WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Plane crash Lake Havasu

185EZ

Takin it EZ
Joined
May 14, 2018
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
5,464
One fatality
One person is dead after a plane crash at the Lake Havasu City Municipal Airport.
Havasu police and the Community Emergency Response Team is on scene in a gated area south of the airport and north of Agave Business Park, about 75 yards from Whelan Drive.
According to Havasu Scanner Feed, a website that follows emergency radio dispatches in the Lake Havasu City area, the plane was a single-engine, fixed-wing 1974 Cessna 177RG.
The identity of the plane's owner isn't being immediately released.

Earlier: Today's News-Herald is aware of a single plane crash at the Lake Havasu City Municipal Airport, reported around 4:15 p.m.

1631496603195.png
 

JB in so cal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
6,480
Reaction score
5,548
Maybe flat spin? Doesn't look like the brush is disturbed behind the wreckage. RIP
 

Singleton

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
14,042
Reaction score
14,849
Dislike threads like this.
Hopefully people respect whoever passed and don’t post the name until the family has been notified
 

ONE-A-DAY

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
16,731
Reaction score
21,275
Info I received is that plane landed to get fuel and took off heading south, had some issues on take off and may have tried to make the turn back. I’d like to think he did his best to put it down where he did, not much further and he would have gone down in the rv park, Lowe’s, etc. RIP and thank you if that’s what your plan was, avoiding where people were.
 

lbhsbz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
8,287
Reaction score
16,753
Small planes and heat scare me a bit…buddy flew out to Vegas to pick up me and a buddy one day in his Beechcraft bonanza…it was 136 on the tarmac. He didn’t fuel or even shut it down (was a bitch to hot start that thing). We were on the tarmac when he taxi’d in, hopped in and were on our way…the oil temp was pinned in the red when we got in the plane…and didn’t start dropping until we were in the air for good 30 minutes. We were looking for a good place to put it down for a while…

The cool part was the tower making a 747 hold so we could get off the ground ahead of him…they flew right over us about 3 minutes later.
 
Last edited:

havasujeeper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
1,691
Not being a pilot, it is hard to fathom how air temp could play a role on flying, but I know it is a thing. Whether or not this was a factor, I'm sure someday we will all find out. May the pilot rest in peace.
 

lbhsbz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
8,287
Reaction score
16,753
Not being a pilot, it is hard to fathom how air temp could play a role on flying, but I know it is a thing. Whether or not this was a factor, I'm sure someday we will all find out. May the pilot rest in peace.

A Cessna 177 makes 150hp on a good day…add heat, HP goes down and the air isn’t as dense…plus after a heat soak (refueling) that could cause some problems.
 

DaveH

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
1,550
A Cessna 177 makes 150hp on a good day…add heat, HP goes down and the air isn’t as dense…plus after a heat soak (refueling) that could cause some problems.
^^^^^^^^^
what he said.

in pilot school (for powered flight anyway) they teach the three hells of flying......high, hot and humid. any of those three (or a combination of them) affect engine performance. while Havasu is only at about 500' MSL i bet the density altitude when its 110F is about the same as taking off from a 7000msl airport. then take into account someone that is loaded down with fuel, passengers and/or cargo.....its a recipe for disaster.
 

racektm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
223
Reaction score
310
Not being a pilot, it is hard to fathom how air temp could play a role on flying, but I know it is a thing. Whether or not this was a factor, I'm sure someday we will all find out. May the pilot rest in peace.
Its called density altitude, as the temperature rises, the air thins out, thinner air less lift, the airport sit around 782' above sea level, current temperature at the airport gives a density altitude of 3200' +-, the plane thinks it is at 3200', causing major lift issues.
 

ONE-A-DAY

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
16,731
Reaction score
21,275
^^^^^^^^^
what he said.

in pilot school (for powered flight anyway) they teach the three hells of flying......high, hot and humid. any of those three (or a combination of them) affect engine performance. while Havasu is only at about 500' MSL i bet the density altitude when its 110F is about the same as taking off from a 7000msl airport. then take into account someone that is loaded down with fuel, passengers and/or cargo.....its a recipe for disaster.
Not 100% sure if their was more than one on board. The local radio station this morning mentioned "victims" names wont be released until family notices have gone out. Then again, the Havasu news stations always deliver such accurate reporting so it may have been just a slip up.
 

rrrr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
18,910
A Cessna 177 makes 150hp on a good day…add heat, HP goes down and the air isn’t as dense…plus after a heat soak (refueling) that could cause some problems.

The incident aircraft was a 177RG, which has retractable landing gear and a fuel injected 200 HP Lycoming IO-360.

But the RG is still anemic, and on hot days with the related decrease in horsepower, the pilot must consider the density altitude when calculating takeoff performance.

For you non-aviation inmates, to relate to the effect of density altitude on performance of the aircraft, consider the physical altitude difference between Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Educated boaters know that the altitude of Powell reduces horsepower.

It's not unusual to change the prop to account for that difference. A higher density altitude the aircraft sees on a hot and humid day has the same effect as increased physical altitude.
 

