned to let go of the yoke. All you could do was power off and put speed brakes out. You had to pull back on the column try and raise the nose. Never went near that speed.
Given that it was a part 91 flight and there appeared to be no fatalities or major injuries, the NTSB will most likely take a virtual approach to this investigation.and let the FAA be its eyes, ears, hands, and feet on site. Without the unfortunate reported nose over, it’s also possible this event might not meet the definition of accident. But there is most likely significant damage.
All I know is that I would not have wanted to be flying my Super Cub in those wind conditions and then to have a flutter like that on top of it.
One question I have is, what triggered the flutter? Was it a gust of wind aloft, or was it a control input while above a certain airspeed? Another question is, why were they flying in these conditions in the first place? For there to be wind and gusts that strong on the ground suggests similar conditions likely existed in a much larger area.
So, good job at putting the aircraft down in those conditions with that emergency and walking away, but maybe bad job at deciding to go in the first place.
My first flight instructor and mentor repeatedly emphasized developing and practicing the skills needed to land the airplane as quickly and safely as possible “because you never know when you’ll need to do it.” His driving scenario was “If you ever smell gas in the cockpit, get it on the ground as fast as you can.” The pilot here followed that line of thought. I can see the logic in trying to make the airport. The ground at and around an airport is likely to be more or less straight and level, and the runway, if you can make it, is a generally reliable surface. If things go wrong, knowledgable help is close(r) at hand if anyone is around. Until the entire set of circumstances unfolded it was just as likely he could have landed without further incident and the story would have been about encountering wild flutter and postflight inspection for damage due to same. The pilot and passenger survived, so, well done.
As both an aeronautical engineer and pilot by trade, my take is that we don’t know much of what happened leading up to the incident that caused the flutter to begin with, so all we can do is let the investigation play out and allow the dominoes fall where they do. Only then can we have a legitimate discussion on the lessons learned.
The most important takeaways in the big picture is that he got it on the ground relatively safely and walked away, and hats off to the engineers who designed the wing- that was a vicious flutter!
Fly safe, my friends.
Having owned and flown both a ProTech ProStar PT2-C with an 0-320 and a 1956 Cessna 172 with a full Horton STOL kit including flap/aileron gap seals, droop tips, cuff, stall fences, etc with no paint ( very light), at the same time while modifying 182’s with all the STOL mods available including one with the Peterson canard for various mission fields overseas… in Oklahoma… means lots-o-winds. Admittedly mostly the high winds were largely lined up with virtually every runway from Wichita to Wiley Post airport in Oklahoma City, I have an idea what it is like in a 860lb and 1660lb empty weight airplane with winds ranging from 30kts gusting to 45-50kts on several occasions including flying from Blackwell, OK to Wiley Post making 35mph ground speed at 5,000 ft and 204mph ground speed at 4,000 ft on the way back to Blackwell in the 172. This presented some interesting dynamics of of entering down wind at 90 mph indicated for 18 with ground speed of 165 mph on 3,500 ft runway. I turned base mid-field being blown north enough for about a 600 ft final and literally came to a halt rolling out on final for 18. Airspeed was 60 mph indicated with virtually little to no forward movement. Remarkably smooth flight but getting rough as I descended from approximately 700 ft on short final which was visually right over cowl with the runway numbers at the lower/center of the windshield. It seemed to take forever to get to the numbers. My wife, watching from the hangar office said it took well over a minute to virtually helicopter my way down to the runway. The landing roll was one airplane length with no brake application. The distance from the edge of the pavement before the numbers to the center line of the first taxiway was a measured 390 ft. I had to apply brakes to prevent rolling backwards plus a bunch of power to move forward but being very cautious about becoming airborne. I called for wing walker assistance from four of our missionaries in training to get off the runway with out being flipped over with the narrow/tall Cessna “Land-o-matic” spring gear on the early 172’s. My normal stall speed was a verified 37 mph. Flying it to the tiedowns was not a euphemism on that day.
