Seemed ages until the crash truck got foam on the wreck. Tough video to watch. R.I.P. Snort.

Having met Snort a few times, I appreciate people not diving down the wild speculation rabbit hole in this thread.

I saw this video last night and yes, it is hard to watch. Given what I said before, and I don't claim to know Snort as a 'friend' but I know quite a few that do, and the censuses is that he had been in much worse situations in the F-14 and other aircraft and was able to recover.

With that said it is clear from the audio that Snort knew he was in real trouble. The 'Why' is still unknown. Let's let the investigation bear that out.

Can someone explain the name given to the infamous "Banana Pass" by Captain Snodgrass?

Why "banana pass"?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Can someone explain the name given to the infamous "Banana Pass" by Captain Snodgrass?

Why "banana pass"?

He rolled to near 90 degrees and pulled, so the aircraft passed by in an arc, like a banana.

Change of Command flyby.
The only one I got to see do that.
Came in screaming off the deck with twin rooster tails behind him.

He was a good Man and excellent pilot.

some good stuff from Tomcat Tails

Crash That Killed Former Top Gun Naval Aviator Blamed on Control Lock

The failure to remove a control lock is blamed for the crash that killed airshow legend Dale “Snort” Snodgrass in Idaho last year.

According to the final report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released Thursday, the control lock was still installed when Snodgrass attempted to take off in his SIAI Marchetti from Nez Perce County Airport (KLWS) in Lewiston, Idaho. This prevented Snodgrass from lowering the nose when the aircraft pitched up aggressively after takeoff, then entered a stall-spin situation from which it was not recovered...

Complete article:

https://www.flyingmag.com/snod...remove-control-lock/

So what are we thinking? Did he somehow fail to perform his pre-flight checklist out of complacency?

He failed to remove the control lock, nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

So what are we thinking? Did he somehow fail to perform his pre-flight checklist out of complacency?

It happens. I trained a guy for his instrument rating, in my v-tail, and he subsequently bought a half interest in it.

One day, when he had accumulated close to 100 hours in the airplane, closing in on the point where the insurance premium would drop, I was at the hangar when he was preparing to depart for a business meeting in the Miami area.

I happened to glance outside as he got into the airplane, buckled in, and started to run the pre-start checklist.

I ran out, banged on the side of the airplane to get his attention, and signaled him to step out. He looked puzzled, asked "What's the matter?"

I told him to walk around the airplane and tell me if he spotted a problem.

He actually walked around, looked at everything, and said that it all looked fine.

Don't know how, but he missed the fact that the tow bar that he had used to pull the airplane out of the hangar was still attached to the nose wheel strut.

Not all planes have control locks. Some control locks kind of blend in. My understanding was that this plane was new to him. Nobody who isn't being a dick, probably unintentionally, would say he did it out of complacency. He has flown dozens and dozens of airplane types and there could be any number of reasons he missed this. Aviation is more dangerous than most things because the details can and will kill you. He made a mistake. We all have done so but this one turned out to be a fatal one. Calling him complacent is a mean kick to a dead guy who can't defend himself. You do know for sure that he failed to remove the control lock. That's it.

On checkrides, instructors purposely try to distract from checklists, flows, etc in an attempt to get you to realize that if you are ever distracted it is best to just start from the top again. I have watched lots of fantastic aviators skip things due to simple distractions. Not complacency or lack of skill, just because they thought they had already done it. It's easy to do. That is why we have checklists and second pilots and it still can happen.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
...Calling him complacent is a mean kick to a dead guy who can't defend himself. You do know for sure that he failed to remove the control lock. That's it.

Balze didn't call him complacent, he asked a question.
It's a reasonable question in my opinion.

No it isn’t. The only person who knows if it was complacency died in the crash.

All you know for sure is the control lock was in place. Anything else concerning complacency is merely conjecture. No one can answer the question accurately. So either accept the report or be a dick and call the dead man names knowing he can’t defend his name. It really is that simple.

I don’t think Balze meant disrespect to the dead but continue the line of inquiry and it is.

From what I read and saw in the video, it sounds like there was a mechanical lock on the control stick that prevented full movement of the control once it was airborne. What I find somewhat surprising and scary is that the plane could actually take off in that condition.

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

One of my all-time favorite quotes about aviation. It's sad that such a great aviator died from such a simple mistake.

I can't say I 'knew' Snort Snodgrass, but I did meet him several times at flying conferences. He was an amazing pilot. He lived what I considered to be a 'dream life' - flying warbirds all over the country as part of the USAF Heritage Flight.