2Driver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
13,132
Reaction score
18,049
Sad deal.

My wife was just up flying in a 177RG Saturday morning. Nice plane decent power, we've flown to Havasu in it in the heat before. There is a big lift as you come over the black asphalt at the end of the runway. There was that day anyway.
 

DUNEFLYER

The original DUNEFLYER of RDP 😁
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
615
Reaction score
1,303
Very sad deal..
I took off yesterday morning around 10:30am, it was already 100 degrees. My plane is turbo with 285hp, the turbo helped keep my hp up but nothing helps with the thinner air.
Longer ground roll and noticeably slower climb with hotter engine temps. I expected all of this and flew accordingly. I understand this person just refueled so he had a heat soaked engine and airframe, fuel vapor lock on take off is a real concern with these conditions. I will run my electric fuel pump under these conditions to keep full fuel pressure and help eliminate any vapor lock issues. I am unfamiliar with the 177RG systems, do they have an auxiliary electric fuel pump?
RIP...
 

PlanB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
2,648
Reaction score
4,232
Its called density altitude, as the temperature rises, the air thins out, thinner air less lift, the airport sit around 782' above sea level, current temperature at the airport gives a density altitude of 3200' +-, the plane thinks it is at 3200', causing major lift issues.


^^^ This. I flew from San Diego to Havasu in the summer years ago and the place I flew out of made me take a Cessna 150 instead of the 172 I usually flew. It was 79 degrees in SD and it was 113 when I landed in Havasu. I took on fuel and took off headed back towards SoCal and gaining altitude was a very slow process. Pretty sketchy taking off in those temps, especially in an underpowered airplane.
 
Last edited:

Cobalt232

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2018
Messages
708
Reaction score
842
Depending on what time it was, yesterday's DA would have been about 3600'. A 177RG's clean climb performance is over 900fpm at sea level at max weight, so it is no slouch.

Here is a great video on turnbacks or 'The impossible turn'. Very eye-opening with the Bonanza.

 

Cobalt232

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2018
Messages
708
Reaction score
842
Very sad deal..
I took off yesterday morning around 10:30am, it was already 100 degrees. My plane is turbo with 285hp, the turbo helped keep my hp up but nothing helps with the thinner air.
Longer ground roll and noticeably slower climb with hotter engine temps. I expected all of this and flew accordingly. I understand this person just refueled so he had a heat soaked engine and airframe, fuel vapor lock on take off is a real concern with these conditions. I will run my electric fuel pump under these conditions to keep full fuel pressure and help eliminate any vapor lock issues. I am unfamiliar with the 177RG systems, do they have an auxiliary electric fuel pump?
RIP...
Yes, the Cardinal does have an aux fuel pump.
 

Sleek-Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
10,710
Reaction score
11,160
Well, first off DA doesn't effect the wings so much as the engine output. Less HP = less climb performance.

Any number of reason for a return to the runway or a stall/spin out of a turn.

I doubt the temperature had much to do with the accident.
 

racektm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
223
Reaction score
310
Well, first off DA doesn't effect the wings so much as the engine output. Less HP = less climb performance.

Any number of reason for a return to the runway or a stall/spin out of a turn.

I doubt the temperature had much to do with the accident.
1631555113976.jpeg
 

SJP

WHTBRD
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
5,347
Very sad deal..
I took off yesterday morning around 10:30am, it was already 100 degrees. My plane is turbo with 285hp, the turbo helped keep my hp up but nothing helps with the thinner air.
Longer ground roll and noticeably slower climb with hotter engine temps. I expected all of this and flew accordingly. I understand this person just refueled so he had a heat soaked engine and airframe, fuel vapor lock on take off is a real concern with these conditions. I will run my electric fuel pump under these conditions to keep full fuel pressure and help eliminate any vapor lock issues. I am unfamiliar with the 177RG systems, do they have an auxiliary electric fuel pump?
RIP...

I took off @ 1:30 yesterday it was 110 - maybe a bit warmer DA was 3300. It think wind was 200 @ 7kts. Being that long of a runway he must have had issues like you alluded to vapor lock. I have left when it was warmer but yesterday felt really bad.
 

Cobalt232

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2018
Messages
708
Reaction score
842
I took off @ 1:30 yesterday it was 110 - maybe a bit warmer DA was 3300. It think wind was 200 @ 7kts. Being that long of a runway he must have had issues like you alluded to vapor lock. I have left when it was warmer but yesterday felt really bad.
Did you get 3300 from Foreflight?
 

Sleek-Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
10,710
Reaction score
11,160

True.

You have to get really up there in DA before temperatures starts to materially affect the lift wings produce. What people confuse is the increase in true airspeed versus indicated at higher DAs, and you normally see this in landing accidents more so than take-off. In laymen's terms the airplane will be covering the ground at a faster rate, lowering the angle of climb.

The rate of climb is almost all the direct affect of excess HP over what is needed to maintain level flight. In a normally aspirated engine, power falls off above standard conditions. Lower HP equals less climb performance. Pilots see this in a reduction in the rate of climb.

