Early Analysis: N8845Z - Cessna 172 Forced Landing on Bridge May 14, 2022 Miami, FL 

I don't know the different parts of the engine, but it doesn't sound like anything was wrong with the various parts discussed in the preliminary report. Can someone who knows more about this provide insight on what might have been the issue?

I noticed in the report that the fuel selector was set BETWEEN the both tanks and the right tank setting. Anyone familiar enough with the 172 to know if this shuts the flow of fuel if the selector is between settings?

@@chuckschillingvideosI don’t think so, 172 has fuel tank in both wings and you can control which side you use more, it wouldn’t much problem. All tho…I thought to be set Both to fly.

​@@chuckschillingvideosthat shouldn't cause any issues, that's actually the normal setting while operating the engine. It just means that you're getting fuel from both the right and left fuel tank.

Second that! 💔 Even as someone not involved in aviation but keenly interested in public safety & failure analysis, Richard's contributions on this channel have helped reinforce many valuable lessons for me and highlighted key factors of safety-related psychology applicable regardless of profession, industry or activity. Many sympathetic condolences to his friends & family, and grateful thanks for the valuable legacy he leaves.

@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I get that, and as someone involved in aviation and who learned a lot from his videos this was the first accident that really made me have to spend real time deciding if it was worth it before I kept going. Hits really hard

Great advice

The advice on the bubbles is something I never considered till reading it a few years ago.

@@Great-Documentaries Absolutely. Nobody is saying land it ON the beach. You don't need to set it down a mile off coast either. Some common sense here.

I am wondering if that 90% also applies to a Cessna without a retractable undercarriage, as the wheels will touch the water first.

@@petervandentoorn376 He mentions that statistic is for fixed landing gear. He says high wing but corrects it on screen

Really?? His report is riddled with inaccurate information. He's actually telling people that if you have a high winged and fixed tricycle landing gear, that a water ditching will not result in the airplane flipping over and, in fact, lays a stat out there that 90% of water ditchings go off without the airplane flipping over. ??? Really?

@@On-Our-Radar-24News It is ironic that you are responding to AvWeb (and presumably Paul himself) who are the ones who actually looked at the accident data and came up with the stats. Do you have better info to the contrary? I suspect not. It’s the classic “I’ve heard this a bunch from my pilot friends so I am going to comment on it as if I know what I’m talking about”. Also, you’re misquoting. The stat is that 90% of ditchings are non-fatal, not that 90% don’t have the airplane flip over.

@@On-Our-Radar-24News Really???? Ask yourself that. This one flipped over and had a fatality and it was on land. I'd have gone for the water. Easier to dodge boats on the wider intercoastal/Biscayne Bay than cars on that bridge. I would also land into the wind and have flaps down. His 180 degree turn and choice of landing areas and leaving the flaps up all led to his death and injuries to others. Bad choice after bad choice after bad choice.

@@PuppyDogPilot This gentleman was a controller at Miami TRACON. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and reserve our judgment until more facts become available. It is easy for armchair pilots (as they are called) to question the pilot's decisions from the ground. However, the argument to the contrary can easily be made with the same vague information; one could conclude from the alternatives available to the pilot that his actions saved countless lives. At the end of the day, all survived except him, meaning he gave only his own life in his attempt to save everyone else's. Show a modicum of respect.

@@ridernotrunner Not sure how one can conclude that he saved countless lives when he almost killed a mom and her two kids. Sounds like endangering to me.

Great info there regarding wind direction and great comment overall.

Good call. I doubt a stressed pilot is going to know the wind direction however. Its cool that Garmins, and probably other, GPSes have the wind speed and direction on the front of the instrument. So lets see, if the guy could make stall speed at about 45kt, reduce it by another 8kt, we are down to 42.55MPH. Way betterer than what he was probably doing.

Imagine had he landed into the wind WITH 40 degrees of flaps.

Very good point. At ~2550lbs gross weight of a 172, going from 60 to 80 knots takes the kinetic energy from ~550kJ to ~978kJ. Massive difference.

I thought it was common knowledge to land with headwind if possible. Key words would be “if possible”. I think the pilot focused on one landing spot and stuck to it. Based on the commentary it sounded like he intentionally descended to target the landing spot. If he maintained glide speed he could have passed the bridge, turned around and landed with headwind instead?

Thank you for such a kind compliment.

You said it. We should learn, not judge.👍

@@ricardokowalski1579The tuition expense is less and the bad Karma is even worse.

