Columbia crash...opinions

[Kobra]

Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU

It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.

I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't have
been very heavy.

It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed first.

Very sad,

Kobra

[Toks Desalu]

I don't know. It is difficult to determine, but it look as if the plane was
overweighted. If the nose drop slowly to build up the airspeed, the plane
shouldn't lose much altitude. Bottom line, I agreed that the takeoff was
poorly executed. If you pay attention to people's clothing, no winds at all,
or very little.

Toks Desalu
PP-ASEL
Dyin' to Soar


...
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't
> have been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed
> first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra
>

[gwengler]

It's a 1977 182Q, s/n 18265867.
Gerd

[houstondan]

during take-off, he added a bunch of flaps and it looks, to me, like he
never could get out of ground effect and wouldn't (couldn't - trees?)
lower the nose for speed.

dan

[Robert M. Gary]

It would be interesting to get an estimate of the weight and temps etc.
I fly a Mooney through the high desert SW in the summer. The Mooney
requires a good amount of air over the wing before it really flys and
you really do need to have the stones to lower the nose and pick up
speed before you climb. Its not pitch attitude that makes you climb its
Vy.

-Robert

[Toks Desalu]

If you look at flap closely, you can determine that, he did follow standard
short field takeoff technique. Not like 40 degree flaps down. Also, based on
height distance between people and aircraft, I think he got out of ground
effect.

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> during take-off, he added a bunch of flaps and it looks, to me, like he
> never could get out of ground effect and wouldn't (couldn't - trees?)
> lower the nose for speed.
>
> dan
>

[Mike Granby]

Looks like he pitched up for his soft-field takeoff, and lost
directional control (through too much right rudder?) perhaps because he
lost his sight picture over the raised nose. He then ended up heading
towards the guys you see diving out of the way, so he had a choice
between staying low and taking their heads off with the prop, or
climbing over them and getting out of ground effect, after which he was
pretty much doomed.

[Mike Granby]

Looking at it again, I guess he had the option of pulling the power and
veering left before he got the crowd, even if it meant hitting trees on
the other side or ground looping the plane. But once he was comitted to
flying over them or hitting them, it was never going to end well. I
guess he might have enough room to stay in ground effect while stay
above the crowd, but it would have taken some balls to try it with all
those people down there.

[xyzzy]

Kobra wrote:
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't have
> been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra

What kind of player does this video use? It doesn't play in my IE and
there is no link on the page to download the player.

[Robert M. Gary]

>From the video its hard to tell if the prop was turning properly as
well. It may be the scan rate of the camera but the prop looked like it
was turning slow to me.

-Robert

[Peter R.]

Mike Granby > wrote:

> Looks like he pitched up for his soft-field takeoff, and lost
> directional control (through too much right rudder?) perhaps because he
> lost his sight picture over the raised nose. He then ended up heading
> towards the guys you see diving out of the way, so he had a choice
> between staying low and taking their heads off with the prop, or
> climbing over them and getting out of ground effect, after which he was
> pretty much doomed.

I agree. Also, it seemed to me that the minute he lost directional
control, the option of pulling power back to idle and aborting the takeoff
would have resulted in a bent aircraft.

--
Peter

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-03-29, Kobra > wrote:
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?

Maybe the passenger was interfering with the rudders? He was in quite
a slip as he went over the people on the ground. You could imagine
someone turning around to look into the back seat pressing or blocking
the rudder in an effort to twist around.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Mark Hansen]

On 03/29/06 15:17, Ben Jackson wrote:
> On 2006-03-29, Kobra > wrote:
>> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> Maybe the passenger was interfering with the rudders? He was in quite
> a slip as he went over the people on the ground. You could imagine
> someone turning around to look into the back seat pressing or blocking
> the rudder in an effort to twist around.
>

Hmmm, maybe. The person in the right seat was a small woman. I would think
the pilot would be able to come up with enough force to lift that woman with
his one leg.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[scott moore]

Kobra wrote:
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't have
> been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra
>
>

Speed. Looks like a very short takeoff without adequate flying speed.
The pilot may have felt he was about to plow the people in front, and
tried to get it off before it was ready. He actually did get it off,
but low and out of control.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't
> have been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed
> first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra

Looks like a loss of directional control on takeoff.

The pilot *might* have saved things by using left brake, rudder, and aileron
to avoid the pedestrians, but most of us (including myself) are not
practiced up on abrupt maneuvers at *almost* flying speed.

