Bonanza crash caught on video

[Jay Honeck]

http://fox40.trb.com/

In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
side.

It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul kgyy]

Good grief, I hate to see that kind of stuff, turns my stomach.

Guess I shouldn't follow links like this.

Might have caught some downdraft from the trees, too. - usual second
guesses.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.

Matt

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

What's horrifying is how everything looks fine and then suddenly goes all
wrong.

Recent experience gives me a lot of empathy with this situation. Never
hesitate to abort the instant you have any doubt about the success of a
takeoff.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Aug 31, 7:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Who in their right mind would attempt a downwind, short field take-off
at high-density altitude into rising terrain? Just thinking about it
makes me pucker. What was this guy thinking? You can tell he had a
fair amount of a tail-wind by the movement of the tree branches in the
foreground.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

>http://fox40.trb.com/

>It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

From this link I would not say that it was a high DA airport.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61

Downwind? I just could not tell from the vegetation moving and I
never saw a windsock.

It did appear as though he was rapidly approaching the end of pavement
and may have lifted off with minimal airspeed. Note the wings soon
after liftoff and then right before the impact with terrain.

Shouldn't 4000' be enough at that elevation for that aircraft?

Ron Lee

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
If this was the case, you can add 4 people into the weight and balance.
No telling how much fuel he had in the tanks; assuming they were full
you can add that as well. It's been a long time but 74 gals rings a bell.
Truly sad.
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mike Granby]

> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter

Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
engine splutter...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 31, 7:27 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> >http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> > In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> > airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> > had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> > to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> > side.
>
> > It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> > altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Who in their right mind would attempt a downwind, short field take-off
> at high-density altitude into rising terrain? Just thinking about it
> makes me pucker. What was this guy thinking? You can tell he had a
> fair amount of a tail-wind by the movement of the tree branches in the
> foreground.

Its not a shorf field by any stretch. The altitude at our airport is
1200'.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
> > Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>
> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
> engine splutter...

All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
They don't sound like BMV engines.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 31, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> > In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> > airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> > had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> > to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> > side.
>
> > It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> > altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>
> Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
> he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
> did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
> witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
> leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.
>
> Matt

Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
density couldn't have been monsterous.

-Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> Downwind? I just could not tell from the vegetation moving and I
> never saw a windsock.

The reporter (or was it someone that he interviewed?) said that it was
downwind.
>
> It did appear as though he was rapidly approaching the end of pavement
> and may have lifted off with minimal airspeed. Note the wings soon
> after liftoff and then right before the impact with terrain.
>
> Shouldn't 4000' be enough at that elevation for that aircraft?

He could have had full fuel and too much passenger weight. One witness said
he heard the engine miss, but you never know if that is accurate, or not.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --

Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the rest
of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.

[NoneYa]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>
>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>> side.
>>
>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>> --
>
> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the rest
> of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
>
>

No flaps!! No lift!!

[Jack Allison]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
> density couldn't have been monsterous.
>
> -Robert
>

A guy from the Cherokee Pilot's Association calculated DA at 4500. Not
sure where he got the relevant info...maybe there's a local weather
reporting station at someone's house in the area. Higher DA than normal
but no, definitely not HUGE.

I'm always using two notches of flaps in the Arrow when taking off from
3-4K ft. runways, any significant DA, or terrain such as exists at
Cameron Park.

This one will be interesting to follow up with when the NTSB report
comes out.

Sparky Imeson's rule of thumb here is a good reminder. He states that
you should have 71% of your takeoff speed at the halfway point of the
runway or abort the takeoff.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 31, 9:49 pm, NoneYa > wrote:

> No flaps!! No lift!!- Hide quoted text -

Keep flapping.

[Dave Doe]

In article >, says...
> Maxwell wrote:
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> >> http://fox40.trb.com/
> >>
> >> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> >> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> >> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> >> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> >> side.
> >>
> >> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> >> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> >> --
> >
> > Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the rest
> > of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
> >
> >
>
> No flaps!! No lift!!

Lots of flaps, lots of drag!!

--
Duncan

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 09:40:01p, Mike Granby
> wrote:

> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
> engine splutter...

Yeah, they would hear the engine sputter even if it was a crash of a
glider.

You have to wonder on cases like this if it wasn't that they heard the
engine sputter as the prop started chewing up the terrain.

Sounds like it was a case of, "Come on baby... Come on... You can make
it... A little more... Ahhh ****!"

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 11:26:15p, "Maxwell"
> wrote:

> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the
> rest of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.

Well, considering the outcome, he couldn't have really decreased his odds.
Oh well, hindsight is 20/20, right?

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Just looking at the video, it did not look like he kept his right boot
firmly enough on the rudder pedal. This is in addition to the possible
issues of gross weight, mixture, and direction of takeoff which were
previously mentioned.

Peter

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa >
wrote:

>Maxwell wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>>
>>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>>> side.
>>>
>>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>>> --
>>
>> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the rest
>> of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
>>
>>
>
>No flaps!! No lift!!

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:40:01 -0700, Mike Granby >
wrote:

>
>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>
>Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>engine splutter...


My thoughts exactly. You could sell that person as stock footage.

[Zaroc Stone]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:44:54 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>http://fox40.trb.com/
>
>In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>side.
>
>It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>
Cameron Park is 1287' from Sea Level. There is probably more of an
issue here than density altitude. I have flown in and out of
Leadville, Colorado and at 9,927' is the highest airport in the US.
Try flying out of there with 3 people in a Piper Cherokee (140).

Here is Cameron Park:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61

[Zaroc Stone]

Here's the aircraft, Roger. It was an A-36:

Check for printing
N-number : N1098F
Aircraft Serial Number : E-3059
Aircraft Manufacturer : RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Model : A36
Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
Model : IO-550 SERIES
Aircraft Year : 1996
Owner Name : AEROMETALS LLC
Owner Address : C/O MR WALTER NORWOOD
: 2202 W CHARLESTON BLVD STE 7
LAS VEGAS, NV, 89102
Type of Owner : Corporation
Registration Date : 03-Jul-2001
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard
Approved Operations : Utility


On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:56:17 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa >
>wrote:
>
>>Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>>>
>>>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>>>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>>>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>>>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>>>> side.
>>>>
>>>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>>>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the rest
>>> of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No flaps!! No lift!!
>
>Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
>this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
>feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
>high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.
>
>As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
>it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
>the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
>1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
>and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
>lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.
>
>They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
>as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
>could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.
>
>Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
>in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
>and a *light* tail wind.
>
>I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
>strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
>home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
>heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
>runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
>right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
>up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
>did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
>they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
>they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
>statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
>down, they'd never have made it.
>
>I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
>reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.
>
>Roger

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>> > Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>>
>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>> engine splutter...

> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
> They don't sound like BMV engines.

Is it possible the pilot decided to abort after he was airborne? The engine
sounded strong and the airplane came off fine at rotation, then it seems to
run out of steam. Or was that simply due to its climbing out of ground
effect?


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ps.com...
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Looks like the max temp yesterday was 98°f, pressure was 29.8 or so, winds were out of the south or south-south west.
Don't know what time this happened.
(http://www.weatherunderground.com/history/airport/KMHR/2007/8/31/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA)

DA, worst case was 4360' (http://www.airspace-v.com/ggadgets/densityAltitude.htm)

Also looks like they were taking off 13, so they had a right cross wind.
(http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61)

Don't have a takeoff performance chart for that plane...

[Jay Honeck]

> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
> this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" <wrote
>
> Is it possible the pilot decided to abort after he was airborne?
Surely not. There was not a place to land, anywhere. Plus, he did not push
the nose down, at all.

> The engine sounded strong and the airplane came off fine at rotation, then
> it seems to run out of steam. Or was that simply due to its climbing out
> of ground effect?

That would be my guess. It also looked to me like he pulled the nose up, a
tiny bit more, and without the ground effect, that was all it took to get on
the back side of the power curve.

That in itself is a good lesson to be learned. Try to practice recognizing
the back side of the power curve, in slow flight.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> I'm voting for overweight.
> After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane
> mushing
> and stalling trying to climb.
>
> I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said
> how
> many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should
> climb out
> just fine.

Three survivors and one dead, is what was said, along with a light wind
downwind takeoff. The pictures appeared to me to be anything but light,
from how much the trees were moving. My guess is 10 to 15 knots, with gusts
higher.
--
Jim in NC

[quietguy]

On Sep 1, 7:42 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
> use flaps for departure.
>
> I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
> unnecessary?
>
Don't know about the Bonanza, but the Cessna 150 I learned in didn't
use them either unless the field was short, soft or rough -- and even
then the POH said not to use flaps if there was a significant obstacle
to clear. The reduction in distance-to-clear from a shorter takeoff
roll was more than compensated for by the poorer climb rate with even
10 deg of flap. For some airplanes the drag from any amount of flap
deployment really saps power.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 31, 8:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I watched it a couple of times...

I wouldnt discount that he caught some sort of sheer or something else
coming over the terrain.

A lot depends on how he was loaded and the DA...but there could be
other factors.

Robert

[Peter Dohm]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa >
> wrote:
>
> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
> this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.
>
> As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
> it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
> the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
> 1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
> and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
> lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.
>
> They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
> as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
> could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.
>
> Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
> in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
> and a *light* tail wind.
>
> I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
> strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
> home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
> heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
> runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
> right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
> up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
> did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
> they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
> they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
> statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
> down, they'd never have made it.
>
> I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
> reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.
>
> Roger

Taking the last item first; yes, it is very possible. One day, about 25
years ago, I was out with an instructor practicing in a Cessna 150M. The
wind was nearly 20KTS and he, being a bit of a "good ol' boy", elected to
demonstrate a downwind touch and go. The terrain is southeastern Florida is
*very* flat, with the usual urban ground clutter sticking up, so it is
fairly easy to have a fairly sharp gradient in the wind as you climb out of
ground effect--which works in your favor when you go the right direction,
but... He had been away for about a month, and flying only twins which have
almost no p-factor with all engines running. As we reached the top of
ground effect, rapidly losiing airspeed and in a wings-level left turn, he
announced: "We're in trouble!" To which I responded: "We're also in a
hell of a right slip!" He then got his right boot down firmly on the rudder
pedal, and we flew away without further incident--although there were no
more downwing touch and goes!

The temperature and humidity appear to have been sufficient to give plenty
of importance to a DA calculation--I know that it is always required--and
probably enough to suggest a fudge factor for the effect of humidity on
available power and required mixture.

The same Fox station had historical weather in Sacremento available, so here
is the range of weather for yesterday, August 31, 2007:

Temperature
Mean Temperature 85 °F 74 °F
Max Temperature 99 °F 90 °F 104 °F (1998)
Min Temperature 71 °F 57 °F 50 °F (1957)
Degree Days
Heating Degree Days 0 0
Month to date heating degree days 0 0
Since 1 July heating degree days 0 0
Cooling Degree Days 20 9
Month to date cooling degree days 329 303
Year to date cooling degree days 979 967
Growing Degree Days 36 (Base - )
Moisture
Dew Point 56 °F
Average Humidity 43
Maximum Humidity 61
Minimum Humidity 24
Precipitation
Precipitation 0.00 in 0.01 in 0.11 in (1964)
Month to date precipitation 0.00 0.06
Year to date precipitation 6.60 12.04
Since 1 July precipitation 0.01 0.11
Snow
Snow 0.00 in - - ()
Month to date snowfall 0.0
Since 1 July snowfall 0.0
Snow Depth 0.00 in
Wind
Wind Speed 5 mph
Max Wind Speed 15 mph
Max Gust Speed 18 mph
Visibility 10 miles
Key: T is trace of precipitation, MM is missing value
Source: NWS Daily Summary

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> I'm voting for overweight.
> After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane
mushing
> and stalling trying to climb.
>
> I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said
how
> many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should
climb out
> just fine.
>
>
>
> What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
> pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I
grew
> up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
> students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show
gory,
> shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future
drivers.
> They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel
it
> was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially
> acceptable. . .
>
Probably because of political correctness.

I presume that the level of effectiveness was related to how well the causes
were known, and how well the decision tree was reconstructed. If they tried
to fill in too much data that they did not fully verify, or tried too hard
to make a point, then their credibility was lost. OTOH, if they avoided
reaching too far, or preaching too much, they could have substituted for a
lot of life experience. I don't know which they really did, but since they
should have had more than enough cases to choose from, I suspect a sort of
middle ground.

Peter

[NoneYa]

Really-Old-Fart wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 09:40:01p, Mike Granby
> > wrote:
>
>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>> engine splutter...
>
> Yeah, they would hear the engine sputter even if it was a crash of a
> glider.
>
> You have to wonder on cases like this if it wasn't that they heard the
> engine sputter as the prop started chewing up the terrain.
>
> Sounds like it was a case of, "Come on baby... Come on... You can make
> it... A little more... Ahhh ****!"

You got it! Ahhhh ****!!!

[Aluckyguess]

I was at a poker run a week ago in my A36 with 5 people we took off at BNG
(banning) we were behind a Cherokee 140. We watched the 140 almost crash. I
got on the radio and asked if he was in trouble he replied back yes. I told
him keep the nose down 3 or 4 times as i was watching him. He made it thank
god. My Bonanza has a 1450 useful load with the 5 people and not much fuel
we took right off with no problems.
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa >
> wrote:
>
>>Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>>>
>>>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>>>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>>>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>>>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>>>> side.
>>>>
>>>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>>>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the
>>> rest
>>> of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No flaps!! No lift!!
>
> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
> this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.
>
> As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
> it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
> the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
> 1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
> and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
> lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.
>
> They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
> as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
> could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.
>
> Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
> in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
> and a *light* tail wind.
>
> I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
> strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
> home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
> heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
> runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
> right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
> up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
> did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
> they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
> they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
> statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
> down, they'd never have made it.
>
> I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
> reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.
>
> Roger

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 31, 11:36 pm, "Really-Old-Fart" >
wrote:

> You have to wonder on cases like this if it wasn't that they heard the
> engine sputter as the prop started chewing up the terrain.

No, all airplane engines sputter. Just park your BMV next to your
airplane and compare the sounds.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 5:38 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:

> Looks like the max temp yesterday was 98°f, pressure was 29.8 or so, winds were out of the south or south-south west.