Bad choices

I'm saddened that an innocent woman and her two small children were smashed head on into and injured by a guy flying a Cessna.

Better than the bridge

Wouldn't the beach be good or just in the water. If he had just gone straight he would have been 20 knots slower (had a 10 knot tail wind). If the beach was empty he could land on it, if the beach has people ditch in the water?

@@crissd8283 It was a Sat afternoon, great weather, that beach and the park surrounding it would have been packed...like the bridge and the roads feeding it.

May he rest in eternal peace

Need to survive and leave it to insurance.

@@NicholasLittlejohn Agree.

Maybe, maybe not. He had two passengers in the plane, and I would hope their safety was his primary concern over and above the financial aspect of the event (leaving out, for the moment, the question of the safety of those on the ground and on the beach). I don't think there will be any way to know what internal calculations the pilot was making as the event unfolded.

He was likely attempting to clear the bridge before setting down and by the time it was clear that he didn't have enough altitude to avoid setting down on the bridge, it was too late to matter. Remember that all the while he's probably looking around for traffic, structures, wires, poles, etc. I don't really fault a GA pilot for setting the max glide settings initially and then focusing on other things.

@@chuckschillingvideos Great point! However, if he would have just dumped flaps and flared, he may have survived, because it would have slowed him down before inevitable impact.

@@pegg00 --- He should have dumped in all the flaps, and either forgot or was just too busy to do it. I'm guessing under pressure he forgot (understandable) but yes, it probably would have made a world of difference, most likely saving him by largely decreasing the speed. Years ago, during a BFR, my instructor said, on short final, "your flaps don't work". I had landed flapless before, but this reminder got me into the habit of doing just that every once in a while. Be a little bit prepared for a little bit of everything!

@@smartysmarty1714 Yes I think that advice applies in non-emergency situations as it could lead to an unstable approach. But in an emergency like the video you need to get that speed down before slamming her down on the highway…

@@pegg00 --- You should probably re-read the first two sentences of my comment. The rest was just practice advice for other situations in general.

On a high wing, with fixed gear... you’ll be upside down on ditching

Thanks for the comment! We usually use MSFS for our Accident Case Study series. In this case, we thought it was best to use Google Earth Studio, because Google Earth Studio is more accurate when depicting real-life structures in city environments.

Exactly!!

Could it be that he was aiming at Haulover Park? 25.909422, -80.123375 Yes, (normal disclamer that I am *not* second guessing anybody) the golf course was a better option. But he had to commit to it as he completed the turn. Maybe he was focused on completing the turn, and had already decided to go to the Park that he had seen coming from the north. The math is close enough (?), 1200 ft at 8 to 1 ratio 9000 feet and change (1.7 miles) 1.8 miles from 90th street to the bridge Not a lot of time to think at 1200 ft over a populated area. Pilot is relaxed, second leg of the day, and the weather was great. Not complacency, just human limits.

@@ricardokowalski1579 its before the bridge and he started losing power its right there ... follow the ADSB

@@zackriden79 yes, the golf course is south of the bridge. And yes it was a better option. My comment is that he may have not seen the golf course, since he was coming from the north. Was he already fixated on the Park since he flew past it?

Thank you for that comment.

Very possible. They could've also added carb heat to try to help that but got spooked when it made the engine only run rougher as it naturally does, and turned the carb heat back off. I've been making sure my students don't forget carb heat in their emergency engine out flow and tell them the engine will run rougher, but that's temporary and aiding your issue.

Not a pilot here. Why don't you ALWAYS use carb heat

@@easternwoods4378 Depends on the engine type and installation. Carb heat reduces engine power slightly to moderately.

My question was related to this. I wonder if there is a “save the airplane“ bias. If the pilot would have known the 90% survival rate on a water ditch versus probability of fatality on road landing, it may have caused him to make a different decision. God rest his soul.

If the car was travelling at 60mph and the plane struck at 80 mph you have a 140mph collision. I'm curious why only the pilot died? Was he wearing a shoulder harness?

Plus tailwind

@@scottmoseley5122 I don't believe speeds combine like that.

@Nicholas Yup, the speed at which they are approaching each other would be a hefty 140 mph. They do "add up" or "subtract" but not always a straightforward addition or subtraction like you were taught in 2nd grade. The speed and direction of each is called a vector and vector addition uses trigonometry to find out what the result will be after they collide. It's useful for figuring out where pool balls will end up after they collide, or figuring out how hard to hit a pool ball and at what angle to make it go a certain distance and in a particular direction 🙂

@@NicholasLittlejohn Close enough even given the angles, wouldn't you say?