Once he lifted off, I think he was afraid to bank the aircraft and used
rudder to either bring the aircraft back to the runway centerline OR to make
a slight turn into the wind. That, or he completely forgot about the rudder
and P-factor put him into uncoordinated flight. He'd have done much better
keeping the airplane in coordinated flight - without the excess drag caused
by that slip, he might have reached a managable speed and flown away...
KB

[Mike Granby]

Someone elsewhere suggested that the gust lock might have been in
place, as you don't see the ailerons moving. I don't know enough about
Cessnas to say if this is very likely, and I can't tell from the video
whether any aileron input is noticable.

[Howard Nelson]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Someone elsewhere suggested that the gust lock might have been in
> place, as you don't see the ailerons moving. I don't know enough about
> Cessnas to say if this is very likely, and I can't tell from the video
> whether any aileron input is noticable.

Unlikely if it is OEM gust lock since it would block the key for starter and
magnetoes.

Howard

[BTIZ]

Look again, front seat passenger (adult), back seat passenger (adult male)
and I'm guessing that a litter with a medical patient behind the pilot, look
at the oxygen support and other medical supplies.

He was obviously heavy and not enough power available.
BT

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't
> have been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed
> first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra
>

[Frank Barchi]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't
> have been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed
> first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra
Looks to me like maybe an aft C.G. condition....
It appears the pilot never had control of the airplane.

Frank

[WRE]

Probably a couple a factors going on here...but impossible to tell just from
a video.

1. Weight
2. CG problem..probably aft...which would make rudder potentially worthless
3. High altitude and hot.....
4. Grass strip....lengthening takeoff roll.

My guess is the plane was probably over weight with a rearward CG. This
would explain the nose up attitude and yawing of the aircraft. In addition,
I don't think he lost dirrectional control...he never had it.

Perhaps he is always used to rotating at 60 kts. Throw in the above factors
and not only will the plane not fly....but it will be difficult to control.
His needed rotating speed adjust for weight, altitude, temp, winds, may have
been much higher....grass strip wouldn't help matters either.

JMHO

One last thing....as soon as the plane lifts off the ground the right wing
dips...this would tell me that for whatever reason he had insufficient
airspeed to make the wing generate lift.

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't
> have been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed
> first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra
>

[Icebound]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Kobra wrote:
>> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>>
....
>
> What kind of player does this video use? It doesn't play in my IE and
> there is no link on the page to download the player.
>

You probably have your security set too high, and disallow the necessary
Control.

[Montblack]

("BTIZ" wrote)
> Look again, front seat passenger (adult), back seat passenger (adult male)
> and I'm guessing that a litter with a medical patient behind the pilot,
> look at the oxygen support and other medical supplies.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU

Is that the same (crash) plane or a second plane?

When I saw the post-crash fire and smoke, and the people on the ground being
treated, I figured the crash plane was toast.


Montblack

[Greg Farris]

Looks to me like the flap setting may be "a little" more than usually used for
this type of takeoff, but not enough to be causal or contributing.

Hard to say much about speed from this type of video, but he looks slow.

Could be a problem with the C/S prop. The 182, with the prop at fine pitch
usually has abundant excess horsepower on takeoff. If he set the prop wrong, or
if it malfunctioned it could look like this.

Otherwise, as others have stated here, you'd have to know something about the
density altitude at the time, and the loading of the aircraft, as well as
whether the engine itself failed to develmop power.

GF

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-30, Mike Granby > wrote:
> Someone elsewhere suggested that the gust lock might have been in
> place, as you don't see the ailerons moving.

Unlikely. The standard Cessna gust lock locks the elevators in an almost
full nose-down position - it's improbable he'd have been able to raise
the nose at all. It just looks like a classic insufficient
airspeed/mush/stall accident.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Greg Farris > wrote:
: Looks to me like the flap setting may be "a little" more than usually used for
: this type of takeoff, but not enough to be causal or contributing.

: Hard to say much about speed from this type of video, but he looks slow.

: Could be a problem with the C/S prop. The 182, with the prop at fine pitch
: usually has abundant excess horsepower on takeoff. If he set the prop wrong, or
: if it malfunctioned it could look like this.

: Otherwise, as others have stated here, you'd have to know something about the
: density altitude at the time, and the loading of the aircraft, as well as
: whether the engine itself failed to develmop power.

True. It sure looks like a classic mush/stall though. He got airborne
too early, but with plenty of potential ground-effect acceleration space/time.
Between the partial stall with resulting wing drop, and perhaps seeing the people
ducking for cover, he tried to suck it up and over. Without ground effect to
accelerate, he got irrecoverably behind the power curve.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Mike Granby]

> CG problem..probably aft...which would
> make rudder potentially worthless.

Why? An aft CG will reduce the rudder's arm and increase the p-factor,
but it won't render it useless.