There are no reported winds at that airport and I've never, ever seen
the winds there be the same as in the valley. If you are looking at
temps and wind directions from the sacramento area (which is what you
get on weather.com, etc) you can throw those in the round file. We're
always a bit cooler than Sac and the winds could never be the same
because there is a foothill range between the two and a 1000 foot
elevation difference. You guys on this board are as bad as the people
on the news with wild &*($ guesses that are useless.

> Also looks like they were taking off 13, so they had a right cross wind.
> (http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61)

No, it was 31.

-Robert

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
>> this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
>> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
>> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.
>
> That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
> use flaps for departure.
>
> I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
> unnecessary?

Both Vx and Vy for virtually all light aircraft are without flaps.



The only time a POH will recommend flaps for takeoff is short field, and
then the speed used is a speed below Vx. This is a speed to clear close in
obstacles and does not result in best angle of climb. It is a compromise
speed used because the short field distance doesn't allow the aircraft to
accelerate to the greater Vx speed.



You might call this "compromise" with flaps speed Vxwithflaps, but they
don't.



Mostly the aircraft that have this "lower than Vx with flaps speed" used for
takeoff have fairly powerful engines. My Cessna 185, for instance has this
speed published and the POH shows 20deg flaps for short field. But once past
the close in obstacles one should accelerate to Vx and raise the flaps to
clear far obstacles.



If the airspeed is in the green arc, the airplane will climb better without
flaps.



Karl

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
\
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

Most takeoffs are downwind because the socks at each end of the field
usually face away from each other. Do you want downwind 13 or downwind
31?? High-density altitude airport? If this wasn't so sad, I'd laugh
at that comment. Its amazing how much ignorant statements you see from
pilots, often worse than the news.

-Robert

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mike Granby > said:
>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>
>Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>engine splutter...

Have you ever noticed how much the engine note changes as a plane taxis
or takes off past you? You get very different engine noises depending on
whether the prop is moving towards you or away from you. It's no wonder
naive observers think the engine was spluttering or dying.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....if Paul's really talking about truly average people, then they'd probably
die in either case, because common sense isn't.
-- Derick Siddoway

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>> engine splutter...
>
> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
> They don't sound like BMV engines.
>

Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
isn't running well.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
>> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>>> engine splutter...
>
>> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
>> They don't sound like BMV engines.
>
> Is it possible the pilot decided to abort after he was airborne? The engine
> sounded strong and the airplane came off fine at rotation, then it seems to
> run out of steam. Or was that simply due to its climbing out of ground
> effect?

It definitely wasn't obvious from the vantage point of the camera.
Could have been wind shear, coming out of ground effect too soon, engine
trouble, etc.

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 8:34 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
> >>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
> >> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
> >> engine splutter...
>
> > All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
> > They don't sound like BMV engines.
>
> Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
> isn't running well.

So what? You've probably be near a running airplane engine. If you
think that the common layperson can tell the difference between a good
running airplane engine and bad running one than you should follow
Alice to Wonderland.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Aug 31, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>>> side.
>>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>> Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
>> he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
>> did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
>> witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
>> leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
> density couldn't have been monsterous.

Well, at 90 degrees with an altimeter setting of 30.00 inches (I don't
know what it was, this is just a guess) and a dewpoint of say 60 degrees
(again just a guess), the density altitude is 3600 ft. This gives a
substantial performance loss compared to sea level STP conditions. If
he was at gross and really was taking off downwind, this could well have
been enough to remove his margin.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jack Allison wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
>> density couldn't have been monsterous.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
> A guy from the Cherokee Pilot's Association calculated DA at 4500. Not
> sure where he got the relevant info...maybe there's a local weather
> reporting station at someone's house in the area. Higher DA than normal
> but no, definitely not HUGE.
>
> I'm always using two notches of flaps in the Arrow when taking off from
> 3-4K ft. runways, any significant DA, or terrain such as exists at
> Cameron Park.
>
> This one will be interesting to follow up with when the NTSB report
> comes out.
>
> Sparky Imeson's rule of thumb here is a good reminder. He states that
> you should have 71% of your takeoff speed at the halfway point of the
> runway or abort the takeoff.

My rule with the 182 was to be in the air by the halfway point. It was
a very easy rule to follow.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>
> What's horrifying is how everything looks fine and then suddenly goes all
> wrong.

Yes, that was my first reaction also. The airplane appeared to pass the
camera with good speed, good acceleration and a good engine sound. It
was incredulous to watch it go so wrong.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
> pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I grew
> up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
> students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show gory,
> shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future drivers.
> They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel it
> was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially
> acceptable. . .

I think it's too dramatically different from everyday experience, so the
people watching the gory pictures tend not to identify with them, so they
really don't have much effect.

There's always the danger of being too over-the-top in safety warnings, such
that people realize how improbable or exaggerated the risks are and then fail
to pay attention to the parts that are truly relevant.

[Matt Whiting]

NoneYa wrote:
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>>
>>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>>> side.
>>>
>>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>>> --
>>
>> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the
>> rest of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
>>
>>
>
> No flaps!! No lift!!

No brain! Dumb post!!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 8:41 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>>http://fox40.trb.com/
> >>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> >>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> >>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> >>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> >>> side.
> >>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> >>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> >> Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
> >> he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
> >> did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
> >> witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
> >> leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.
>
> >> Matt
>
> > Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
> > density couldn't have been monsterous.
>
> Well, at 90 degrees with an altimeter setting of 30.00 inches (I don't
> know what it was, this is just a guess) and a dewpoint of say 60 degrees
> (again just a guess), the density altitude is 3600 ft. This gives a
> substantial performance loss compared to sea level STP conditions. If
> he was at gross and really was taking off downwind, this could well have
> been enough to remove his margin.

I"m not sure where you fly out of but for most of us 3600' density
altitude with 4000' of runway it not considered close. I take off out
of there with 4 on board, a week's worth of luggage and enough fuel to
reach Mexico or Canada (usually downwind because the socks on each end
usually face away from each other). In short, this airport provides
*LOTS AND LOTS* of margin, this is not a short-field or a "high-
density altitude" airport by any stretch! BTW The pilot held a Comm,
CFI, and A&P.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Airbus wrote:
> I'm voting for overweight.
> After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane mushing
> and stalling trying to climb.
>
> I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said how
> many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should climb out
> just fine.
>
>
>
> What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
> pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I grew
> up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
> students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show gory,
> shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future drivers.
> They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel it
> was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially
> acceptable. . .

I think it is useful, but only once you know for sure what happened.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Most takeoffs are downwind because the socks at each end of the field
> usually face away from each other. Do you want downwind 13 or downwind
> 31?? High-density altitude airport? If this wasn't so sad, I'd laugh
> at that comment. Its amazing how much ignorant statements you see from
> pilots, often worse than the news.

My guess, from watching the video and hearing about the number of people
aboard, was that the aircraft was overloaded. And the only reason anyone died
was probably that the plane flipped over, otherwise they might have all walked
away from it.

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Airbus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm voting for overweight.
>> After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane
>> mushing
>> and stalling trying to climb.
>>
>> I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said
>> how
>> many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should
>> climb out
>> just fine.
>
> Three survivors and one dead, is what was said, along with a light wind
> downwind takeoff. The pictures appeared to me to be anything but light,
> from how much the trees were moving. My guess is 10 to 15 knots, with gusts
> higher.

And wind slows as it nears the ground, so a 5 knot tailwind on the
runway, could well be increasing significantly with altitude. It will
be interesting to see the NTSB report.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
>> this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
>> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
>> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.
>
> That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
> use flaps for departure.
>
> I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
> unnecessary?

I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
high rate. The Arrow I last flew seemed to add little lift and some
drag once past 20 degrees, but added neither the lift nor the drag of
the much more effective Cessna flaps.

I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

quietguy wrote:
> On Sep 1, 7:42 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
>> use flaps for departure.
>>
>> I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
>> unnecessary?
>>
> Don't know about the Bonanza, but the Cessna 150 I learned in didn't
> use them either unless the field was short, soft or rough -- and even
> then the POH said not to use flaps if there was a significant obstacle
> to clear. The reduction in distance-to-clear from a shorter takeoff
> roll was more than compensated for by the poorer climb rate with even
> 10 deg of flap. For some airplanes the drag from any amount of flap
> deployment really saps power.
>

Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it. The 172 is a
little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined
with power can do for takeoff.

Matt

[RST Engineering]

Somebody please correct my facts about this accident if you have hard data:

The date on the video is 30 August, last Thursday.

From the shadows, it appears that the accident occurred between noon and 2
pm.

In Grass Valley, it was 94 dF at that time, and Cameron Park is about 1700
feet lower. Presuming a standard lapse rate of 3.5 dF per thousand feet,
the temperature at Cameron was about 100 dF.

Altimeter setting at that time in Grass Valley was 30.06 and I doubt that it
changed much between here and 25 miles south. That would make the density
altitude somewhere in the vicinity of 4100 feet.

Cameron Park winds were most likely light; we had been reporting winds on
Thursday most of the morning and early afternoon at no more than 5 to 8
knots. From the hair ruffling of the one "sputtering" witness I'd say that
was about right.

The aircraft appeared to be an A36. The performance charts for a density
altitude of 4100 feet showed that the aircraft should have required about
2100 feet of runway roll with a 5 knot tailwind and a climb thereafter of
1000 fpm.

Cameron Park is a bitchkitty coming in or departing on either end.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:38 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> Looks like the max temp yesterday was 98°f, pressure was 29.8 or so, winds were out of the south or south-south west.
>
> There are no reported winds at that airport and I've never, ever seen
> the winds there be the same as in the valley. If you are looking at
> temps and wind directions from the sacramento area (which is what you
> get on weather.com, etc) you can throw those in the round file. We're
> always a bit cooler than Sac and the winds could never be the same
> because there is a foothill range between the two and a 1000 foot
> elevation difference. You guys on this board are as bad as the people
> on the news with wild &*($ guesses that are useless.

Yes, almost as bad as people who say that all aircraft engines sputter.

Matt

[Luke Skywalker]

On Sep 1, 10:35 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
> >>>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
> >>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
> >>> engine splutter...
>
> >> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
> >> They don't sound like BMV engines.
>
> > Is it possible the pilot decided to abort after he was airborne? The engine
> > sounded strong and the airplane came off fine at rotation, then it seems to
> > run out of steam. Or was that simply due to its climbing out of ground
> > effect?
>
> It definitely wasn't obvious from the vantage point of the camera.
> Could have been wind shear, coming out of ground effect too soon, engine
> trouble, etc.
>
> Matt

The only thing that can be said with any certianty in the
investigation phase right now is that performance factors can be
eliminated rather quickly.

If it isnt those on points menaing that the numbers dont add up then
there are some other things that bear looking into and might have some
lessons for all of us.

otherwise it is all just "Gerald Rivers" talk.

Robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Airbus wrote:


> What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
> pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I grew
> up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
> students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show gory,
> shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future drivers.
> They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel it
> was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially
> acceptable. . .
>
Crash video is most useful as a safety tool if it's accompanied by a
factual report on probable cause.
Crash videos presented in this manner have proven extremely useful in
imparting a safety message that is lasting as opposed to temporary
retention.
Other than presented in that scenario, videos without correct and
detailed analysis can actually be counter productive, as the speculation
that is the natural result of viewing such video can be misleading and
confusing as pertains to any useful and tangible positive flight safety
retention.
What seems obvious is not always the answer, and it's the wise pilot who
realizes the real safety message will be found along the investigative
path that follows the video rather than by watching the video itself
without this valuable information.

--
Dudley Henriques

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>
> Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it. The 172 is a
> little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
> power can do for takeoff.
>
> Matt

Vx is without flaps in a 182.

Karl

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 8:59 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Yes, almost as bad as people who say that all aircraft engines sputter.

Ok, smart guy. Find one NTSB report where the witness said "the engine
sounded great, just like my BMW, it was sputtering or anything".

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:

> In Grass Valley, it was 94 dF at that time, and Cameron Park is about 1700
> feet lower. Presuming a standard lapse rate of 3.5 dF per thousand feet,
> the temperature at Cameron was about 100 dF.

Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
cool things down.

> The aircraft appeared to be an A36. The performance charts for a density
> altitude of 4100 feet showed that the aircraft should have required about
> 2100 feet of runway roll with a 5 knot tailwind and a climb thereafter of
> 1000 fpm.

So the runway was only twice what the airplane needed. Holy Cow, we
should close the airport today!!!

> Cameron Park is a bitchkitty coming in or departing on either end.

Never noticed that and I've been flying in and out of there for 7
years. What part about it is a "bitchkitty"???

-Robert

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Matt Whiting" > Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it.
The 172 is a
> little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
> power can do for takeoff.
>
> Matt
A 182 will get in the air shorter with flaps, but Vx is still a clean wing
speed.

Karl

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 1, 8:34 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>>>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>>>> engine splutter...
>>> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
>>> They don't sound like BMV engines.
>> Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
>> isn't running well.
>
> So what? You've probably be near a running airplane engine. If you
> think that the common layperson can tell the difference between a good
> running airplane engine and bad running one than you should follow
> Alice to Wonderland.

Or worse, I could believe that all airplane engines sputter.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 1, 8:41 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>>>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>>>>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>>>>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>>>>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>>>>> side.
>>>>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>>>>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>>>> Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
>>>> he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
>>>> did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
>>>> witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
>>>> leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.
>>>> Matt
>>> Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
>>> density couldn't have been monsterous.
>> Well, at 90 degrees with an altimeter setting of 30.00 inches (I don't
>> know what it was, this is just a guess) and a dewpoint of say 60 degrees
>> (again just a guess), the density altitude is 3600 ft. This gives a
>> substantial performance loss compared to sea level STP conditions. If
>> he was at gross and really was taking off downwind, this could well have
>> been enough to remove his margin.
>
> I"m not sure where you fly out of but for most of us 3600' density
> altitude with 4000' of runway it not considered close. I take off out
> of there with 4 on board, a week's worth of luggage and enough fuel to
> reach Mexico or Canada (usually downwind because the socks on each end
> usually face away from each other). In short, this airport provides
> *LOTS AND LOTS* of margin, this is not a short-field or a "high-
> density altitude" airport by any stretch! BTW The pilot held a Comm,
> CFI, and A&P.