I will add one piece of advice about ditching in an engine-out situation that has been published for years but which very few know or understand. I first learned about it when doing a detailed study about the "Miracle on the Hudson" landing in 2009. When the NTSB put some pilots in the simulator afterwards to test out various scenarios, something interesting happened when they specifically tested ditching techniques. Sully's actual landing had a vertical rate at touchdown of 12.5 feet per second, or about 750 feet per minute, which puts the vertical rate about on par with a carrier landing. It had to be the hardest touchdown of his airline career. But in the simulator runs, all but one of the other pilots also had comparably hard landings. The one exception was by an Airbus test pilot who "used a technique that involved approaching the water at a high speed, leveling the airplane a few feet above the water [...], and then bleeding off the airspeed in ground effect until the airplane settled into the water." (page 50 of NTSB Accident Report AAR-10/03). This was also discussed on day 2 of the 3-day NTSB hearings. Because it's better to land "slow" than to land "fast", most pilots instinctively fly "slow" on final approach, but then don't have the energy reserve for the roundout. That's what happened to Sully and to all but one of the pilots in the simulator. It's counterintuitive to fly "fast" on final, but AS LONG AS YOU CAN ACCURATELY GAUGE YOUR HEIGHT ABOUT THE WATER, using this technique allows you to roundout and then hold it off, hold it off, hold it off, hold it off, touching down in a full-stall landing in essentially level flight, which is guaranteed to mean landing with as little kinetic energy as possible. This technique has actually been published for decades in the AIM. In section 6-3-3 (Ditching Procedures), near the end of the section, it says "If no power is available, a greater than normal approach speed should be used down to the flare-out." I will add the same caveat that I made above with the all-caps section: this is the technique to use AS LONG AS YOU CAN ACCURATELY GAUGE YOUR HEIGHT ABOVE THE WATER. At night or over open water without nearby visual references, a pilot cannot accurately gauge this and so should use a different technique (flaps full down, pitch trim at or near the full nose-up position), but when landing just off a Miami beach or in the Hudson River during daylight hours, this "fly fast so as to land slow" is the preferred technique and is the one I would use personally.

I'm not an expert in the RV12 but I was fortunate to have an exceptional CFI and we practiced 'what if' scenarios ad nauseum. The one thing that always stuck in my head was MAKE SURE THE DOOR IS UNLATCHED. He even encouraged me to shove a t shirt, rag, folded up cardboard, etc. into the door to ensure it won't close after impact. He said "Your job is to get out of the aircraft IMMEDIATELY and you don't want to be fumbling with door handles or latches after impact". I assume he'd advise you to ensure your canopy is unlatched and stays that way once you've made a decision to ditch.

@Perseus1275 we all have to manage risk. I avoid water for this very reason. I am more interested in the raw data to help someone decide on a water ditching vs landing in a 300ft long parking lot with a block wall at the end. When the engine quits at 400 ft on climb out.

@@zidoocfi this is the technique I use on ALL my landings that I teach. Fly it to the ground and then level off!

@@chuckgorman103 According to AvWeb you have a 90% survival rate for ditching. What are your odds on hitting a wall?

It flipped over, as was reported.

sadly, you are probably correct.

If that was the thought process, he put property over his life, and lost the bet. Always think human life over property.

@@cup_and_cone I completely understand and I think that You see all these videos of road landings Where the plane lands safely The plane is in perfect condition . If I was borrowing somebody's plane I think the thought would creep in your mind. Personally My flying career is young And I'm renting aircraft But the thought would still be there If I use the road the plane will be saved. No I don't live around water But after seeing the statistics on water ditching I would opt for that

@@hueginvieny7959 You're right, I think people see videos of planes landing on highways and think 'I'll do that if I'm ever in an emergency'. Which, by itself, is not a bad thought. But on a highly congested road, with other decent options, it's probably not a good idea. I often fly in rural areas and we have entire 4 lane highways that are rarely driven on and you can bet that's where I'd go....but given this pilot's situation -- landing into the wind (continuing south) along the beach (5-10 feet of water) was very likely survivable. It's easy to second guess his decision making but I wasn't there....I'll just say RIP and god bless him and thank goodness his pax survived.

You have obviously never been confronted with a REAL forced landing. From experience, let me assure you the ONLY criteria is survivability. If that criteria results in saving the plane, it’s just an after-the-fact bonus.