I share that because the visuals do not correspond with anything we’re normally used to. Flying 90 degrees sideways for close to a half a mile on downwind to be able to finish the downwind to base turn plus keep enough airspeed to take care of any potential wind shear knowing I would be crabbing a ton on base to stop being pushed further north than 600-700 to get past the north end of 18 was purely guesswork. While the entire flight was remarkably smooth, once I slowed to 90 indicated on downwind the airspeed indicator was largely useless until I turned final. Normal downwind to base turn was 80 with base to final turn at around 70-75 mph indicated. Once on final, I was amazed at how much throttle jockeying was required to maintain 60 mph on a 700 ft final with reasonably smooth air and the airspeed inficator back to functioning unlike downwind and base.
It was not unusual to have 0-10 kts of wind on the ground and 25-35 kts wind at 100 ft. Sometimes, as it was on this trip, 10-15kts from the south on the take off roll with 50-80 at 5,000 ft in perfectly smooth air… watching all the traffic on I-35 going twice as fast as me. And I had a perfectly good, well rigged airplane.
My first question is why did the fly virtually due south from Ontario for a considerable distance to end up at the southern tip of Lake Michigan in crappy weather when your destination is British Columbia?
That video looks like it was shot around what appears to be the downwind leg or at a point they had a tailwind. The ground was going by at a pretty good clip. I noticed the airspeed indicator fluctuating from low end of 90 and abruptly being at almost 120… just as I shared in my story. In other words, with a tailwind of 25-gusting to 43kts, the airspeed would be all over the place…PLUS!… that wing shaking and twisting as it was, if the pitot tube is located in the right wing, it would be very inaccurate moving with the leading edge of the wing.
Why did they not slow the airplane down? Maybe they did! If they did going into the wind, that 800lb airplane would be going almost backward. Might stop or mitigate the flutter some but going backward or very little forward movement like a leaf in the wind with deminishing control or maybe little to no roll control is not much of an option. I know how sloppy an 861lb airplane gets at a 28-32mph stall speed under normal conditions or in moderate winds. Slow stall speeds do not equate with great control.
The pilot was holding a lot of left stick with the ball on the left side of center. He was crossed controlled to stay level. My guess, he had very little control slowed down, some control while the flutter amplitude stayed relatively steady. The question was answered if it would stay together long enough to get to the airport… which, to me, was probably in sight for a while while crabbing to the right to make up for the more westerly wind. Then like me, to have any forward ground speed to actually get to the runway, would have the throttle all over the place inching your way around downwind, base and eventually on final attempting to move forward. That could explain the high power setting at least for those 10 seconds on the video. I think they did land crossways to the runway, doing all they could to reach the runway, with virtually no roll control using a lot of rudder. Once on the ground, in winds like that with questionable aileron control, getting turned over was highly likely without wing walking assistance. Once on the ground, it was a big weathervane.
As Russ and others have pointed out, there plenty of questions. But short of the testimony of the two on board, we can only speculate what we think about could have should have, and if zI were in their position, I would have done this or that. We were not there, and none of us know what that particular PA-12 flew like, shaking like a wet dog in that miserable weather. Lucky for them and us, we can eventually find out.
My question is how did they get to Benton Harbor MI which is pretty far from the Canadian border, if the ferry trip was to places in Canada, if they were going to go around Lake Michigan or were they making a detour for some other reason, there are a lot of airports in MI that they could have landed at due to weather, beside Benton Harbor Did they clear customs some where or not, before entering the US? There is more to this than just the control issue and to pick Benton Harbor to land at, I have ben there many times and not much there and the wind was always howling off the lake.
For planes flying from Ontario to Western Canada, cutting through northern Michigan is a shortcut and there are a lot more airports than the Canadian route north of Lake Superior. That’s how most folks going to Oshkosh from Southern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces get there. They clear Customs at Port Huron.