I fly regularly out of airports varying from a low of 950' (ELM) to a
high of 1,900' (N38). N38 was less than 2,000' long when I learned to
fly there, but is now 3,600. I never said that the airport in question
was either short-field or high-density altitude. You need to better
your reading comprehension.

I don't have performance charts for an A36 and I don't know the loading
conditions of the airplane, the condition of the engine, etc., so I have
no way of knowing if there was lots and lots of margin. The video
suggests there wasn't.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 1, 8:59 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Yes, almost as bad as people who say that all aircraft engines sputter.
>
> Ok, smart guy. Find one NTSB report where the witness said "the engine
> sounded great, just like my BMW, it was sputtering or anything".
>

I wasn't commenting on what NTSB reports say. I was commenting on your
erroneous statement about aircraft engines.

Matt

[RST Engineering]

>
> Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
> cool things down.

We do too; it was well above 100 dF down in Sacramento that day and we maxed
out at 94. That's why my best guess. What is your best guess or is there
hard data? And you say "we". Are you based out of Cameron?

>
>> Cameron Park is a bitchkitty coming in or departing on either end.
>
> Never noticed that and I've been flying in and out of there for 7
> years. What part about it is a "bitchkitty"???

The airport was commissioned in late 1967 and we didn't move up to Grass
Valley until ten years later. I vaguely remember going in and out a couple
of times in the '70s, but when nobody would carry autofuel when the STCs
became available, I was in and out of there on a monthly if not weekly basis
because they had an autogas pump. When Auburn shut off the 80 pumps in the
late '80s it was a regular fuel stop both going south to San Diego and again
coming back home. At that time you could take on a full load of 80 at
Gillespie field and still have plenty of reserve when you got to Cameron.
Then another fifteen minutes and I was home.

Bitchkitty? The geese coming off of the lake about a hundred yards off the
runway come to mind, as do the terrain and flora on either end. It's just
like home; flat as a pancake with trees and hills all around. Once you get
used to it, no problem. Take a 40 hour student in there some time if you
want to see pucker factor. And those hills on either end juice up some
pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon. I dunno if that guy was
wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.

The thing Cameron does NOT have that we do are those goddamned 80' steel
pigstickers with obstruction lights on them all across the north side of the
runway. The story is that someone in the heirarchy of the County told the
FAA to go stuff it and somehow the airport was going to be shut down for
obstruction clearance unless we put those damned steel sticks up. One of
these days I'm gonna take my portable cutting torch ...

Jim

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 9:18 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Or worse, I could believe that all airplane engines sputter.

Yes, you can believe that even gliders sputter. You are *WAY* too
trusting of witness statements.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 1, 9:35 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> > Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
> > cool things down.
>
> We do too; it was well above 100 dF down in Sacramento that day and we maxed
> out at 94. That's why my best guess. What is your best guess or is there
> hard data? And you say "we". Are you based out of Cameron?

I am based out of Cameron Park. Its a great drive up there because its
usually 5 degrees cooler than it is in Folsom.

> Bitchkitty? The geese coming off of the lake about a hundred yards off the
> runway come to mind, as do the terrain and flora on either end.

No geese today. Probably run off by the development.

> And those hills on either end juice up some
> pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon.

Yea, but the termals usually get you on downwind.

>I dunno if that guy was
> wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.

It will be interesting to find out. Its just impossible to tell at
this point. A friend of mine had a very similar accident. The NTSB
found the result to be two partially plugged injector lines. That's
just an example of how non-expected the results could be.

> The thing Cameron does NOT have that we do are those goddamned 80' steel
> pigstickers with obstruction lights on them all across the north side of the
> runway.

Yea, those things always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
airplane obsitcles.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:18 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Or worse, I could believe that all airplane engines sputter.
>
> Yes, you can believe that even gliders sputter. You are *WAY* too
> trusting of witness statements.
>

My comment wasn't about witness statements at all. It was about your
erroneous statement saying that all airplane engines sputter.

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:35 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>> Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
>>> cool things down.
>> We do too; it was well above 100 dF down in Sacramento that day and we maxed
>> out at 94. That's why my best guess. What is your best guess or is there
>> hard data? And you say "we". Are you based out of Cameron?
>
> I am based out of Cameron Park. Its a great drive up there because its
> usually 5 degrees cooler than it is in Folsom.
>
>> Bitchkitty? The geese coming off of the lake about a hundred yards off the
>> runway come to mind, as do the terrain and flora on either end.
>
> No geese today. Probably run off by the development.
>
>> And those hills on either end juice up some
>> pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon.
>
> Yea, but the termals usually get you on downwind.
>
>> I dunno if that guy was
>> wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.
>
> It will be interesting to find out. Its just impossible to tell at
> this point. A friend of mine had a very similar accident. The NTSB
> found the result to be two partially plugged injector lines. That's
> just an example of how non-expected the results could be.
>
>> The thing Cameron does NOT have that we do are those goddamned 80' steel
>> pigstickers with obstruction lights on them all across the north side of the
>> runway.
>
> Yea, those things always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
> FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
> airplane obsitcles.
>
> -Robert
>
I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
things.
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

It was Caltrans, the *******s. THey issue the airport permit, you know.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message > Yea, those things
always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
> FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
> airplane obsitcles.
>
> -Robert
>

[Jack Allison]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
> things.

Wait for the facts? Wow...what a novel idea! :-) Just think what that
would do to the noise level on threads like this...

[Jay Honeck]

> I think it's too dramatically different from everyday experience, so the
> people watching the gory pictures tend not to identify with them, so they
> really don't have much effect.

I was shown those horrible videos (made by the Ohio Highway Patrol,
BTW) in driver's ed, and they had a profound influence on me. I
remember kids fainting and puking in class.

In fact, they had such a restrictive impact on my (normal-for-age-16)
crazy driving that I actually bought the DVD (which is available on-
line) of those films and made my son watch it. It's WAY too
politically incorrect for our cradle-to-grave sappy society nowadays,
and it's still awful to watch.

Dunno if it had the same impact on him, but I figured it was worth the
chance. Male teenage drivers are like hand grenades with the pin
pulled -- you *know* they're going to blow up, it's just a matter of
when and where.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
> but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
> appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
> Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
> The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
> The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.

Yep, horsepower makes all the difference. In our 150 hp Piper
Warrior, adding flaps for takeoff was something we did cuz we were
told to do so -- but they didn't really make much difference. That
plane just daintily floated off the ground (and back ON the ground,
when landing) no matter what the flap setting.

Our 235 hp Piper Pathfinder is WAY different. With 2 notches of
flaps, on a cool day, you can just hang on the prop and see nothing
but sky. It'll leap off the ground much faster with than without
flaps.

Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

karl gruber wrote:
>> Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it. The 172 is a
>> little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
>> power can do for takeoff.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Vx is without flaps in a 182.
>
> Karl
>
>

OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx was
with flaps extended. So, what is your point?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> I was at a poker run a week ago in my A36 with 5 people we took off at BNG
> (banning) we were behind a Cherokee 140. We watched the 140 almost crash. I
> got on the radio and asked if he was in trouble he replied back yes. I told
> him keep the nose down 3 or 4 times as i was watching him. He made it thank
> god.

A bunch of us witnessed the same thing happen at OSH, when a Beech
Skipper departed Rwy 27 and disappeared behind the mall across Hwy 41
from the airport. One of our group immediately called the tower on
his hand-held, and informed them that a plane may have crashed.

Just then the radio crackled to life, with the voice of a guy who was
clearly under stress, saying "That's us! We think we're running on 3
cylinders, but we're gonna try to make it to Marshfield!"

I watched the papers and NTSB reports after that, and never saw any
accident report, so he apparently made it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Stewart]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>>> engine splutter...
>>
>> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
>> They don't sound like BMV engines.
>>
>
> Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
> isn't running well.

I think he might have meant that a direct
drive unmuffled flat-four sounds rough
at idle compared to most cars. And I'd
agree.

[Jay Honeck]

> I think he might have meant that a direct
> drive unmuffled flat-four sounds rough
> at idle compared to most cars. And I'd
> agree.

It's that "unmuffled" (or partially muffled, at best) part that gives
it that characteristic quality.

Our friend has an airplane powered by an unmuffled Chevy V-8, and it
sounds just as sputtery at idle...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> >
> > Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it. The 172 is a
> > little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
> > power can do for takeoff.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Vx is without flaps in a 182.
>
> Karl

On my '57 model 182 there are two Vx speeds...one for flaps 20 and one
for flaps up.

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:


> >
> I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
> right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
> follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
> altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
> I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
> things.
> Dudley Henriques

I'm wondering if perhaps this guy did an intersection takeoff.

[Airbus]

I'm voting for overweight.
After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane mushing
and stalling trying to climb.

I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said how
many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should climb out
just fine.



What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I grew
up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show gory,
shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future drivers.
They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel it
was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially
acceptable. . .

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

>What's horrifying is how everything looks fine and then suddenly goes all
>wrong.

I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
airspeed.

It would be interesting to know the wind speed/direction. I believe
that he took off on runway 31.

Ron Lee

[Jay Honeck]

> >What's horrifying is how everything looks fine and then suddenly goes all
> >wrong.
>
> I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
> near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
> have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
> airspeed.
>
> It would be interesting to know the wind speed/direction. I believe
> that he took off on runway 31.

I just watched the video again, and noticed something that seems odd
-- there was no fire.

A rescuer commented that at least one survivor was splashed with gas,
so fuel exhaustion isn't (apparently) the cause -- but I wonder why
there was no fire, with all the violent twisting/shearing of metal and
the hot engine?

Good fortune, I suppose. Similar videos always seem to end in smoke
and flame...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Ron Lee" wrote:

>>What's horrifying is how everything looks fine and then suddenly goes all
>>wrong.
>
> I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
> near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
> have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
> airspeed.

That's just it: the speed looks fine and the airplane gives no appearance of
struggling into the air. The wing rocking and mushing come on suddenly,
almost as if the engine lost power or there was wind shear. There's something
strange about this accident.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
> On Sep 1, 5:38 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:

>> Looks like the max temp yesterday was 98°f, pressure was 29.8 or so, winds were out of the south or south-south west.

> There are no reported winds at that airport and I've never, ever seen
> the winds there be the same as in the valley. If you are looking at
> temps and wind directions from the sacramento area (which is what you
> get on weather.com, etc) you can throw those in the round file. We're
> always a bit cooler than Sac and the winds could never be the same
> because there is a foothill range between the two and a 1000 foot
> elevation difference. You guys on this board are as bad as the people
> on the news with wild &*($ guesses that are useless.
>

There are no guesses about the weather in my post...the data sources are quoted and you cut them out. The closest
weather was from Mather and you assumed the rest.

>> Also looks like they were taking off 13, so they had a right cross wind.
>> (http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61)
>
> No, it was 31.

As I said, it looked like 13, thanks for the clarification...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dale wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>> I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
>> right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
>> follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
>> altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
>> I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
>> things.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm wondering if perhaps this guy did an intersection takeoff.
Making a judgment from a video is difficult without correlated data but
the run looked normal to me right through rotation. The aircraft seemed
to have required acceleration and I couldn't see or hear anything wrong.
Rotation seemed normal without excessive nose attitude or rate.
The slight wobbling and sudden decrease in rate of climb seemed visually
at least what would be expected with a sudden change in engine power.
These of course are nothing but experienced observations based on not
enough data to reach any kind of assumption or conclusion.
It's difficult to determine if the takeoff was initiated from an
intersection but the rate of acceleration and the length of the run
didn't indicate that to me.
The aircraft was absolutely in stall mush when it when in and there was
little change in angle of attack during that period before impact.
I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:25:47 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
>Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
>thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.

Normal takeoff for the Malibu (dual-turbo 350hp Lycoming) is no flap.

[Jack Allison]

RST Engineering wrote:
> It was Caltrans, the *******s. THey issue the airport permit, you know.
>
> Jim
>
I always wondered about those ugly red/white airplane skewers at KGOO.
The first time I rolled out on final, they were a bit unnerving to see
as it seems the can reach out and grab you.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

> The aircraft was absolutely in stall mush when it when in and there was
> little change in angle of attack during that period before impact.
> I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
> vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
> useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.

Yes. Something happened at about the end of the runway that made the airplane
start to wobble and mush, where a moment before it appeared to be flying ok.
The more I look at it, the more I think the power failed.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Maxwell]

"Really-Old-Fart" > wrote in message
.. .
> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 11:26:15p, "Maxwell"
> > wrote:
>
>> Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the
>> rest of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.
>
> Well, considering the outcome, he couldn't have really decreased his odds.
> Oh well, hindsight is 20/20, right?

Perhaps. Kind of depends on what caused the crash.

Unless he suffered some kind of reduction in power upon take-off, he had 10
seconds or so to remain in ground effect and keep building speed. If his
problem was indeed runway length, density altitude, gross weight and/or
downwind related - it could well have saved him.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:07:31 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


>I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
>near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
>have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
>airspeed.

This all reminds me of that 182 on Youtube with the medical patient in
Africa that appears to be overweight.

I lost a friend, along with five of his relatives, when he tried to
depart Pullyaup, WA in an overweight Cherokee 6. His crash
description was exactly like the Youtube 182 and this Bo.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:


>I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
>contribute more to drag than to lift.

On a Beech Sundowner, flaps will help climb at *exactly* 75 MPH IAS.
Any faster or slower and the performance drops off significantly and
you'd be better off without flaps.

The performance graph looks like an inverted, rounded Vee, and I've
verified it at altitude.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>>> Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
>>>> Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
>>>> engine splutter...
>>>
>>> All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
>>> They don't sound like BMV engines.
>>>
>>
>> Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
>> isn't running well.
>
> I think he might have meant that a direct
> drive unmuffled flat-four sounds rough
> at idle compared to most cars. And I'd
> agree.

My 182 idled quite nicely and sounded quite good at full-bore as well.
The operative definition here is number 3 under verb, and I have never
heard any decently tuned aircraft engine that makes "explosive popping
sounds." And to say that this is "just the nature of how they work" is
simply silly. And not all aircraft are unmuffled.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sputter

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I think he might have meant that a direct
>> drive unmuffled flat-four sounds rough
>> at idle compared to most cars. And I'd
>> agree.
>
> It's that "unmuffled" (or partially muffled, at best) part that gives
> it that characteristic quality.
>
> Our friend has an airplane powered by an unmuffled Chevy V-8, and it
> sounds just as sputtery at idle...