If you are experiencing an emergency, you can contact control, declare a mayday and will be given access to any and all airspace. You may have reams of paperwork to fill out afterwards but you'll most likely be alive to do so.

@@adotintheshark4848 Once the engine problem started, he wouldn't have been able to gain altitude.

He was likely flying at the altitude instructions given him by ATC. Miami is a fairly congested airspace.

True. I did all my training out west where the airspace is a lot less crowded, and I'd consistently cruise at 10,500 or 11,500 depending. I could practically make any field in the horizon if I had engine trouble; My only issue would have been an in flight fire, as I would be too high to ever make the ground in time. As for this tragedy, choosing to land with a tailwind and flaps up, along with not opening the doors prior to touchdown to aid egress, were 3 really tragic oversights by the PIC. I imagine had airspace not been a factor, and had he then flown higher, he would have had time to properly assess the situation with the experience he had. The low altitude was absolutely the biggest factor here.

Do you know what golf courses have LOTS OF? Trees. Lots and lots of trees. Trees are these tall, solid things that tend to break things that strike them.

@@chuckschillingvideos Except both Normandy and Indian Creek country club golf courses have plenty open spaces without trees, you know what's also solid and tends to damage things they come in contact with? Cars.

@@kennyr5906 Very true, but golf courses have the added complication of elevation changes (aka hills) and water features (aka lakes). I just don't think that golf courses are the ne pas ultra of off-airport landing sites like so many seem to think they are.

I believe he hit another red SUV and he squashed the front of it, so I don’t know what part of his plane hit the vehicle. He ended up upside down past that SUV.

They hit an SUV. The woman driving somehow couldn’t avoid the plane like every other car

@@jakeesco4573 American drivers are absolute shit. However your statement is still uncalled for. We know nothing.

@@jakeesco4573 She was AHEAD of the plane and there would have been no reason for her to expect that an airplane was running up on her. Sheesh. What is wrong with you?

or the light poles on either side

Roads are not designed with airplanes as a consideration.

Yep, then again it's not intended as an airstrip. These low medians are quite common and any pilot attempting to set a plane down on a roadway has to allow for the possibility of such obstructions, which he may or may not see before the decision point.

Just from a public safety planning perspective, I'm curious (and will go have a wee Google) as to whether there are any cities/towns with busy GA airports that DO plan out at least some of their big nearby arterial routes with potential emergency landings in mind...? 🤔 Presumably not feasible to eliminate the lightpoles & overpasses, but perhaps possible to increase minimum road-width and avoid central concrete islands etc...?

90% survival rate...

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UXEg1E6-ogs.html

Bad fuel? Based on what information you’ve gotten from your aluminum foil headset?

@@bw162 you can make fun of me I don't care but the vast majority of engine failures shortly after take-off are bad fuel relate a lot of them are water related sorry to hurt your feelings

@@zackriden79 You can't hurt my feelings with your preposterous claim you know for a fact it was fuel contamination with absolutely no evidence. And with over 20,000 hours I can tell you that it is highly unlikely it was contamination that long after takeoff unless he had just changed tanks to one that hadn't been used since it was refueled presumed to be before his last departure, and you don't know that either. P.S. I testified in a lawsuit involving a Cherokee 6 circa 1967. It was fuel contamination. There were rust rings in the fuel bowl. The pilot crashed it onto a street 3/4 of a mile from the departure end of the Bakersfield runway in California. I had an engine failure in a PA-30 5 miles from the departure runway because a mechanic hadn’t tightened the fuel line to the injector lines’ hub. I’ve had precautionary shutdown when a mag started to fail on a twin. And I had to make an emergency landing when a oil seal put oil all over the windshield outside of Grand Junction. There are lots of explanations and fuel contamination is the least likely IMO. And Zach, don’t make such statements as “he should have….”. No one has enough information to say what he should or shouldn’t have done. There any number of scenarios that may have prevented that. Are you omniscient to the point you can write the NTSB report now as to what caused the accident and what the pilot should have done?

Good question that shouldn’t go unanswered. Pilots are trained to shutoff the fuel valve, if possible, before a forced landing on or off an airport where no power is necessary or available for the best outcome. It is most important in the case of an engine fire during the emergency. If, as in this case, the aircraft was severely damaged on impact, it’s unlikely it would have made any difference. The fuel tanks in the wings appear to have suffered major destruction.

How would that have stopped a fire from fuel spilling out of a ruptured wing tank?