I also don't consider it to be slander to imply, ask, or even state that he died due to complacency. I don't believe it is a dirty word or an accusation made against somebody who can't defend himself - it is a warning to others. Even the best pilots make mistakes. In this case, a single mistake cost Snort his life. I don't believe anybody here is casting aspersions on Snort for this mistake (nor am I), but it is a simple observation that even a child could make that complacency caused this crash. . .

In 1935, the Boeing Model 299 (the prototype for the hugely successful B-17 bomber) crashed, killing an Army pilot and Boeing's lead test pilot. Both pilots failed to notice the control lock was in place. The aircraft climbed at too steep an angle, the crew could not lower the nose (because of the lock), and the aircraft stalled and crashed. Very similar to what the video showed of Snort's crash. Historians have since stated the crew did not notice the lock due to complacency and over-confidence, since the 299 was such an amazing aircraft. They did not perform the usual pre-flight 'range of motion' exercises with the controls, which would have indicated the lock was engaged. These historians were not slandering the pilots - they simply stated the obvious.

https://aviation-safety.net/wi...ower%20died%20later.

Snort wasn't the first to make this mistake, and he won't be the last.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
No it isn’t.

Yes it is. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. If you have a problem with that then I guess that's too bad.

In any case, the NTSB was pretty clear in their assessment:

“Had the pilot completed a functional check of the controls before initiating takeoff, the presence of the lock would have been detected and the accident would have been prevented.”
-NTSB report

In other words, the pilot fucked up. Wondering aloud how someone as skilled and experienced as Dale Snodgrass is could make that mistake isn't unreasonable and isn't disrespecting the man. Shit happens even to the best of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
In 1935, the Boeing Model 299 (the prototype for the hugely successful B-17 bomber) crashed, killing an Army pilot and Boeing's lead test pilot. Both pilots failed to notice the control lock was in place. The aircraft climbed at too steep an angle, the crew could not lower the nose (because of the lock), and the aircraft stalled and crashed.

Student pilot here, and an engineer, so too anal and too new to flying to have become complacent with my checklists.

Analyzing and speculating this situation does not imply personal criticism of the pilot involved. I look at this as a teachable moment for student pilots and CFIs.

There are at least three checklist items (for the C150 that I fly) that would have avoided this (1. Control Lock – REMOVED & PLACED IN POCKET BEHIND SEAT; 2. Elevator – CHECK MOVEMENT; 3. Flight Controls – FREE & CORRECT).

I don't understand why the plane pitched up steeply with the control lock in. The lock should have prevented pitching up and down, no? I understand the initial takeoff roll will generate the speed to generate enough lift to rotate the plane with minimal pitch up, but how did the plane pitch up *steeply*?

ETA: I think I have it--just imagining sticking my hand out the window of a fast moving car. It doesn't take much pitch up to catch enough wind to rotate the plane and catch even more wind. Damn. What a helpless feeling the pilot must have felt.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

Student pilot here, and an engineer, so too anal and too new to flying to have become complacent with my checklists.

Analyzing and speculating this situation does not imply personal criticism of the pilot involved. I look at this as a teachable moment for student pilots and CFIs.

There are at least three checklist items (for the C150 that I fly) that would have avoided this (1. Control Lock – REMOVED & PLACED IN POCKET BEHIND SEAT; 2. Elevator – CHECK MOVEMENT; 3. Flight Controls – FREE & CORRECT).

I don't understand why the plane pitched up steeply with the control lock in.

Two points, re your post:

1. You are correct about the checklist. Checklists for most (all?) of the airplanes that I have flown include something like this. I teach checking for full travel with no restrictions, left-right and up-down for the yoke or stick, and similar with rudder pedals. A lot of checklists have this item grouped with the pre-takeoff checks, typically performed after taxiing to the run-up area near the runway. I do some rearranging, and put this item in the pre-engine start group. Makes more sense to me, why even start the engine and taxi away from the parking area if there is a problem that can be detected prior to start?
   
   
2. Your second point, re the pitch-up -- some control locks will hold the elevator in a nose-up position. I am not familiar with the airplane that had the fatal crash that we are discussing, but there are certainly many airplanes that will pitch up with the control lock installed.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Your second point, re the pitch-up -- some control locks will hold the elevator in a nose-up position. I am not familiar with the airplane that had the fatal crash that we are discussing, but there are certainly many airplanes that will pitch up with the control lock installed.[/list]

I don't know how relevant this is, but this is EXACTLY what happened to the Model 299. Elevator was locked in the 'climb' position. Had it been locked in either the neutral or down position, it could have never left the ground. Locked all the way back, the pilot would have noticed, as it would have made it difficult to reach his seat.