Funny cars and TF dragsters sputter. Most street cars don't even come
close! :-)

Matt

[BT]

This was not a "high DA take off"

I will agree that the runway has a 6% slope and has higher terrain off each
end. It looked like he was taking off up slope.. the decision.. tailwind or
upslope take off. I'm sure weight and balance will be a critical part of the
accident investigation.

We were at 105F today.. our DA was 6200ft, aircraft were operating all day
with no problems on 3500ft and 4500ft long runways.
BT


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" <> wrote

> Our friend has an airplane powered by an unmuffled Chevy V-8, and it
> sounds just as sputtery at idle...

Most high HP V-8's do sound sputtery, due to a high lift cam with more than
usual valve open overlap.

Even then, V-8's with a stock cam often sound rough at idle, even with a
muffler, if idle is set relatively low. How about Harley's? They all sound
rough, with or without mufflers.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" <> wrote

> No, all airplane engines sputter. Just park your BMV next to your
> airplane and compare the sounds.

That is twice with that BVM stuff. The first time, I thought it was a typo,
but here it is again.

Is there a BVM car that I don't know about, or did you mean to say BMW?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 30-second Rule.
> If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
> Sort it our on the ramp.

So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the second
hand?

I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a bit more
concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better than that!

Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>
> Good fortune, I suppose. Similar videos always seem to end in smoke
> and flame...

I was amazed by that, also. My first guess was that it plowed into a rather
sandy hill, and perhaps the sand helped to smother any chance of fire, but I
guess it is mostly luck, as you say.
--
Jim in NC

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it. The 172 is a
>> > little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined
>> > with
>> > power can do for takeoff.
>> >
>> > Matt
>>
>> Vx is without flaps in a 182.
>>
>> Karl
>
> On my '57 model 182 there are two Vx speeds...one for flaps 20 and one
> for flaps up.

No. For your 182 there is only one Vx, and that is without flaps.

There is another speed used to climb over a close in obstacle, but it is
never labeled Vx

Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>>
>>
>
> OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx was
> with flaps extended. So, what is your point?
>
> Matt

Oh.....Reread my post. Evidently your inability to comprehend is affecting
your pee brain.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
> Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
> thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I'd be surprised if Beech even published a short field takeoff technique for
the Bonanza. I know for sure they don't for the King Air, even though at one
time they did. It called for takeoff with approach flaps.

I remember getting a revision to the BE90 POH that removed the short field
takeoff technique. I believe it has to do with liability. Does anyone have a
Bonanza POH that is actually up to date with all the revisions? I'm pretty
sure the Bonanza would get in the air in less distance with approach flaps,
but is probably no longer on the POH, just like the KA.

Karl

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>
> > Our friend has an airplane powered by an unmuffled Chevy V-8, and it
> > sounds just as sputtery at idle...
>
> Most high HP V-8's do sound sputtery, due to a high lift cam with more
than
> usual valve open overlap.
>
> Even then, V-8's with a stock cam often sound rough at idle, even with a
> muffler, if idle is set relatively low. How about Harley's? They all
sound
> rough, with or without mufflers.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
Most of the uneven sound of V-8's was a function of the old 90 degree
crankshafts, which always made any dual exhause system sound rough. Some of
the newer designs, at least from GM and Ford, have single-plane crankshafts
and a resulting smooth exhaust sound; although the real reason was exhaust
and intake tuning for a better combination of power and economy. There is
really no excuse for not having fixed the firing order problem at least 40
years earlier--after all, we had plenty of in-line four cylinder engines
with dynamically balanced single plane crankshafts.

OTOH, the "Harley Sound" is supposed to be part of the "Harley Mystique"
:-)

However, your points are well taken, and every LongEZ that I have ever heard
was a perfect example of an engine that ran just fine and sounded crappy.
It is almost as though the engines are annoyed about being installed
backward, so they sputter about the indignity of it all. :-)

Peter

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 30-second Rule.
> If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
> Sort it our on the ramp.

On the Falcon 50EX there is a "G" meter. If the airplane won't make the
proper horizontal "G" on takeoff it means abort. The nice thing about this
is that max "G" is right at the start of the TO roll.

Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

act.
> I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
> vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
> useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.
>
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

All sorts of things could have affected the TO as well. Parking brake? Were
BOTH mags on? Was the airplane in trim? Did he have the mixture way out for
taxi and forget to push it up some? Etc.

Karl

[Newps]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

>
> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
> this didn't look short.


The standard Bonanza takeoff is no flaps however using flaps does reduce
ground roll. For an F33 at 2800 pounds on a 32 degree day at 5000 feet
as an example using flaps shortens the takeoff roll. However the no
flap takeoff only needs an extra 70 feet to get off the ground. By
3400 horizontal feet the no flap takeoff has crossed the altitude of the
flap takeoff and is significantly outclimbing it. So the question you
ask yourself is are you trying to get over an obstacle close to the
takeoff point of farther away? If the obstacle is close use flaps, if
not then don't. For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.





As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.


My S35 does call for flaps to clear an obstacle.



>
> As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
> it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
> the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
> 1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
> and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
> lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.
>
> They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
> as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
> could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.
>


It's a mid 70's A36 which would have 80 gallons onboard assuming no tip
tanks.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


> I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
> contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
> additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
> high rate.


While still adding lift. You can see this in your POH because the stall
speed is lowest at 40 degrees of flaps.


>
> I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
> but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
> appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
> Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff. The
> Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff. The
> deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.



Cessna flaps are very effective at both adding lift and drag. My 182
had 40 degrees of flaps and it really helped to wedge it in short. My
Bo has 30 degrees of flaps and that combined with a much slipperier wing
allows the 182 to stop in 100 less feet than my Bo with the same load,
not at the same weight.(Myself and 40 gallons). At the same weight the
Bo needs slightly less runway than the 182. Stall speed for my S35 is
63 knots at gross(3300 pounds), flaps up. Flaps down it is 51 knots at
gross. At 2400 pounds it is 55/46 knots. It depends on what you're
trying to accomplish on the takeoff that decides for you if flaps should
be used or not. Just getting off the ground in the minimum distance is
not necessarily the best strategy. A no flap takeoff in any plane will
at some point cross thru the altitude of the climbing aircraft using
flaps, usually between 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from the start of the
takeoff roll. So while the guy using flaps wows the crowd on takeoff
the guy that takes off without flaps is much farther above the trees one
mile from the takeoff point.

[Newps]

RST Engineering wrote:

>
> From the shadows, it appears that the accident occurred between noon and 2
> pm.


Yep, noon.


>
> In Grass Valley, it was 94 dF at that time, and Cameron Park is about 1700
> feet lower. Presuming a standard lapse rate of 3.5 dF per thousand feet,
> the temperature at Cameron was about 100 dF.


yep, 98F.


>
> Altimeter setting at that time in Grass Valley was 30.06 and I doubt that it
> changed much between here and 25 miles south. That would make the density
> altitude somewhere in the vicinity of 4100 feet.

yep.


>
> Cameron Park winds were most likely light; we had been reporting winds on
> Thursday most of the morning and early afternoon at no more than 5 to 8
> knots. From the hair ruffling of the one "sputtering" witness I'd say that
> was about right.


Yep, reported to be about 5 knots by a witness.


>
> The aircraft appeared to be an A36. The performance charts for a density
> altitude of 4100 feet showed that the aircraft should have required about
> 2100 feet of runway roll with a 5 knot tailwind and a climb thereafter of
> 1000 fpm.
>


One of the guys on the Beech list I frequent did the math for his V35.
At gross, 40C, 10 knot tailwind he needs 3200 feet to clear a 50 foot
obstacle. This guy was looking at rising terrain so his sight picture
was a little off. Since his A36 with the 550 has an altitude
compensating fuel pump his mixture shouldn't have been a problem.
There's some speculation his prop control wasn't in all the way.

[Newps]

karl gruber wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it.
> The 172 is a
>
>>little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
>>power can do for takeoff.
>>
>>Matt
>
> A 182 will get in the air shorter with flaps, but Vx is still a clean wing
> speed.


If you're manufacturer only gives you a clean wing Vx and Vy. I have
speeds for both flaps up/clean and flaps 20/dirty

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" wrote

> And wind slows as it nears the ground, so a 5 knot tailwind on the runway,
> could well be increasing significantly with altitude.

Very true. I didn't quite put it all together (if it can be "all together"
until the full report is out) until you mentioned that.

If he did have decent take-off speed when he first lifted off, but was only
a few miles per hour above stall, when he climbed above the tree line and
had the full tail wind hit, that would have instantly reduced his speed to
below or at stall speed. With that in mind, if nose was raised at all (to
clear terrain), the increased deck angle would have reduced his speed to
well below stall, and the big bobbles began.

A real shame, all the way around, but it is a very unique opportunity for
others to learn some things that they may have forgotten, or never quite
learned at all. It isn't often you see the full anatomy of a plane crash,
like this one.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:42:52 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
>> this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
>> feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
>> high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.
>
>That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
>use flaps for departure.
>
>I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
>unnecessary?

"I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
That and with gear and flaps it has some very abrupt and demanding
stall characteristics.

Although the Bo is a "relatively" large single, it has roughly the
same wing loading as a Cherokee, or about 17# per sq ft (give or take
a tad). It's big, but it has a big wing with lots of lift and is a
very good short field plane for both landing and take off. The Debs
and earlier F33s had a shorter landing distance than some 172s. With
the larger engines they can also get out of a fairly short field.

One interesting characteristic of a soft field take off is if the up
elevator pressure is not eased off as the nose gear comes off the
plane will rotate into ground effect early and then settle back down
to never lift off again unless back pressure is eased off considerably
to allow the place to accelerate.

On asphalt you can get the plane into ground effect in a very short
distance. Then it becomes a balancing act to accelerate just inches
off the pavement while not touching back down. I'd be a bit hesitant
to try this technique on a real soft or rough field unless it were the
only way out.

I once had the privilege to experience a departure in ground effect
along with a tail wind in the Deb from Goodland KS. The ends of the
one runway are well above the center portion with rising terrain off
the end so you need to accelerate before the half way point. Just as
we reached the low point, the wind switched abruptly by 90 degrees
from a quartering head wind to a quartering tail wind. Too fast to
stop and to slow to fly. I hauled it off in ground effect and hoped
for the best. Fortunately there were no trees off the end of the
runway, but there were a number of large rocks/boulders. We were in
ground effect until cresting the hill. That was one tense departure.

Roger

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:25:47 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
>> but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
>> appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
>> Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
>> The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
>> The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.
>
>Yep, horsepower makes all the difference. In our 150 hp Piper
>Warrior, adding flaps for takeoff was something we did cuz we were
>told to do so -- but they didn't really make much difference. That
>plane just daintily floated off the ground (and back ON the ground,
>when landing) no matter what the flap setting.
>
>Our 235 hp Piper Pathfinder is WAY different. With 2 notches of
>flaps, on a cool day, you can just hang on the prop and see nothing
>but sky. It'll leap off the ground much faster with than without
>flaps.
>
>Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
>Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
>thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.

Not all Bonanzas. The older ones I'm familiare with don't, but I
believe the newer A36 calls for 15 degrees which airn't much.

Roger

[Newps]

karl gruber wrote:


>
> I remember getting a revision to the BE90 POH that removed the short field
> takeoff technique. I believe it has to do with liability. Does anyone have a
> Bonanza POH that is actually up to date with all the revisions? I'm pretty
> sure the Bonanza would get in the air in less distance with approach flaps,


Approach flaps cuts 20% off the takeoff distance.

[Newps]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:


>
> "I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
> acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.

It reduces ground roll by 20%.



>
> One interesting characteristic of a soft field take off is if the up
> elevator pressure is not eased off as the nose gear comes off the
> plane will rotate into ground effect early and then settle back down
> to never lift off again unless back pressure is eased off considerably
> to allow the place to accelerate.


Uh, what? That has not been my experience. I have done numerous touch
and go's of this sort where I let it settle back on the runway as I was
accelerating on takeoff due to poor technique on my part. No doubt I
slightly increased my takeoff distance but just leaving the controls
where they are the plane will takeoff just fine.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> What seems obvious is not always the answer, and it's the wise pilot who
> realizes the real safety message will be found along the investigative
> path that follows the video rather than by watching the video itself
> without this valuable information.

Although I agree in principle as to what you said, I wonder if in this case,
we can all take away some knowledge, and cautions, just from the
speculations to the possible causes.

I don't know if I am explaining myself very clearly. What I'm thinking is
that everyone may take some cautions to not do EACH of the possible causes
that have been offered up, even if only one or a combinations of a few of
the offered explanations are really the cause.

What do we take away with us, as possible causes?

1) Downwind takeoff - bad, when conditions may be close to performance
limitations.

2) Downwind takeoffs even worse when you get above the tree line.

3) Importance of calculating DA, with a conservative slant. Also to add
other performance reducing factors into the performance calculations.

4) Overweight takeoffs are a "bad idea." Weight and CG should be closely
considered, especially when it is close to maximum.

5) Lean if necessary for an elevated DA.

6) Possible (big emphasis on this, since we don't really have a reliable
indication if the engine was running poorly) rough running engines will hurt
takeoff and climb, especially when takeoff performance calculations are
marginal.

7) Raising the nose further while on the brink of a stall is all it takes
to insure a stall will occur.

It seems likely to me, that one, or more likely more or all of the above had
a part in the crash. Possible, even probable there are others that nobody
has mentioned, or thought of.

Still, it makes me think about all of the above while preparing for the next
takeoff. Would you, and others, think about it in that way?

To me, not knowing what the cause was would remind me to consider all of the
possible causes, rather than just the one or ones that are really
responsible.