Still to early to even guess at what happened here. But the temperature, runway length and surround terrain are all easily within this model of airplanes capabilities.
 

racektm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
223
Reaction score
310
True.

You have to get really up there in DA before temperatures starts to materially affect the lift wings produce. What people confuse is the increase in true airspeed versus indicated at higher DAs, and you normally see this in landing accidents more so than take-off. In laymen's terms the airplane will be covering the ground at a faster rate, lowering the angle of climb.

The rate of climb is almost all the direct affect of excess HP over what is needed to maintain level flight. In a normally aspirated engine, power falls off above standard conditions. Lower HP equals less climb performance. Pilots see this in a reduction in the rate of climb.

Still to early to even guess at what happened here. But the temperature, runway length and surround terrain are all easily within this model of airplanes capabilities.
While I don't disagree in theory or what the POH states, I know from first hand experience that DA can severely affect the performance of any aircraft. I'm sure this pilot did all the calculations and planning required for his flight. Hopefully he received a weather briefing to warn him of any other weather related issues, but in any event, a sad deal for sure.
 

jones performance

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
2,121
Reaction score
2,266
looking at the flight data, it doesnt look like he got gas, he landed, taxi'd a bit then took off.
 

rrrr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
18,910
Well, first off DA doesn't effect the wings so much as the engine output. Less HP = less climb performance.

Any number of reason for a return to the runway or a stall/spin out of a turn.

I doubt the temperature had much to do with the accident.

As you know, it's called the "impossible turn" for good reason. Again, for non-flyers, when the donk quits right after takeoff, it's tempting to perform that low level, low airspeed 180° turn and land back on the departure runway. It requires some excellent piloting, close attention to the airspeed and bank angle, and enough altitude to make the turn.

But many pilots that attempt the maneuver aren't as skilled as they think they are. Not only that, they've never practiced the turn at a safe altitude, so they don't have any idea how to fly the maneuver. When an airplane is thrown into a steeply banked turn, the stall speed, which is the airspeed that the wing quits flying, increases.

Many times the pilot, desperate to complete the turn, inputs more aileron, and incorrectly applies more rudder. This makes the airplane stall, and because it's in a steep turn, it immediately turns into a spin.

Because the aircraft isn't very high to begin with, there's no chance of recovery. It impacts the ground with little forward motion, and the scene looks exactly like the photo posted above.

The aircraft makes a small impression on the ground because it's not going fast or moving forward. It's a wadded up ball of aluminum. If the impact doesn't kill the occupants, the post crash fire does.

Almost without exception, it's better to choose a landing spot straight ahead. A highway, a park, a golf course, a large parking lot, even the roof of a large distribution center. Most single engine planes have a stall speed going forward of just over 60 MPH. If the pilot can keep the aircraft under control at the minimum airspeed and hit the ground at that speed, chances are the crash will be survivable.

Compared to the stall/spin crash, the straight ahead course is the best choice. Some pilots try the turn because they think they can pull it off and save the plane from damage. This is the absolute worst reason to try it. The plane is a who gives a shit object when the penalty for incorrectly choosing the turn is death.
 
Last edited:

ONE-A-DAY

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
16,731
Reaction score
21,275
As you know, it's called the "impossible turn" for good reason. Again, for non-flyers, when the donk quits right after takeoff, it's tempting to perform that low level, low airspeed 180° turn and land back on the departure runway. It requires some excellent piloting, close attention to the airspeed and bank angle, and enough altitude to make the turn.

But many pilots that attempt the maneuver aren't as skilled as they think they are. Not only that, they've never practiced the turn at a safe altitude, so they don't have any idea how to fly the maneuver. When an airplane is thrown into a steeply banked turn, the stall speed, which is the airspeed that the wing quits flying, increases.

Many times the pilot, desperate to complete the turn, inputs more aileron, and incorrectly applies more rudder. This makes the airplane stall, and because it's in a steep turn, it immediately turns into a spin.

Because the aircraft isn't very high to begin with, there's no chance of recovery. It impacts the ground with little forward motion, and the scene looks exactly like the photo posted above.

The aircraft makes a small impression on the ground because it's not going fast or moving forward. It's a wadded up ball of aluminum. If the impact doesn't kill the occupants, the post crash fire does.

Almost without exception, it's better to choose a landing spot straight ahead. A highway, a park, a golf course, a large parking lot, even the roof of a large distribution center. Most single engine planes have a stall speed going forward of just over 60 MPH. If the pilot can keep the aircraft under control at the minimum airspeed and hit the ground at that speed, chances are the crash will be survivable.

Compared to the stall/spin crash, the straight ahead course is the best choice. Some pilots try the turn because they think they can pull it off and save the plane from damage. This is the absolute worst reason to try it. The plane is a who gives a shit object when the penalty for incorrectly choosing the turn is death.
Sad, there are many roads in that industrial park as well as the road up past Lowes to the dump. The one that crashed a few years ago on the other side of the 95 skidded in to a stop. That pilot must have figured the risks and opted to not do the turn.
 
Top