History doesn't 'repeat,' per se, but we can learn a lot from past mistakes.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Don't know how, but he missed the fact that the tow bar that he had used to pull the airplane out of the hangar was still attached to the nose wheel strut.

Back when I was flying and working on airplanes, I worked with an experienced A&P mechanic and pilot, with an aeronautical engineering degree. He was intelligent and accomplished pro, but a bit of a jerk and delighted in taking shots at me over minor mistakes and questions.

One day, after completing work on a plane he towed it out of the hangar, jumped in, and was getting ready to start it to taxi it to its designated tie-down spot, when I noticed the tow bar still attached. I stopped him and was only all too happy to 'return the favor' and give him some good-natured grief over this rookie mistake.

quote:

[Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I also don't consider it to be slander to imply, ask, or even state that he died due to complacency. I don't believe it is a dirty word or an accusation made against somebody who can't defend himself - it is a warning to others. Even the best pilots make mistakes. In this case, a single mistake cost Snort his life. I don't believe anybody here is casting aspersions on Snort for this mistake (nor am I), but it is a simple observation that even a child could make that complacency caused this crash.

Agreed. This tragedy does nothing to diminish Capt. Snodgrass' service, accomplishments, or illustrious flying career. But, he's gone and we can't bring him back. Whether an amateur or pro, the best we can do is learn from the mistakes that led to this tragedy, and try to remind ourselves not to repeat them.

Whether a legendary pilot or shooter, or a race car driver, or machine operator or animal control specialist, complacency often kills or leads to injury or damage.

I've lost friends and fellow aviators and witnessed some close calls, and often complacency and/or mistakes were involved. They are missed, but we respectfully discuss what went wrong so that we, the living, can learn from their mistakes. I also have a few friends that were lucky enough to walk away from mistakes, and go on to learn from them.

Fellow pros and enthusiasts should be able to discuss such things without intending disrespect or insult.

quote:

[Originally posted by Keystoner]
I don't understand why the plane pitched up steeply with the control lock in. The lock should have prevented pitching up and down, no? I understand the initial takeoff roll will generate the speed to generate enough lift to rotate the plane with minimal pitch up, but how did the plane pitch up *steeply*?

ETA: I think I have it--just imagining sticking my hand out the window of a fast moving car. It doesn't take much pitch up to catch enough wind to rotate the plane and catch even more wind. Damn. What a helpless feeling the pilot must have felt.

Bingo, you figured it right. As V-tail points out, some control locks lock the elevator up.

For purposes of this discussion it's worth mentioning that there are different types of control locks.

I knew one aircraft owner who fabricated his own homemade control locks using a couple strips of wood that clamped the ailerons to the wing and the elevator to the stabilizer. A proper pre-flight inspection should have reminded a pilot to remove these external locks.

There are the removable wire rod type control locks that have a warning placard attached that require that the yoke be pulled back to align the hole in the control tube to lock the aileron and elevator. These are intentionally positioned to interfere with normal yoke manipulation as a reminder to remove them before taxiing, and should be noticed during the preflight checklist.

When storms or gusty winds hit, we often used 4 point harnesses or lap belts to lock the stick back in the fully aft (up elevator) position. Even if a pilot failed to perform a pre-flight checklist, it's virtually impossible for a pilot to seat himself/ herself with the harness fastened and the stick fully aft.

I don't have any experience with the Marchetti, but watching the Blanco video breakdown and reading the above NTSB report article posted above, it obviously uses an integrated control lock that is a physical part of the aircraft. This particular lock has the advantage in that a pilot can't forget or lose it, but it can be more difficult to see or remember to disengage, confirmed by the pilot in the story that managed to take off before realizing the control lock was still engaged and had to struggle against control forces to disengage it in flight.

This particular control lock design doesn't lock the rudder or tailwheel which undoubtedly gave Capt. Snodgrass a false sense of confidence when he successfully taxied the aircraft. 'I mean, if the rudder and tailwheel move freely and I can successfully taxi an airplane, then the controls must be working correctly. Right?' Wrong.

If the designer of this particular control lock had incorporated a rudder and/ or tailwheel lock it would have provided instant feedback to the pilot that the lock was still engaged...but I'm guessing that would involve extra complications to the design, extra weight to the mechanism, and created increased cost.

Thanks for the memories Snort.