How about you? Do you have any other pet theories, or think one of the
reasons I have written down may be largely responsible?
--
Jim in NC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Airbus > wrote:

>I'm voting for overweight.
>After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane mushing
>and stalling trying to climb.
>
>I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said how
>many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should climb out
>just fine.
>
>
>
>What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
>pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I grew
>up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
>students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show gory,
>shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future drivers.
>They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel it
>was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially

I was told by the a State Police officer that although in the short
term those presentations had a positive effect, the long term effect
was negative. People and particularly the young have a tendency to
push the envelope. It works out to , "I've been doing that for a long
time and nothing happened to me, or I know some one who does that all
the time". We had the same kind of problems in industry safety.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" < wrote

>For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.

Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?

Of course, if you had to call it that close, the decision to take off with
all of the weight would be the wrong decision, anyway, so it goes back to no
flaps being correct.

I have heard of some people doing the takeoff run with no flaps, and
slightly before rotation, pop the first notch of flaps down, then milk them
up once speed and climb is obtained.

Seems like it would work, but it also seems pretty marginal to be calling it
that close.

Well, the heat seems like it may finally be slacking off around here in the
coming week. It has been over 90 every day in August, with many, (check
that) most days over 96, and several days over 100, and several record daily
highs, and even a couple ALL TIME, ANY DAY record highs. It may finally be
time to go up with my friend and get some flying in. I can't begin to say
how much I am looking forward to it, but as he has said, "it's just too damn
hot to have any fun in an airplane, at these temperatures!"
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" <> wrote

>You guys on this board are as bad as the people
>on the news with wild &*($ guesses that are useless.

Perhaps, but the motivation is much different, and much more justified.
They are trying to understand, and the news people are trying to..... to...

What is it that they are trying to do, again? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[wrxpilot]

On Sep 1, 9:30 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > 30-second Rule.
> > If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
> > Sort it our on the ramp.
>
> So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the second
> hand?
>
> I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a bit more
> concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better than that!
>
> Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.
> --
> Jim in NC

Agreed... This "30 secs" rule is pretty impractical. I like to use
Sparky Imeson's rule of 71% rotation speed by 50% of the runway.
Having done a lot of my flying out of Colorado during the summer
months, it was a comforting rule of thumb.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"karl gruber" wrote

> On the Falcon 50EX there is a "G" meter. If the airplane won't make the
> proper horizontal "G" on takeoff it means abort. The nice thing about this
> is that max "G" is right at the start of the TO roll.

That's WAY more toys than most of us have, and WAY, WAY more airplane than
most of us have! <g>

Sounds reasonable, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sat 01 Sep 2007 08:30:46p, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 30-second Rule.
>> If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
>> Sort it our on the ramp.
>
> So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the
> second hand?
>
> I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a
> bit more concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better
> than that!
>
> Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.

Well, it works for carrier based aircraft.

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sat 01 Sep 2007 09:33:56p, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

> OTOH, the "Harley Sound" is supposed to be part of the "Harley
> Mystique"

You don't buy a Harley for performance -- you buy it for the sound. Well,
that plus the fact that us old farts look a bit ridiculous on the crotch
rockets.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jack Allison" <> wrote
>>
> I always wondered about those ugly red/white airplane skewers at KGOO. The
> first time I rolled out on final, they were a bit unnerving to see as it
> seems the can reach out and grab you.

I've never seen such things. Anyone got some pictures of them?
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> What seems obvious is not always the answer, and it's the wise pilot who
>> realizes the real safety message will be found along the investigative
>> path that follows the video rather than by watching the video itself
>> without this valuable information.
>
> Although I agree in principle as to what you said, I wonder if in this case,
> we can all take away some knowledge, and cautions, just from the
> speculations to the possible causes.
>
> I don't know if I am explaining myself very clearly. What I'm thinking is
> that everyone may take some cautions to not do EACH of the possible causes
> that have been offered up, even if only one or a combinations of a few of
> the offered explanations are really the cause.
>
> What do we take away with us, as possible causes?
>
> 1) Downwind takeoff - bad, when conditions may be close to performance
> limitations.
>
> 2) Downwind takeoffs even worse when you get above the tree line.
>
> 3) Importance of calculating DA, with a conservative slant. Also to add
> other performance reducing factors into the performance calculations.
>
> 4) Overweight takeoffs are a "bad idea." Weight and CG should be closely
> considered, especially when it is close to maximum.
>
> 5) Lean if necessary for an elevated DA.
>
> 6) Possible (big emphasis on this, since we don't really have a reliable
> indication if the engine was running poorly) rough running engines will hurt
> takeoff and climb, especially when takeoff performance calculations are
> marginal.
>
> 7) Raising the nose further while on the brink of a stall is all it takes
> to insure a stall will occur.
>
> It seems likely to me, that one, or more likely more or all of the above had
> a part in the crash. Possible, even probable there are others that nobody
> has mentioned, or thought of.
>
> Still, it makes me think about all of the above while preparing for the next
> takeoff. Would you, and others, think about it in that way?
>
> To me, not knowing what the cause was would remind me to consider all of the
> possible causes, rather than just the one or ones that are really
> responsible.
>
> How about you? Do you have any other pet theories, or think one of the
> reasons I have written down may be largely responsible?

There are two ways to look at it really.
Naturally, you can look at a video of a crash and use it as a segue into
obvious related flight safety issues. In this respect, one can say a
crash video serves a useful purpose. In this sense it's a GENERAL reminder.
The second way states emphatically that any useful data concerning a
specific crash being viewed on a video must wait for the supporting
information concerning THAT crash before the safety message dealing with
whatever it was that caused THAT crash reaches a maximum value.

In this scenario it's not what is obvious in the film that supplies the
useful data but rather what isn't obvious and might have been a
contributing factor in that specific accident that has use safety wise
and isn't revealed until the video is viewed along with accurate
information dealing with exactly what is being seen in the video.

So basically you can learn in the general sense or the specific sense.
Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at the
expense of the other.
The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route
in viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:22:54 +0200 (CEST), "Really-Old-Fart"
> wrote:

> old farts look a bit ridiculous on the crotch
>rockets.

Plumber butt, anyone?

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:31:22 -0700, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>I'd be surprised if Beech even published a short field takeoff technique for
>the Bonanza. I know for sure they don't for the King Air, even though at one
>time they did. It called for takeoff with approach flaps.

None for the Sundowner or it's sisters, either.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Really-Old-Fart" > wrote
>
> Well, it works for carrier based aircraft.

At 3o seconds on an aircraft carrier launch, you had better be flying, or
under your ejection seat canopy! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote > So basically you can learn
in the general sense or the specific sense.
> Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at the
> expense of the other.
> The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route in
> viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
> Dudley Henriques

I agree 100 percent, with all you wrote.

Here's to waiting for the results to learn the specifics!
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote > So basically you can learn
> in the general sense or the specific sense.
>> Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at the
>> expense of the other.
>> The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route in
>> viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I agree 100 percent, with all you wrote.
>
> Here's to waiting for the results to learn the specifics!

In the meantime we can study that 30 second rule :-))
In the Ultralight, you'll probably be 10 feet into the takeoff roll. In
the T38, you'll be passing 10 thousand feet :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Airbus > wrote:
> I was told by the a State Police officer that although in the short
> term those presentations had a positive effect, the long term effect
> was negative. People and particularly the young have a tendency to
> push the envelope. It works out to , "I've been doing that for a long
> time and nothing happened to me, or I know some one who does that all
> the time". We had the same kind of problems in industry safety.

I think it was Kelly Johnson who said "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Same sort of adage, you
really don't know where the line is unless you cross it (or unless you pay attention and do what you are told!)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" <> wrote!
>
> In the meantime we can study that 30 second rule :-))
> In the Ultralight, you'll probably be 10 feet into the takeoff roll. In
> the T38, you'll be passing 10 thousand feet :-))

Or in the 18 wheeler, you will be in about 6th gear!

Ten - Four, good buddy! <BFG>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" <> wrote
>
>> No, all airplane engines sputter. Just park your BMV next to your
>> airplane and compare the sounds.
>
> That is twice with that BVM stuff. The first time, I thought it was a typo,
> but here it is again.
>
> Is there a BVM car that I don't know about, or did you mean to say BMW?

Now we have BVM in addition to his BMV and BMW. I've never heard either
a BMV or BVM so I'll take your word that they sputter. Real engines
tuned properly (excluding racing engines with aggressive cams) don't
sputter. I don't consider Harley's to sputter either. They have an
uneven cadence, but I don't consider that to be sputtering by any
definition I'm familiar with.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 30-second Rule.
>> If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
>> Sort it our on the ramp.
>
> So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the second
> hand?
>
> I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a bit more
> concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better than that!
>
> Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.

I've heard the 30 second rule before and it is often close on airliners,
but my Skylane was in the air in MUCH less than 30 seconds. This rule
is way conservative for many airplanes and probably not conservative
enough for some. I prefer the being in the air by the 50% point as it
works for almost all airplanes on runways that are on the short side.

And, obviously, if something is REALLY wrong with the airplane, you
should feel or hear it anyway. I'm recommending the half of the runway
length for a properly functioning airplane, but on a runway that is
toward the short side and you want to know if an abort is required
before lift-off.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrxpilot wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:30 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> 30-second Rule.
>>> If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
>>> Sort it our on the ramp.
>> So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the second
>> hand?
>>
>> I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a bit more
>> concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better than that!
>>
>> Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Agreed... This "30 secs" rule is pretty impractical. I like to use
> Sparky Imeson's rule of 71% rotation speed by 50% of the runway.
> Having done a lot of my flying out of Colorado during the summer
> months, it was a comforting rule of thumb.
>

As though you could really measure 71% accurately on most airspeed
indicators. Why not just say 70%?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route
> in viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.

Agree. I think the benefits of watching the video will be greatly
enhanced after the NTSB report is published.

In the short term, however, I think everyone who views that video will
more carefully analyze their take-off performance whilst on the
roll. I certainly will.

Mary and I have a departure routine that seems to work. As soon as
the pilot advances the throttle, the copilot calls out (in order):

1. "Six good bars" (this is in reference to our JPI engine analyzer,
which has a bar graph depiction of each cylinder. When we lost a
cylinder coming out of Titusville, FL, it instantly pinpointed which
cylinder had failed.)

2. "RPMs good" (If the tach is indicating max RPM)

3. "Manifold pressure good"

4. "Oil pressure good" (In the green)

5. "Airspeed is alive"

This simple CRM enables the pilot to concentrate on flying the plane,
while the copilot monitors systems. It works well.

We don't have a formal "If the runway is 71% gone we'll abort" rule,
but if any of the five parameters (listed above) are not nominal, we
abort.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

karl gruber wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 30-second Rule.
>> If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
>> Sort it our on the ramp.
>
> On the Falcon 50EX there is a "G" meter. If the airplane won't make the
> proper horizontal "G" on takeoff it means abort. The nice thing about this
> is that max "G" is right at the start of the TO roll.

That doesn't sound right. Most turbines make more thrust with more
speed due to the ram air effect. Maybe the build in drag offsets the
increase in thrust, but it sounds suspicious that max G would occur at
virtually zero airspeed.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> I had a couple of minor accidents as a teen - but they were caused by
> distractions, not by speed.- Hide quoted text -

That's the other lesson I've tried to impart to my son. A tiny,
insignificant distraction can have horrendous results, when you're
hurtling down the road in a steel box.

Some of the worst accidents I've witnessed were caused by the driver
simply looking at his passenger while talking to them. (One of my pet
peeves, BTW. I had a coworker who simply HAD to look at you while
talking, even while driving in Chicago traffic. I finally refused to
ride with him.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> What seems obvious is not always the answer, and it's the wise pilot who
>> realizes the real safety message will be found along the investigative
>> path that follows the video rather than by watching the video itself
>> without this valuable information.
>
> Although I agree in principle as to what you said, I wonder if in this case,
> we can all take away some knowledge, and cautions, just from the
> speculations to the possible causes.

The speculation is at best useful as a general reminder of topics such
as DA and downwind takeoffs, but any real learning will have to await
the NTSB results. If the A36 experienced an engine failure shortly
after lift-off, then this accident falls into the "crap happens"
category and I'd say the pilot did the best he could do at coming down
at minimum controllable airspeed. And the fact that all but one person
made it out alive is a very good thing. This would be in the 15-20% of
accidents that we as pilots simply have little control over.

OTOH, if it turns out that this was a confluence of many bad pilot
judgments, then there is much to learn. If the accident was a result of
high DA, over gross loading, an engine 500 hours past TBO with marginal
compression that was putting out only 80% of rated power, etc., etc.,
then there is much to learn ... although this is all stuff we should
already know anyway.

Many, if not most, accidents aren't the result of any one thing going
wrong, they are the result of a chain of errors, failures or bad
judgments. We need the NTSB report to know which applies in this case.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote > So basically you can
>> learn in the general sense or the specific sense.
>>> Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at
>>> the expense of the other.
>>> The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early
>>> route in viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting
>>> data included.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I agree 100 percent, with all you wrote.
>>
>> Here's to waiting for the results to learn the specifics!
>
> In the meantime we can study that 30 second rule :-))
> In the Ultralight, you'll probably be 10 feet into the takeoff roll. In
> the T38, you'll be passing 10 thousand feet :-))

Ha, ha, ha. Yes, I had a good chuckle at that rule also. How high
would a cat launched F-18 be ... 20,000 ft? :-)

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Airbus > wrote:
>> I was told by the a State Police officer that although in the short
>> term those presentations had a positive effect, the long term effect
>> was negative. People and particularly the young have a tendency to
>> push the envelope. It works out to , "I've been doing that for a long
>> time and nothing happened to me, or I know some one who does that all
>> the time". We had the same kind of problems in industry safety.
>
> I think it was Kelly Johnson who said "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Same sort of adage, you
> really don't know where the line is unless you cross it (or unless you pay attention and do what you are told!)
>
>
Either Johnson or William of Occam. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Airbus > wrote:
>> I was told by the a State Police officer that although in the short
>> term those presentations had a positive effect, the long term effect
>> was negative. People and particularly the young have a tendency to
>> push the envelope. It works out to , "I've been doing that for a long
>> time and nothing happened to me, or I know some one who does that all
>> the time". We had the same kind of problems in industry safety.
>
> I think it was Kelly Johnson who said "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Same sort of adage, you
> really don't know where the line is unless you cross it (or unless you pay attention and do what you are told!)