[Gary Drescher]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> Is that the same (crash) plane or a second plane?
>
> When I saw the post-crash fire and smoke, and the people on the ground
> being treated, I figured the crash plane was toast.

It's the same plane. The footage is in chronological order.

--Gary

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Could be a problem with the C/S prop. The 182, with the prop at fine pitch
> usually has abundant excess horsepower on takeoff. If he set the prop wrong,
> or if it malfunctioned it could look like this.


Don't see how he could have done that. Have you *ever* tried to take off with
the throttle(s) / prop(s) / mixture(s) not pushed full forward? Particularly on
a maximum effort takeoff? (Maybe holding back a little bit on a turbocharged
engine with the throttle as redline dictates).





--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Montblack]

("Gary Drescher" wrote)
> It's the same plane. The footage is in chronological order.


What was the distraught FRONT seat passenger saying - through her tears? She
did not appear happy.

Was she an injured passenger, too - before the crash?


Montblack

[Gary Drescher]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Gary Drescher" wrote)
>> It's the same plane. The footage is in chronological order.
>
> What was the distraught FRONT seat passenger saying - through her tears?
> She did not appear happy.

I don't know Spanish, so I can't tell. Perhaps she's crying because her son
is ill, or because she's afraid of small planes.

> Was she an injured passenger, too - before the crash?

No injury is apparent. (According to the accompanying text, the passengers
all died in the crash, and the pilot was critically burned.)

--Gary

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>He got airborne too early, but with plenty of potential ground-effect
>acceleration space/time. Between the partial stall with resulting wing drop,
>and perhaps seeing the people ducking for cover, he tried to suck it up and
>over. Without ground effect to accelerate, he got irrecoverably behind the
>power curve.
>
>-Cory

Maybe - but I generally consider that there's not *that* much ground effect
to worry about in these high-wing Cessnas. He got pretty high for that.

Sure doesn't look like fun.



In article >,
says...

>Don't see how he could have done that. Have you *ever* tried to take off with
>the throttle(s) / prop(s) / mixture(s) not pushed full forward? Particularly
>on a maximum effort takeoff? (Maybe holding back a little bit on a
>turbocharged engine with the throttle as redline dictates).


I agree - it sure seems intuitive to push everything to the firewall in such
a case - but then it seems intuitive as well to remove gust locks, yet some
pilots manage . . .

GF

[Al]

Yep, "Behind the power curve".

Al


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-30, Mike Granby > wrote:
>> Someone elsewhere suggested that the gust lock might have been in
>> place, as you don't see the ailerons moving.
>
> Unlikely. The standard Cessna gust lock locks the elevators in an almost
> full nose-down position - it's improbable he'd have been able to raise
> the nose at all. It just looks like a classic insufficient
> airspeed/mush/stall accident.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Robert M. Gary]

I"m not sure if I think this is really a weight issue. Yes, he may have
been over weight, but a C-182 (with a strong engine) will physically
take off and fly well over gross. Maybe he had too little runway and
tried to pull it into the air too soon? Again, the prop seemed to be
turning slow in the video, but I'm not a video expert and not familiar
with all the effects of the sample rate of the camera.

-Robert, CFI

[nrp]

Again, the prop seemed to be
> turning slow in the video, but I'm not a video expert and not familiar
> with all the effects of the sample rate of the camera.

I wonder if the audio track would give the engine RPM once averaged for
approaching and departing the camera location?

[Michael Ware]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-30, Mike Granby > wrote:
> > Someone elsewhere suggested that the gust lock might have been in
> > place, as you don't see the ailerons moving.
>
> Unlikely. The standard Cessna gust lock locks the elevators in an almost
> full nose-down position - it's improbable he'd have been able to raise
> the nose at all. It just looks like a classic insufficient
> airspeed/mush/stall accident.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

The factory control lock puts the elevator down about 10° from horizontal,
just enough to keep the wind from flipping the tail up. But you are right,
with it in place there is no way to rotate.

I think he just panicked and pulled back on the yoke.

[Juan Jimenez]

I thought you were talking about a crash of a Lancair Columbia. This took
place in Col-o-mbia and it looks like it was either overloaded, or he just
didn't have enough runway to get enough airspeed and get it out of there.
The flaps also appeared to be extended further than normal for a short field
takeoff.

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Check this clip out. What does everyone think happened here?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU
>
> It looks like a 182, so it had *some* muscle.
>
> I think it must have been hot, maybe a high elevation, loaded with fuel,
> people and equipment. But one passenger was a small boy so he couldn't
> have been very heavy.
>
> It also looks like a soft-field technique that was poorly executed and he
> lost directional control and didn't lower the nose to build airspeed
> first.
>
> Very sad,
>
> Kobra
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***