The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Bob Dentice, the guy who had a C-170B with a C-175 tail grafted on to it, said that the Modification eliminated the horizontal stadilator stall completely. I have never flown that airplane, buy I sure as hell wouldn't try it down low.

A recent article in case you had not seen...
(broken link follows)
http://www.sportaviationonline.org/spor ... pg=10#pg90

This was mostly just a rehash of the NTSB report with not much else added. In his conclusion I didn't think that he gave anywhere near enough emphasis to the tailplane stall and still wonders how the wing could stall at that speed. He also doesn't seem to realize that the best source of knowledge about old aircraft is the type clubs not the FAA or NTSB.

The message from this article seemed to be "we don't really know what happened." The message should have been a loud an clear "DONT SLIP A 170B WITH THE FLAPS ALL THE WAY DOWN", followed by "consult with your type club -- the people who really understand how to operate your airplane"

RIP Bruce and Kathy.

Fly Safe

Pete

The message from this article seemed to be "we don't really know what happened." The message should have been a loud an clear "DONT SLIP A 170B WITH THE FLAPS ALL THE WAY DOWN", followed by "consult with your type club -- the people who really understand how to operate your airplane"

That's exactly what I told Mac in August when the piece was first posted. I told him he missed a good opportunity to pass along an important message. He replied that he wasn't at liberty to suggest any probable cause beyond what the NTSB said. But that's pretty lame, because he's a columnist; his job is to have opinions. I think the real reason is that he doesn't understand the problem of slipping with full flaps at low altitude. He really thinks this was a stall accident.

This is one reason it is a plus to belong to a TYPE club for all the information supplied through books, flyers and forums. This is why I believe strongly in belonging to the Cessna 170 Assoc for all the information that is discussed here and at the Convention seminars. In my opinion this also makes us better pilots to be aware of unique situations that arise in flight.
It is always a pleasure to read others experiences.

Thanks all,
John

DaveF wrote:

The message from this article seemed to be "we don't really know what happened." The message should have been a loud an clear "DONT SLIP A 170B WITH THE FLAPS ALL THE WAY DOWN", followed by "consult with your type club -- the people who really understand how to operate your airplane"

That's exactly what I told Mac in August when the piece was first posted. I told him he missed a good opportunity to pass along an important message. He replied that he wasn't at liberty to suggest any probable cause beyond what the NTSB said. But that's pretty lame, because he's a columnist; his job is to have opinions. I think the real reason is that he doesn't understand the problem of slipping with full flaps at low altitude. He really thinks this was a stall accident.

The NTSB suggested the possibility of the tailplane stall in the report, just couldn't conclude that was the cause. The responsible journalist would go interview the folks that have been flying the type for sixty years and report the collected wisdom as well, even if he for some reason really thinks this was a stall accident.

The NTSB reported exactly what they feel happened just immediately before impact which put the plane in an attitude pointing straight down. A main wing stall. The main wing was not flying and the aircraft was pointed straight down when it hit.

What the NTSB did not directly say is what might have caused Bruce to put the airplane in a main wing stall. Many of us believe the tail was blanked out due to a slip with full flaps causing the plane to unexpectedly point down. Many of us know it can happen. Then secondarily in reaction to that Bruce probably pulled back hard on the yoke and perhaps stalled the main wing and the airplane pointed down again before impact. Or maybe he never got the nose to rise from the first drop. We will never know.

I was disappointed in Mac's article because we understand there is probably more to it than meets the average eye and that is the story we want told. Mac's eye on this story was just average.

Would it be worth it for the 170 Association to make a formal statement about the article in an open letter to the editor?

Richard Pulley
In your statement of 29 May 14, you say that you have been unable to duplicate this tail stall, with 40 degrees of flap deployed, in various Cessnas including C-170B models. I can't understand why it failed to occur in the C-170Bs. I have owned three of the C-170B models, all stock configured airplanes, and they ALL proved to have the extremely vicious down pitch when aggressively slipped with flaps set at 40 degrees.
I don't at all recommend a warning decal on the flap handle. FAR TOO HARD TO SEE! When was the last time you looked at the flap handle as you deployed them?
There ought to be a clearly exhibited decal with a "Skull and Crossbones",located on the instrument panel, where a strange pilot with limited experience in the type could not miss it.
I also think that Cessna was seriously remiss in their "softly mentioning" this deadly phenomenon in the C-170B owners manual.
Murphys Law! This condition is only going to occur, during a normal flight, at the time when it's likely to kill you; on the landing approach at a relatively low altitude. After all, you aren't likely to be doing this at cruise speed and altitude.

bagarre wrote:Would it be worth it for the 170 Association to make a formal statement about the article in an open letter to the editor?

I don't believe it would be consequential, David. Writing an opinion piece in rebuttal to an article is not the proper avenue. I believe the article hit pretty spot-on for the scope of the intended audience...it fed just enough to make those curious want to investigate further, and it was pretty safe from the standpoint of not introducing an opinion into a very public venue. The last thing that we need is for there to be any mud-slinging. Bruce needs to be remembered as everyone that met him knew him; not as "the idiot that spun his airplane in on base to final because ______________" which is what will be associated with his memory if this gets too debated.

We all generally have a good understanding of this phenomenon, however there is still no iron-clad proof that this occurred to Bruce and Kathy. It looks like it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but with no witnesses and no video, and no communication, we're all left with a smoking gun with a bullet hole that a pretty spot-on match, but no fingerprints on the trigger. I think it's best to let this one go, because the only people it really affects are the Cessna 170 drivers out there. I believe the best combative move out there is to encourage owners to join the Association, or for people selling their airplanes to pay for a year's worth of due for the Association for the new owner. It's better for all of us if we have more TIC170A members out there. We will have a more educated owner base, and one that will be less susceptible to making errors that will harm us all in one way or another.

Another thought would be for Cessna to make some sort of statement on the matter, but I fear that cannot be done without some sort of a service bulletin or mandate that will cause us more grief than benefit.

JMHO

blueldr wrote:Richard Pulley

I don't at all recommend a warning decal on the flap handle. FAR TOO HARD TO SEE! When was the last time you looked at the flap handle as you deploed them?
There ought to be a clearly exhibited decal with a "Skull and Crossbones",located on the instrument panel, where a strange pilot with limited experience in the type could not miss it.

May I be so bold as to ask why an astute 170 driver would need that placard on his panel? I truly believe that most of us have the "no slips with full flaps" mantra embedded in our core. Unless others frequently fly your airplane, I see no need to remind one's self of something that is engrained like that.

It has spurred a few conversations on the topic, which allows me a chance to educate others.

Unfortunately we did not have these posts and points of view when the Rymes were with us. Who would have thought someone would do a slip with a "B" with full flaps deployed? Certainly it's not something I've ever thought of doing or needed to do.
I think of these folks often, sometimes when I fly with my wife and sometimes for no appaerent reason. I'm sure I'm not alone. I now make it point to mention it in conversation whenever I run into a new to me, 170B owner. I don't mind if I get a quizzical looks, I'm used to it.

c170b53 wrote:Unfortunately we did not have these posts and points of view when the Rymes were with us. Who would have thought someone would do a slip with a "B" with full flaps deployed? Certainly it's not something I've ever thought of doing or needed to do.
I think of these folks often, sometimes when I fly with my wife and sometimes for no appaerent reason. I'm sure I'm not alone. I now make it point to mention it in conversation whenever I run into a new to me, 170B owner. I don't mind if I get a quizzical looks, I'm used to it.

This info has been around since the 1970s and 1980s. There is a detailed article in the 170 Book.