As much as I admire and respect Kelly, I believe that line was said
earlier by Albert Einstein.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

karl gruber wrote:
>>>
>> OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx was
>> with flaps extended. So, what is your point?
>>
>> Matt
>
> Oh.....Reread my post. Evidently your inability to comprehend is affecting
> your pee brain.
>
>

I did and it said nothing new. Also, many airplanes do have Vx speeds
for clean and dirty configurations. Looks like your knowledge of
airplane performance matches your writing and posting ability. Are you
going to repost the same message a third time?

Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> I prefer the being in the air by the 50% point as it
> works for almost all airplanes on runways that are on the short side.

Just as meaningless as any such rule, and simply not applicable on
runways which are "on the short side". As I usually fly off fields with
less than 2000 ft runway, I would never get airborne if I followed your
rule.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:
> "Newps" < wrote
>
>
>>For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.
>
>
> Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
> suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?

He did get in the air but climbed too fast for the conditions. Once in
the air a clean airframe is better than a dirty one.



>
> Of course, if you had to call it that close, the decision to take off with
> all of the weight would be the wrong decision, anyway, so it goes back to no
> flaps being correct.
>
> I have heard of some people doing the takeoff run with no flaps, and
> slightly before rotation, pop the first notch of flaps down, then milk them
> up once speed and climb is obtained.

That is only beneficial for close in obstacles.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> karl gruber wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx
>>> was with flaps extended. So, what is your point?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> Oh.....Reread my post. Evidently your inability to comprehend is
>> affecting your pee brain.
>>
>
> I did and it said nothing new. Also, many airplanes do have Vx speeds
> for clean and dirty configurations. Looks like your knowledge of
> airplane performance matches your writing and posting ability. Are you
> going to repost the same message a third time?


In the Bonanza the difference between clean and dirty Vx is 23 knots
plus or minus a couple knots for different model years.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> If you're manufacturer only gives you a clean wing Vx and Vy. I have
> speeds for both flaps up/clean and flaps 20/dirty

Yes......they give both speeds. But they label only one as Vx.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Sep 1, 10:56 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> > What seems obvious is not always the answer, and it's the wise pilot who
> > realizes the real safety message will be found along the investigative
> > path that follows the video rather than by watching the video itself
> > without this valuable information.
>
> Although I agree in principle as to what you said, I wonder if in this case,
> we can all take away some knowledge, and cautions, just from the
> speculations to the possible causes.
>
> I don't know if I am explaining myself very clearly. What I'm thinking is
> that everyone may take some cautions to not do EACH of the possible causes
> that have been offered up, even if only one or a combinations of a few of
> the offered explanations are really the cause.
>
> What do we take away with us, as possible causes?
>
> 1) Downwind takeoff - bad, when conditions may be close to performance
> limitations.
>
> 2) Downwind takeoffs even worse when you get above the tree line.
>
> 3) Importance of calculating DA, with a conservative slant. Also to add
> other performance reducing factors into the performance calculations.
>
> 4) Overweight takeoffs are a "bad idea." Weight and CG should be closely
> considered, especially when it is close to maximum.
>
> 5) Lean if necessary for an elevated DA.
>
> 6) Possible (big emphasis on this, since we don't really have a reliable
> indication if the engine was running poorly) rough running engines will hurt
> takeoff and climb, especially when takeoff performance calculations are
> marginal.
>
> 7) Raising the nose further while on the brink of a stall is all it takes
> to insure a stall will occur.
>
> It seems likely to me, that one, or more likely more or all of the above had
> a part in the crash. Possible, even probable there are others that nobody
> has mentioned, or thought of.
>
> Still, it makes me think about all of the above while preparing for the next
> takeoff. Would you, and others, think about it in that way?
>
> To me, not knowing what the cause was would remind me to consider all of the
> possible causes, rather than just the one or ones that are really
> responsible.
>
> How about you? Do you have any other pet theories, or think one of the
> reasons I have written down may be largely responsible?
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim

I dont know that the data (the video and incomplete WAT data) support
any conclusion right now.

Should pilots use prudent flying techniques? Yes. The difference
between an amateur and professional pilot is not the airplane that
they fly, but it is the method and procedures by which they fly the
airplane. All pilots should fly their aircraft within the performance
parameters of the vehicle. All pilots should use standardized
procedures and methods in their flying. All pilots should have
"benchmarks" which measure performance of the vehicle and trigger
alternate scenarios.

But otherwise right now there are no real lessons to be learned from
the video tape. This might turn out to be the Kenner crash...for the
WAT and the wind performance problems NOTHING the pilot did except not
going would have changed the outcome...or it might turn out to be that
the accident was Delta at DFW...(the 727) stupid on its face.

Robert

[Newps]

karl gruber wrote:

>>If you're manufacturer only gives you a clean wing Vx and Vy. I have
>>speeds for both flaps up/clean and flaps 20/dirty
>
>
> Yes......they give both speeds. But they label only one as Vx.


Negative. Beech gives you the means to compute Vx for your condition.
Weight, configuration, etc.

[RST Engineering]

Applying Mather weather to Cameron Park is like applying Madison weather to
Oshkosh.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...

>
> There are no guesses about the weather in my post...the data sources are
> quoted and you cut them out. The closest weather was from Mather and you
> assumed the rest.

[RST Engineering]

Or even better (divide by 4, multiply by 3) 75%.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> As though you could really measure 71% accurately on most airspeed
> indicators. Why not just say 70%?
>
> Matt

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
> As though you could really measure 71% accurately on most airspeed
> indicators. Why not just say 70%?


71% sticks in the memory better - it's unique, and intentionally funny,
which helps you remember it.


Paul-Mont

[RST Engineering]

When I lost the engine and hit the bridge, my back seat passenger videotaped
the whole thing, right to the point where the airplane went upside down.

I watch it every now and again just to scare the living bejesus out of
myself.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> A real shame, all the way around, but it is a very unique opportunity for
> others to learn some things that they may have forgotten, or never quite
> learned at all. It isn't often you see the full anatomy of a plane crash,
> like this one.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[RST Engineering]

Like that dirty blonde in the right seat with the blouse that just happened
to come unbuttoned?

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

> I had a couple of minor accidents as a teen - but they were caused by
> distractions, not by speed.

[RST Engineering]

As the survivor of two engine failures, one accident, one glider landing,
the thing I took away from the first one is that once the engine fails,
hoping it will come back at the last instant is the last thing you want to
do. If the landing is inevitable, keep that damned double-bladed sword up
front from making things worse. When it gets down to a couple of hundred
feet, chop the power, kill the mixture, turn the mags off and let the sucker
stop.

Looks to me like that prop turning at 50% power or so is what inverted this
poor bugger once it dug into that hillside. Remember, to the engine it
matters little whether it is the propeller or the airframe that turns. Stop
one and the other will continue to rotate.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> The speculation is at best useful as a general reminder of topics such as
> DA and downwind takeoffs, but any real learning will have to await the
> NTSB results. If the A36 experienced an engine failure shortly after
> lift-off, then this accident falls into the "crap happens"

[RST Engineering]

That is correct by my memory.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>
> As much as I admire and respect Kelly, I believe that line was said
> earlier by Albert Einstein.
>
> Matt

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Negative. Beech gives you the means to compute Vx for your condition.
> Weight, configuration, etc.

I give Beech credit for a complete POH. Cessna is far behind in that regard.

Karl

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> In fact, they had such a restrictive impact on my (normal-for-age-16)
> crazy driving that I actually bought the DVD (which is available on-
> line) of those films and made my son watch it. It's WAY too
> politically incorrect for our cradle-to-grave sappy society nowadays,
> and it's still awful to watch.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372321/
Hell's Highway: The True Story of Highway Safety Films (2003)

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000D0YWQ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg>
The cover


Paul-Mont

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Or even better (divide by 4, multiply by 3) 75%.
>
> Jim
>

That also! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> I prefer the being in the air by the 50% point as it works for almost
>> all airplanes on runways that are on the short side.
>
> Just as meaningless as any such rule, and simply not applicable on
> runways which are "on the short side". As I usually fly off fields with
> less than 2000 ft runway, I would never get airborne if I followed your
> rule.

You would if you flew the right airplane! :-)

I used to usually fly off fields that were less than 2,000' also and had
100 foot trees at the end. If you weren't in the air by 1,000', the
trees tended to get pretty close. I agree that if there are no
obstacles, then being in the air at the halfway point is needlessly
conservative.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> When I lost the engine and hit the bridge, my back seat passenger videotaped
> the whole thing, right to the point where the airplane went upside down.
>
> I watch it every now and again just to scare the living bejesus out of
> myself.
>
> Jim
>

Jim, is that something that you have made available or would be willing
to? Maybe it is on Jay's site, I haven't checked yet.

I'm trusting that the back seat pax was OK???

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route
>> in viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
>
> Agree. I think the benefits of watching the video will be greatly
> enhanced after the NTSB report is published.
>
> In the short term, however, I think everyone who views that video will
> more carefully analyze their take-off performance whilst on the
> roll. I certainly will.
>
> Mary and I have a departure routine that seems to work. As soon as
> the pilot advances the throttle, the copilot calls out (in order):
>
> 1. "Six good bars" (this is in reference to our JPI engine analyzer,
> which has a bar graph depiction of each cylinder. When we lost a
> cylinder coming out of Titusville, FL, it instantly pinpointed which
> cylinder had failed.)
>
> 2. "RPMs good" (If the tach is indicating max RPM)
>
> 3. "Manifold pressure good"
>
> 4. "Oil pressure good" (In the green)
>
> 5. "Airspeed is alive"
>
> This simple CRM enables the pilot to concentrate on flying the plane,
> while the copilot monitors systems. It works well.

I agree with your procedure, Jay, and do much the same myself although I
add in a check of the vacuum pump as that is important for an instrument
launch. I also do all checks myself as I think it is not good for a
single pilot operation to become dependent on more than a single pilot.
I want to always be as proficient flying alone as I am flying with
another pilot or pax who can assist.

When flying with another pilot, I always specifically ask them not to
help me in any way other than monitoring things and letting me know if
something looks askew to them.

Matt

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 08:53:20 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>When I lost the engine and hit the bridge, my back seat passenger videotaped
>the whole thing, right to the point where the airplane went upside down.

Nice to hear you're here to share the experience. <G>

[RST Engineering]

I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup to
do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.

The only casualties were the aforementioned video camera (bounced it off the
top of the airplane which by that time was the bottom, we did, we did) and a
severe ding on my watchband where it hit the mag key. Not a drop of blood
or a scratch on any of the four of us.

Of course, two of the miserable b@$!@rd$ claimed their sex life was ruined
and got my insurance company to dish out $100k and my airplane was beer
cans, but nothing else. The hell of it was that it was a charity flight to
raise money for a memorial to a cancer victim at the airport.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...


>> I watch it every now and again just to scare the living bejesus out of
>> myself.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> Jim, is that something that you have made available or would be willing
> to? Maybe it is on Jay's site, I haven't checked yet.
>
> I'm trusting that the back seat pax was OK???
>
> Matt

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>
> Of course, two of the miserable b@$!@rd$ claimed their sex life was ruined
> and got my insurance company to dish out $100k and my airplane was beer
> cans, but nothing else. The hell of it was that it was a charity flight
> to raise money for a memorial to a cancer victim at the airport.
>
> Jim
If they can't think of ANYTHING else, it's "Loss of Consort."

Karl

[Newps]

RST Engineering wrote:

> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup to
> do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.


The easiest way is to get a digital camcorder and plug that into your
A/V out on the VCR and record the tape as you play it. The camcorder
does all the work. After you've recorded it onto the camcorder you now
have it in digital form and can feed it into a computer or DVD recorder.

[Doug Semler]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup
>> to do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.
>
>
> The easiest way is to get a digital camcorder and plug that into your A/V
> out on the VCR and record the tape as you play it. The camcorder does all
> the work. After you've recorded it onto the camcorder you now have it in
> digital form and can feed it into a computer or DVD recorder.


Wow. Why don't you suggest he converts it to BetaMax while he's at it?
Better suggestion, hook the VCR directly to a video capture card on a
computer or a DVD recorder...Not all camcorders are "digital" you know.

I would do it for you but I don't have a VHS VCR...

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Now we have BVM in addition to his BMV and BMW. I've never heard either a
> BMV or BVM so I'll take your word that they sputter.

LOL. I didn't even realize I did that. Interesting!

> Real engines
> tuned properly (excluding racing engines with aggressive cams) don't
> sputter. I don't consider Harley's to sputter either. They have an
> uneven cadence, but I don't consider that to be sputtering by any
> definition I'm familiar with.

You don't think Harleys sputter? I know you know they have an uneven firing
cadence, due to the angle of the cylinders, but besides the uneven
bap-bap---bap-bap---bap-bap, many times they don't hit on both cylinders on
every two revolutions. I call that sputtering. Perhaps you don't.

I guess sputtering is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" <

> wrote in message ...
>I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup
>to do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.

E-mail coming to you on back channels, Jim. I'll include "Digitize Video
Tape" in the subject line.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Doug Semler wrote:

>
>
>
> Wow. Why don't you suggest he converts it to BetaMax while he's at it?
> Better suggestion, hook the VCR directly to a video capture card on a
> computer or a DVD recorder...Not all camcorders are "digital" you know.


That's ridiculous. The VCR out is analog. If you've ever had your
computer convert analog video to digital you know how long the process
takes. And how many people have an analog video capture card in their
PC? With a digital camcorder you'll need a firewire card, commonly
known as an IEEE 1394. Lots of computers have those as they serve other
purposes. The digital camcorder, and they're all digital nowadays, does
the converting on the fly.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup
>> to do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.
>
>
> The easiest way is to get a digital camcorder and plug that into your A/V
> out on the VCR and record the tape as you play it. The camcorder does all
> the work. After you've recorded it onto the camcorder you now have it in
> digital form and can feed it into a computer or DVD recorder.

Save a couple steps and a lot of money (over the cost of a camcorder) by
getting something like the
Turtle Beach Video Advantage USB
http://www.pricescan.com/items/item165805.asp

Even if you already have a camcorder, the TB box comes with some great
editing software.

In a couple of afternoons & evenings, we converted several old VHS camcorder
tapes of the kids when very young to digital format and then burned them to
DVDs.

