A Group member and his wife died in our Jodel DR1050 in 1999. LOC in cloud. One wingtip broken off, firewall forward gone. Rest showed little exterior damage. Seats undamaged. I saw the wreck sitting on its wheels in a hangar before being stripped of fittings and burned.
.i was told there was no visible body damage, instant death due to organs tearing loose from forces
Diagonal belt works with two in a narrow cockpit. One could slip out.
My first thought when I saw the picture was that it must have spun in, froom it sattitude and the tail damage.
have ratchet straps
Every aerobatic plane I’ve ever flown has five-point harnesses with a ratchet for tightening them up. You tighten them as far as you can. Then you do a belt check (-1G inverted) and you realise you’ve barely started.
Snoopy wrote:
Shoulder harnesses present and used?
Probably, but the standard single point shoulder harness installed in Cessnas is a little better than none, but not the best. Your torso is more than half your body weight, and being restrained by one strap, imposing most of its restraining force on your collar bone. I have the broken collar bone with Meccano in it to prove that a four point harness is superior. I also ripped the lap belt right out of the plane. But, no matter how you are strapped in, or whether you stay strapped in, you can still stop a plane so short, that the crash loads can be unservivable.
I checked out a new owner in his brand new Decathlon last week. The harnesses in that are three inches wide (which I’ve seen before) and actually have ratchet straps to ratchet yourself down into the seat once you’ve bulked up!
I was wearing this lap belt (and the single point shoulder harness attached to it). (that’s not my arm in the photo):
Shoulder harnesses present and used?
I’ve seen this before, I was among those who pulled my buddy from his crashed 150 with similar cabin condition. He died from the sudden stop. The coroner later told us that he had stopped at about 200G, not survivable. The stop can be so quick, that the seatbelts don’t have time to break, because they stretch.
The forward deceleration forces of this crash were immense. It is noteworthy that the tailboom is badly wrinkled in compression and perhaps some bending, but there is no evidence that the tail itself touched the ground. The tailboom wrinkled by inertial forces only. Yes, the travel path was off axis to the runway, and the airplane appears to have spun around as it slid and stopped. So the airplane probably hit the ground very nose down, not level, and perhaps yawed, which could be the result of a partly recovered spin as it hit.
I wonder what the instructor actually died of, given that the cabin seems to be largely intact? My guess would be a head injury.
Saddened.
Right wingtip damage. Spin? Or did wingtip make the dragmark, then spin? The wheel fairings look undamaged.
Loss of directional control by student slamming on power, leaves runway, instructor isn’t able to get it flying?
Taking the FR24 data with a big grain of salt, it appears they were doing 50kts at the end. Looking at the picture in the link with a completely destroyed firewall-forward section, perhaps a stall after a botched go-around? According to FR24 they were over the runway.
Just some circuits like in any of the thousands of circuits done in PPL training. I think that’s maybe related to the old question: how far do you let the student go? In any case, this should have been solvable, there’s just too much energy dissipated in the plane. The 172 flies at ~40 knots, this looks like a lot faster, where you should have been able to climb away.
RikB wrote:
That definately looks weird to me.
It does, but if the airplane made that track it would have had to travel backwards.
