Infamous engine stall on takeoff

A banner tow appears to have done a classic stall while trying to pick up
the banner:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...bn31plane.html

Of course, another local media outlet reports in their version that the
engine stalled just after takeoff:

http://www.10news.com/news/10641726/detail.html

James Robinson wrote:
A banner tow appears to have done a classic stall while trying to pick up
the banner:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...bn31plane.html

Of course, another local media outlet reports in their version that the
engine stalled just after takeoff:

http://www.10news.com/news/10641726/detail.html

The first article called it a Cessna 150, the second called
it a 172. Which was it? And would anyone be so crazy as to try to tow a
banner with a marginally-powered airplane like a 150?
Witnesses (probably pilots) likely told the media that the
airplane stalled, and the media interpreted this to mean the engine
stalled. I wish they'd just print things the way they're quoted intead
of putting their own spin on them.

Dan

wrote:

The first article called it a Cessna 150, the second called
it a 172. Which was it? And would anyone be so crazy as to try to tow a
banner with a marginally-powered airplane like a 150?
Witnesses (probably pilots) likely told the media that the
airplane stalled, and the media interpreted this to mean the engine
stalled. I wish they'd just print things the way they're quoted intead
of putting their own spin on them.


Maybe not if it was a 150 hp C150

"john smith" wrote in message ...
: wrote:
:
: The first article called it a Cessna 150, the second called
: it a 172. Which was it? And would anyone be so crazy as to try to tow a
: banner with a marginally-powered airplane like a 150?
: Witnesses (probably pilots) likely told the media that the
: airplane stalled, and the media interpreted this to mean the engine
: stalled. I wish they'd just print things the way they're quoted intead
: of putting their own spin on them.
:
:
: Maybe not if it was a 150 hp C150
:

Yup, we have one of those (actually I think it is a 160 hp O-320) flying around there. It is a real scooter! (can't
believe I said that about a C-150!)

James Robinson wrote:
Of course, another local media outlet reports in their version that the
engine stalled just after takeoff:

http://www.10news.com/news/10641726/detail.html

I actually got an apology from one of the Charlotte Observer's reporters when I
complained about their use of "stalled engine" in reference to Sunday's crash in
Charlotte. Here's the original complaint with the answer pasted at the bottom:

==== complaint begins ====

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlot...s/16360258.htm

Once again I read about an aircraft accident where the phrase "stalled engine"
is used. Unfortunately, the use of that phrase causes every licensed pilot who
reads your article to question every aspect of it. Here's why:

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JET ENGINES,

Part of every piston powered aircraft checkout involves investigating the
aircraft's stall characteristics. Every check ride I've ever taken has involved
slow flight and stalls. None of those stalls have ANYTHING to do with the
engine.

To a pilot, a "stall" occurs when the angle of attack exceeds the aircraft's
ability to lift itself. In most cases, this means the nose is raised too high
and the airspeed is allowed to drop too low. You need enough wind crossing the
wing to lift the aircraft. If you don't have enough, the aircraft stalls... the
nose drops no matter what control inputs you apply and you fall out of the sky.
Assuming you have enough air under you when you stall, you merely release the
back pressure on the yoke and apply maximum throttle, assuming it wasn't already
applied. You then fly out of it.

To a pilot, when the engine stops developing power, we refer to it as "the
engine quit" or "engine failure". We never refer to the word "stall". Stalls
are aerodynamic. Engine failures are mechanical.

So when I read about the airport manager (who should know better) supposedly
saying something about the engine stalling, that immediately makes me wonder:
did he REALLY say that or did the reporter misunderstand what he said, then put
words in his mouth to make him appear to be an idiot in the eyes of the licensed
pilots everywhere?

Somebody at the Observer needs to educate themselves, then serve as a filter
where all subsequent stories are run past to make sure this sort of error
doesn't pop up again. If you don't have anybody, call one of the local flying
schools and ask to speak to any licensed pilot. Ask them if your proposed story
makes sense to them the way it's worded. As it is, I can apply no more credence
than if I got the details of this accident at the checkout counter of the Piggly
Wiggly.

By the way, it'd be nice if you could find out what kind of single engine Cessna
crashed. It was one of the first questions I though of when I read the original
story; so far nobody has bothered with the detail. There was a table of general
specifications printed in the paper which alluded that this might be a TR-182
but I have no way of knowing if the table was just picked as typical of the
fleet or specific to this accident. Sloppy reporting, frankly. I expect
better.


==== complaint ends and answer begins ====


My apologies. I did paraphrase Mr. Orr; the ignorance of flying is
mine, not his. He was enjoying a holiday in Charleston; I was interrupting
him repeatedly to help figure out a messy and complicated situation, but
should have interrupted once more to check the wording.

It's the nature of holidays -- and to an extent, of breaking news
like this -- that reporters who are exerienced in some areas (Jim and I have
more than 50 years in the business combined) get thrown into covering things
they know little about. As a college student, I learned to pilot a hot-air
balloon because I wanted to fly but was intimidated by the mechanics of
airplanes. Earning that license gave me a glimpse of how much real pilots
have to know.

I'll never be able to match that expertise in an evening, but I do
understand our obligation to write with credibility for all readers,
including the most knowledgeable. I'll forward your comment to the metro
editors and the copy desk. Any one reporter can go years without covering a
plane crash, but the editors provide a good backstop against errors.

Again, I'm sorry for any confusion or distress that my poor choice
of wording created.

Ann



Ann Doss Helms
Education reporter
The Charlotte Observer
P.O. Box 30308
Charlotte, NC 28230-0308



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:


quoting part of a reporter's reply referenced in Mort's post

Again, I'm sorry for any confusion or distress that my poor choice
of wording created.

Impressive.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:


quoting part of a reporter's reply referenced in Mort's post

Again, I'm sorry for any confusion or distress that my poor choice
of wording created.

Impressive.


Well, I fired off the original complaint to both authors listed, as well as the
managing editor (to make sure it didn't get blown off). I actually got replies
from both of the authors... this one being the most complete. The other guy
basically said he didn't do it and blamed it on this one, which as we now know,
was correct.

I just got tired of it. They make the same mistake pretty much every time. At
least she owned up to putting words in the airport manager's mouth. I'd hate to
think he was so poorly informed.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

wrote:

And would anyone be so crazy as to try to tow a
banner with a marginally-powered airplane like a 150?


Ever hear of the C150 JATO mod? Works like a charm... when it does't
melt the banner :-o

There is a guy I have seen at the local airport towing banners with a
180 HP 150. It does just fine...




wrote:
James Robinson wrote:
A banner tow appears to have done a classic stall while trying to pick up
the banner:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...bn31plane.html

Of course, another local media outlet reports in their version that the
engine stalled just after takeoff:

http://www.10news.com/news/10641726/detail.html

The first article called it a Cessna 150, the second called
it a 172. Which was it? And would anyone be so crazy as to try to tow a
banner with a marginally-powered airplane like a 150?
Witnesses (probably pilots) likely told the media that the
airplane stalled, and the media interpreted this to mean the engine
stalled. I wish they'd just print things the way they're quoted intead
of putting their own spin on them.

Dan