We now have lots of good video to embarrass them when they get married and
have their own kids.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[RST Engineering]

Thanks...

Jim

> E-mail coming to you on back channels, Jim. I'll include "Digitize Video
> Tape" in the subject line.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the
>>> setup to do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.
>>
>>
>> The easiest way is to get a digital camcorder and plug that into your A/V
>> out on the VCR and record the tape as you play it. The camcorder does
>> all the work. After you've recorded it onto the camcorder you now have
>> it in digital form and can feed it into a computer or DVD recorder.
>
>
> Wow. Why don't you suggest he converts it to BetaMax while he's at it?
> Better suggestion, hook the VCR directly to a video capture card on a
> computer or a DVD recorder...Not all camcorders are "digital" you know.

He said "get" one, and I don't think they sell any analog camcorders
anymore.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> He said "get" one, and I don't think they sell any analog camcorders
> anymore.

Are you kidding? They make tons of them, every day.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Perhaps, but the motivation is much different, and much more justified.
> They are trying to understand, and the news people are trying to..... to...

Many people in this newsgroup are trying to win, not to understand.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Some of the worst accidents I've witnessed were caused by the driver
> simply looking at his passenger while talking to them. (One of my pet
> peeves, BTW. I had a coworker who simply HAD to look at you while
> talking, even while driving in Chicago traffic. I finally refused to
> ride with him.)

I have a theory that this behavior is responsible for why some people have
such a hard time talking on a cell phone while they are driving.

The human mind takes in many factors while carrying on a conversation.
Facial expressions, body language, a bit of lip reading to make the
conversation even clearer to perceive.

Take that all away by talking on the cell phone, and you have a brain that
is trying so hard to fill in the blanks, and imagine how the other person is
reacting, that it has a difficult time thinking about the driving, too.

You (and most people) can drive down the road and talk to someone very
safely, without looking at them, except for perhaps seeing the other person
out of the corner of the eye, or a quick glance at key points in the
conversation.

Take that away, and the person automatically goes into stupid driver on the
phone, as the brain tries to make the conversation #1 on the processor
usage! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" <> wrote

> We don't have a formal "If the runway is 71% gone we'll abort" rule,
> but if any of the five parameters (listed above) are not nominal, we
> abort.

It might be a good idea to think about adding some type of abort limit, such
as the 71% rule, even with the other checks you do.

The video sure has given me something to chew on. I think the spooky thing
is that the whole takeoff looks so normal, right up to the part the wings
start to wobble, and it falls in the dumpster. Most other videos I have
seen, such as the failed takeoff in (where, Columbia, or something) look
like problems, much, much sooner.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote

> As the survivor of two engine failures, one accident, one glider landing,
> the thing I took away from the first one is that once the engine fails,
> hoping it will come back at the last instant is the last thing you want to
> do. If the landing is inevitable, keep that damned double-bladed sword up
> front from making things worse. When it gets down to a couple of hundred
> feet, chop the power, kill the mixture, turn the mags off and let the
> sucker stop.

Not sure if there was time to do that in this case, but I suppose if he had
thought "really fast" he could have perhaps done that.

> Looks to me like that prop turning at 50% power or so is what inverted
> this poor bugger once it dug into that hillside.

Hard to say for sure, but it is certainly possible.

> Remember, to the engine it matters little whether it is the propeller or
> the airframe that turns. Stop one and the other will continue to rotate.

Yep. Plus, if the engine has been shut off just for a couple seconds, it
could cool enough that there are fewer hot sources to ignite a fuel spill.
Plus, the master being off will provide fewer broken electrical bits (like
that use of correct technical nomenclature? <g> ) with spare electrons
running around inside them, trying to leak out! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote

> I dont know that the data (the video and incomplete WAT data) support
> any conclusion right now.

You missed my point. I admit that it is impossible to draw a conclusion,
right now.
>
> Should pilots use prudent flying techniques? Yes. The difference
> between an amateur and professional pilot is not the airplane that
> they fly, but it is the method and procedures by which they fly the
> airplane. All pilots should fly their aircraft within the performance
> parameters of the vehicle. All pilots should use standardized
> procedures and methods in their flying. All pilots should have
> "benchmarks" which measure performance of the vehicle and trigger
> alternate scenarios.

That all goes without saying.

> But otherwise right now there are no real lessons to be learned from
> the video tape. .

I DO dissagree with that. The lesson is to keep in mind that one, or some,
or all of the things I mentioned need to be kept at the front of your mind,
and even though they should be, they might not be fresh in your mind. Any
of them could ruin your day, in a big way.

It all does not matter, from what point of view you choose to view learning
from this accident. It may help some, it may not help anyone. To each his
own. Everyone is entitled to their own views, and opinions, and that's fine
with me.

Over and out.
--
Jim in NC

[Doug Semler]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Doug Semler wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow. Why don't you suggest he converts it to BetaMax while he's at it?
>> Better suggestion, hook the VCR directly to a video capture card on a
>> computer or a DVD recorder...Not all camcorders are "digital" you know.
>
>
> That's ridiculous. The VCR out is analog. If you've ever had your
> computer convert analog video to digital you know how long the process
> takes. And how many people have an analog video capture card in their PC?
> With a digital camcorder you'll need a firewire card, commonly known as an
> IEEE 1394. Lots of computers have those as they serve other purposes.
> The digital camcorder, and they're all digital nowadays, does the
> converting on the fly.


I do it all the time, on a 1.7Ghz machine with a $120 video capture card
with a hardware encoder. It takes 3 seconds longer than it does to play the
source being digitized. Digitizing a 10 minute tape would take me 10
minutes 3 seconds direct to computer. Longer if you go to the cam corder
first. No matter how you slice it, the digitizing isn't the time consuming
part, it's the playback of the analog source

I question the recommendation to "get" a digital camcorder for > $400 (those
with line-in recording functions) when a $100 video capture card (with
hardware encoder *and* editing software) would be better tools for the
job...

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Doug Semler wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow. Why don't you suggest he converts it to BetaMax while he's at it?
>> Better suggestion, hook the VCR directly to a video capture card on a
>> computer or a DVD recorder...Not all camcorders are "digital" you know.
>
>
> That's ridiculous. The VCR out is analog. If you've ever had your
> computer convert analog video to digital you know how long the process
> takes. And how many people have an analog video capture card in their PC?
> With a digital camcorder you'll need a firewire card, commonly known as an
> IEEE 1394.

Old stuff -- the USB2 ports are ubiquitous and faster then 1394.

[Blueskies]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message ...
> That is correct by my memory.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
> --Henry Ford
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> As much as I admire and respect Kelly, I believe that line was said earlier by Albert Einstein.
>>
>> Matt
>
>

Yup, you folks are right...Johnson said simplicate, don't complicate...

[Blueskies]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message ...
> Applying Mather weather to Cameron Park is like applying Madison weather to Oshkosh.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
> --Henry Ford
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> There are no guesses about the weather in my post...the data sources are quoted and you cut them out. The closest
>> weather was from Mather and you assumed the rest.
>
>

But it was the best I could do. Simply stating the weather from Grass Valley is a better indicator would be enough.
Funny how well it does match up with what folks are saying, though...

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> And how many people have an analog video capture card in their
> PC?

I have a small external device that converts full-frame analog video
to firewire digital out. It simply connects to the firewire and I use
iMovie to capture it. POC.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup to
> do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.

I can do it for you, if you like.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>
> > We don't have a formal "If the runway is 71% gone we'll abort" rule,
> > but if any of the five parameters (listed above) are not nominal, we
> > abort.
>
> It might be a good idea to think about adding some type of abort limit,
such
> as the 71% rule, even with the other checks you do.
>
> The video sure has given me something to chew on. I think the spooky
thing
> is that the whole takeoff looks so normal, right up to the part the wings
> start to wobble, and it falls in the dumpster. Most other videos I have
> seen, such as the failed takeoff in (where, Columbia, or something) look
> like problems, much, much sooner.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
The nice thing about 71%, beside being memorable, is that will probably give
you somethine similar to "balanced field length" in a typical GA airplane.
The only time, in my personal experience, that an airplane was not airborn
at that point was in a Piper Tomahawk on a 2600 foot grass runway with a 20
foot obstacle at the boundary. We chickened out, tried the other direction,
chickened out again and then finally did the calculations in accordance with
the POH. Those calculations should have been done first, as we are all
supposed to do for any set of conditions not already calculated, and the
calculation revealed that we would have crashed if we had continued either
of the take off attempts. BTW, the engine sounded normal, and the
performance proved to be exactly in accordance with the POH for the weight
and conditions.

The only suggestion I have ever read that still makes a lot of sense is to
do the calculations, determine whether the field length and obstacle
clearanced are adiquate, and (presuming that a take off is still planned)
determine the location at which lift off at the correct speed should occur.
Then, if an obvious landmark is not available at the calculated take off
point, pace off the distance and place a disposable marker.

I rotation/distance counter on one of the landing wheels could be a really
nice feature, but I have never seen one.

Peter

[RST Engineering]

Morgans has generously volunteered his son {;-) and I'm going to take him
up on it. But thanks a mil for the offer.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup
>> to
>> do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.
>
> I can do it for you, if you like.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>

[cjcampbell]

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

Yes, but as others said, he did manage to struggle into the air. He
never got out of ground effect. He saw the trees coming and tried to
pull it up and stalled. Probably over weight. The airport security
fence finished the job when he hit it and the plane flipped over. Ten
knots lower stall speed, no fence, no tailwind, cooler temperature, no
trees, less load: any one of those factors would have broken the chain
of events leading to the crash.

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> Now we have BVM in addition to his BMV and BMW. I've never heard either a
>> BMV or BVM so I'll take your word that they sputter.
>
> LOL. I didn't even realize I did that. Interesting!
>
> > Real engines
>> tuned properly (excluding racing engines with aggressive cams) don't
>> sputter. I don't consider Harley's to sputter either. They have an
>> uneven cadence, but I don't consider that to be sputtering by any
>> definition I'm familiar with.
>
> You don't think Harleys sputter? I know you know they have an uneven firing
> cadence, due to the angle of the cylinders, but besides the uneven
> bap-bap---bap-bap---bap-bap, many times they don't hit on both cylinders on
> every two revolutions. I call that sputtering. Perhaps you don't.
>
> I guess sputtering is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder?

Read the url I gave for the Webster's definition of sputtering. That is
my reference point. No, I don't think Harley's sputter given that
definition. Top Fuel dragsters sputter and at night you can see the
explosions coming out of the straight pipes.

Yes, it is in the eye of the beholder, but to say that ALL airplane
engines sputter is simply not correct by any stretch of the imagination.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup to
> do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.
>
> The only casualties were the aforementioned video camera (bounced it off the
> top of the airplane which by that time was the bottom, we did, we did) and a
> severe ding on my watchband where it hit the mag key. Not a drop of blood
> or a scratch on any of the four of us.
>
> Of course, two of the miserable b@$!@rd$ claimed their sex life was ruined
> and got my insurance company to dish out $100k and my airplane was beer
> cans, but nothing else. The hell of it was that it was a charity flight to
> raise money for a memorial to a cancer victim at the airport.
>
> Jim
>

I'm glad to hear that everyone was well, if sex impaired! :-)

I'm not a big fan of seeing things where people died, but it is useful
to see how different emergencies are handled.

Unfortunately, I have no equipment either for digitizing VHS. I do
still have a VHS player, but I try not to brag too much about that.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

cjcampbell wrote:
> On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>
>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
>> side.
>>
>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>
> Yes, but as others said, he did manage to struggle into the air. He
> never got out of ground effect. He saw the trees coming and tried to
> pull it up and stalled. Probably over weight. The airport security
> fence finished the job when he hit it and the plane flipped over. Ten
> knots lower stall speed, no fence, no tailwind, cooler temperature, no
> trees, less load: any one of those factors would have broken the chain
> of events leading to the crash.
>

Maybe, maybe not. You have no idea what caused the crash so saying that
you know the solution is simply dumb.

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Yes, it is in the eye of the beholder, but to say that ALL airplane
> engines sputter is simply not correct by any stretch of the imagination.

I wouldn't say that, either. At least I hope that I didn't say that! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Doug Semler" <> wrote

> I question the recommendation to "get" a digital camcorder for > $400
> (those with line-in recording functions) when a $100 video capture card
> (with hardware encoder *and* editing software) would be better tools for
> the job...

I think the "get a camcorder" comment was made along the lines of "pick one
up out of the cabinet, or borrow one", not as in "go buy one."

Besides, he is not interested in going to any expense to digitize the tape,
and has only offered it if it does not cost him anything, or take too much
effort; am I right, Jim? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Doug Semler]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug Semler" <> wrote
>
>> I question the recommendation to "get" a digital camcorder for > $400
>> (those with line-in recording functions) when a $100 video capture card
>> (with hardware encoder *and* editing software) would be better tools for
>> the job...
>
> I think the "get a camcorder" comment was made along the lines of "pick
> one up out of the cabinet, or borrow one", not as in "go buy one."
>
> Besides, he is not interested in going to any expense to digitize the
> tape, and has only offered it if it does not cost him anything, or take
> too much effort; am I right, Jim? ;-)


Sorry. Bad mood today, I'm quitting smoking <g>

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Newps]

Doug Semler wrote:

>
> I question the recommendation to "get" a digital camcorder for > $400
> (those with line-in recording functions) when a $100 video capture card
> (with hardware encoder *and* editing software) would be better tools for
> the job...
>

Get, as in knock on the neighbors door and borrow one. Total cost $0.

[Jack Allison]

Morgans wrote:

> I've never seen such things. Anyone got some pictures of them?
Not the best picture: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KGOO

[RST Engineering]

This picture was taken before the pigstickers were put up. If you can
imagine six steel spikes spaced every 500' at the treeline on the left side
of this picture 20 feet above the trees, you've got it about right.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> I've never seen such things. Anyone got some pictures of them?
> Not the best picture: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KGOO

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Read the url I gave for the Webster's definition of sputtering.

"Webster" is a generic term for a dictionary, and conveys no special
authority.

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sun 02 Sep 2007 01:02:44p, "RST
Engineering" > wrote:

> Of course, two of the miserable b@$!@rd$ claimed their sex life was
> ruined and got my insurance company to dish out $100k and my airplane
> was beer cans, but nothing else. The hell of it was that it was a
> charity flight to raise money for a memorial to a cancer victim at the
> airport.

Proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sun 02 Sep 2007 03:04:00p, Newps
> wrote:

> That's ridiculous. The VCR out is analog. If you've ever had your
> computer convert analog video to digital you know how long the process
> takes. And how many people have an analog video capture card in their
> PC? With a digital camcorder you'll need a firewire card, commonly
> known as an IEEE 1394. Lots of computers have those as they serve
> other purposes. The digital camcorder, and they're all digital
> nowadays, does the converting on the fly.

It takes however long the original video is. I've captured quite a few
videos off my satellite receiver using just the standard composite outputs
and stored the videos as MPG format files on my PC. I don't think the the
digital camcorder can do it any faster since the limiting time for my
method is the speed of the original video source.

[Mxsmanic]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sun 02 Sep 2007 11:54:19p, Mxsmanic
> wrote:

> "Webster" is a generic term for a dictionary, and conveys no special
> authority.

Kind of like Mxsmanic being a generic term for "idiot"?

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 22:15:59 -0400, "Doug Semler"
> wrote:

>
>Sorry. Bad mood today, I'm quitting smoking <g>

Best of luck, it's worth it!

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-09-02, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> Old stuff -- the USB2 ports are ubiquitous and faster then 1394.

Not really, you'll never actually sustain the full USB2 speed. 1394 is
now 800Mbit/sec as well, although most video cameras will use
Firewire-400, since that's more than adequate for the job alrady.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-09-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
> use flaps for departure.
> I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
> unnecessary?

Depends on the Bonanza - I found that flaps 10 on an S-35 model made a
worthwhile difference to a soft field takeoff (broke ground sooner).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jay Honeck]

> >Sorry. Bad mood today, I'm quitting smoking <g>
>
> Best of luck, it's worth it!

I'll second that motion. Best thing I've ever done.

Aside from the health benefits, the money saved is incredible. I
could buy my airplane with the cash I've saved in the 21 years I've
not been smoking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Doug Semler" wrote

> Sorry. Bad mood today, I'm quitting smoking <g>

Good for you. BTDT. HANG IN THERE! It will soon be worth it.

Being able to climb stairs without getting winded, not hacking up flem, or
whatever that crap is, tasting, REALLY tasting your food, and smelling more
than you can imagine. Oh, that's not always good. <g> The knowledge that
you may have a better health outlook, esp. in your later years. Many more
plus factors than I can think of here.

Good luck and be strong.
--
Jim in NC

PS- I didn't think your post was all that bad; just that you missed
understanding something.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> This picture was taken before the pigstickers were put up. If you can
> imagine six steel spikes spaced every 500' at the treeline on the left
> side of this picture 20 feet above the trees, you've got it about right.

I'm glad, because either my eyes suck, or ...I don't know why I can't see
them.
What the hell are they there for? I can't imagine why they would do that,
but then, if it is the FAA, I guess that explains it.
--
Jim in NC

[RST Engineering]

They are the support poles for the obstruction lights so we don't hit the
trees at night. I guess hitting a 4" steel pole is better than hitting the
top of a Douglas fir, eh? And not that we couldn't do a little tree
climbing and mount the light to the top of the tree so the light would grow
along with the tree? Naaaaaah.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> What the hell are they there for? I can't imagine why they would do that,
> but then, if it is the FAA, I guess that explains it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Peter Dohm]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> They are the support poles for the obstruction lights so we don't hit the
> trees at night. I guess hitting a 4" steel pole is better than hitting
the
> top of a Douglas fir, eh? And not that we couldn't do a little tree
> climbing and mount the light to the top of the tree so the light would
grow
> along with the tree? Naaaaaah.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
> --Henry Ford
>
>
>
Well, it is in California, which is on the Left Coast...

Peter

[Philip S.]

in article m, Jay Honeck
at wrote on 9/2/07 6:05 AM:


> Some of the worst accidents I've witnessed were caused by the driver
> simply looking at his passenger while talking to them.

Funny you should mention this. I was watching a movie just the other day,
and in one scene the driver looked directly at the passenger for what must
have been at least 10-15 seconds, while the background scenery zoomed by.
This drives me (so to speak) nuts when I watch movies, I can't imagine what
it was like for you in real life.

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-09-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
>>use flaps for departure.
>>I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
>>unnecessary?
>
>
> Depends on the Bonanza - I found that flaps 10 on an S-35 model made a
> worthwhile difference to a soft field takeoff (broke ground sooner).


Beech is somewhat deficient in the matter of soft field takeoffs and
flaps. They really don't help you in the manual. We had a fly in at a
friends house yesterday. 1200 foot grass runway. 95 degrees and about
5 knots of wind right down the runway. My owners manual says for a hard
surface runway at that temp and the weight I was at(2360 pounds, 940
under gross) with no flaps and no wind I would need 600 feet of runway.
Manual says nothing about what to add in for a non hard surface runway
or what to subtract for flaps. I know from other publications that
flaps will subtract 20% from the total. The runway surface is just a
WAG but I think the manual from my 182 said to add 8% for the runway.
So that's a net loss of needed runway and since even if I needed 600
feet that's still only half the runway.
Now if Jay would just get the video I sent him last night of the Cub
nosing over figured out you could see a really cool experimental Cub
with retractable leading edge slats.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:54:03 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> "I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
>> acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
>
>It reduces ground roll by 20%.

It might get me into ground effect a bit earlier, but the end result
would take more distance to clear thatl 50 foot obstical.
>
>
>
>>
>> One interesting characteristic of a soft field take off is if the up
>> elevator pressure is not eased off as the nose gear comes off the
>> plane will rotate into ground effect early and then settle back down
>> to never lift off again unless back pressure is eased off considerably
>> to allow the place to accelerate.
>
>
>Uh, what? That has not been my experience. I have done numerous touch
>and go's of this sort where I let it settle back on the runway as I was
>accelerating on takeoff due to poor technique on my part. No doubt I

Yes, it would be due to poor technique, but unless the back pressure
is reduced the Deb will just go on down the runway, riding on the
mains, nose high.

>slightly increased my takeoff distance but just leaving the controls
>where they are the plane will takeoff just fine.
>
Even with 260 HP and a 3-blade prop, I have to let the nose down after
it settles or it won't acellerate enough to get back up.

Roger

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:58:12 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Morgans wrote:
>> "Newps" < wrote
>>
>>
>>>For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.
>>
>>
>> Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
>> suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?

The POH and the Air Safety Foundation say to leave the gear down until
past any short field object. The reason being under Vy it makes
little difference in climb ability while the gear doors cycling add a
lot of drag. So if it's a close in obstacle you leave the gear down on
a Bo.

>
>He did get in the air but climbed too fast for the conditions. Once in
>the air a clean airframe is better than a dirty one.

I'd say once Vy has been reached according to the above.

Roger

>
>
>
>>
>> Of course, if you had to call it that close, the decision to take off with
>> all of the weight would be the wrong decision, anyway, so it goes back to no
>> flaps being correct.
>>
>> I have heard of some people doing the takeoff run with no flaps, and
>> slightly before rotation, pop the first notch of flaps down, then milk them
>> up once speed and climb is obtained.
>
>That is only beneficial for close in obstacles.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" < wrote

> The POH and the Air Safety Foundation say to leave the gear down until
> past any short field object. The reason being under Vy it makes
> little difference in climb ability while the gear doors cycling add a
> lot of drag. So if it's a close in obstacle you leave the gear down on
> a Bo.

Yep, I forgot to consider the gear doors.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" <> wrote

> They are the support poles for the obstruction lights so we don't hit the
> trees at night. I guess hitting a 4" steel pole is better than hitting
> the top of a Douglas fir, eh? And not that we couldn't do a little tree
> climbing and mount the light to the top of the tree so the light would
> grow along with the tree? Naaaaaah.

Don't you DARE suggest anything that makes sense!

What color are the lights (red I suppose) do they blink, and how far apart
do they put the poles?
--
Jim in NC

[Jack Allison]

RST Engineering wrote:
> This picture was taken before the pigstickers were put up. If you can
> imagine six steel spikes spaced every 500' at the treeline on the left side
> of this picture 20 feet above the trees, you've got it about right.
>
> Jim
>
Hmmm, and here I thought the red/white poles barely visible in the
Airnav picture showed them. Yikes. It's been a long time...two years
maybe...since I've flown into KGOO.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

>>> Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
>>> suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?
>
> The POH and the Air Safety Foundation say to leave the gear down until
> past any short field object. The reason being under Vy it makes
> little difference in climb ability while the gear doors cycling add a
> lot of drag. So if it's a close in obstacle you leave the gear down on
> a Bo.
>
Generally speaking unless otherwise stated in a specific airplane's
POH; leaving the gear down after rotation and under Vy is a good
practice and I heartily agree with ASF on this issue.
This is even more pronounced on higher performance airplanes with big doors.
On the Mustang, the fairing doors cause a ton of drag as they retract
(the suckers are as big as sails :-) and leaving the gear down as you
rotate has very little effect on acceleration below Vy so the accepted
procedure is NOT to retract the gear until firmly established with a
positive ROC but not to exceed 160 indicated to retract(for the 51).
The fairing doors on the P51 are about as huge as the spinnaker on a 12
meter racing yacht. :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Newps]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:54:03 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
>>>acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
>>
>>It reduces ground roll by 20%.
>
>
> It might get me into ground effect a bit earlier, but the end result
> would take more distance to clear thatl 50 foot obstical.

That is not the case. You clear 50 feet sooner with flaps than without.
A lot sooner, 33% in fact. A Bonanza with a 520 at 2800 pounds,
5000 feet and 32 degrees gets these results: Flaps 20...Lift off in 876
feet and thru 50 feet in 1200 feet. No flaps...Lift off in 944 feet and
thru 50 feet in 1600 feet. There will be minor differences among the
various Bonanza models but all will perform basically the same.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>
>>The POH and the Air Safety Foundation say to leave the gear down until
>>past any short field object. The reason being under Vy it makes
>>little difference in climb ability while the gear doors cycling add a
>>lot of drag. So if it's a close in obstacle you leave the gear down on
>>a Bo.
>
>
> Not to mention that Vx and Vy with the gear down are about 10 kts lower
> than with the gear up.




Vx and Vy are about 23 knots lower with gear and flaps down.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Roger (K8RI)" < wrote
>
>
>>The POH and the Air Safety Foundation say to leave the gear down until
>>past any short field object. The reason being under Vy it makes
>>little difference in climb ability while the gear doors cycling add a
>>lot of drag. So if it's a close in obstacle you leave the gear down on
>>a Bo.
>
>
> Yep, I forgot to consider the gear doors.




The Bo in the crash had the 28 volt electrical system so his gear cycle
time is 4 seconds. Very minor added drag. The 12 volt planes have a
gear cycle time of 8-12 seconds. On a 4 second bird I would put the
gear up in a situation like this.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:54:03 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
>>>> acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
>>>
>>> It reduces ground roll by 20%.
>>
>>
>> It might get me into ground effect a bit earlier, but the end result
>> would take more distance to clear thatl 50 foot obstical.
>
> That is not the case. You clear 50 feet sooner with flaps than without.
> A lot sooner, 33% in fact. A Bonanza with a 520 at 2800 pounds, 5000
> feet and 32 degrees gets these results: Flaps 20...Lift off in 876 feet
> and thru 50 feet in 1200 feet. No flaps...Lift off in 944 feet and thru
> 50 feet in 1600 feet. There will be minor differences among the various
> Bonanza models but all will perform basically the same.

Yes, a few knots less takeoff speed pays huge dividends in distance.

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

> The fairing doors on the P51 are about as huge as the spinnaker on a 12
> meter racing yacht. :-))

Now Dudley, I must have told you a million times, to not exaggerate!
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote
>
>> The fairing doors on the P51 are about as huge as the spinnaker on a 12
>> meter racing yacht. :-))
>
> Now Dudley, I must have told you a million times, to not exaggerate!
> <g>
Well.......maybe as big as the sail on a Sunfish then :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Montblack]

("Jack Allison" wrote)
> It's been a long time...two years maybe...since I've flown into KGOO.


KGOO ....funny name. <g>


Paul-Mont

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Well.......maybe as big as the sail on a Sunfish then :-)))

That's better! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Paul kgyy]

> top of a Douglas fir, eh? And not that we couldn't do a little tree
> climbing and mount the light to the top of the tree so the light would grow
> along with the tree? Naaaaaah.
>
Items attached to tree tops don't grow upwards. They stay where they
are while the tree grows up around it. Those little branches at the
top of the tree will stay right where they are for the life of the
tree.

[cjcampbell]

On Sep 2, 6:14 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >>http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> >> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
> >> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> >> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> >> to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
> >> side.
>
> >> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> >> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>
> > Yes, but as others said, he did manage to struggle into the air. He
> > never got out of ground effect. He saw the trees coming and tried to
> > pull it up and stalled. Probably over weight. The airport security
> > fence finished the job when he hit it and the plane flipped over. Ten
> > knots lower stall speed, no fence, no tailwind, cooler temperature, no
> > trees, less load: any one of those factors would have broken the chain
> > of events leading to the crash.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. You have no idea what caused the crash so saying that
> you know the solution is simply dumb.
>
> Matt

Frankly, most of us are not quite as ignorant as you seem to think we
are.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:18:03 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:54:03 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
>>>>acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
>>>
>>>It reduces ground roll by 20%.
>>
>>
>> It might get me into ground effect a bit earlier, but the end result
>> would take more distance to clear thatl 50 foot obstical.
>
>That is not the case. You clear 50 feet sooner with flaps than without.

I quote from the "American Bonanza Society Pilot Proficiency Training
manual:

Short Field Takeoffs:

1: Align the aircraft with the runway, Apply full power prior to brake
release. "FLAPS SHOULD BE UP" (Emphasis mine) unless otherwise stated
in the POH for the specific aircraft.

2. Accelerate with pitch attitude near neutral to Vx.

3. Rotate positively at Vx and stay at Vx until the obstacle is
cleared.

4. As noted elsewhere and in this manual the drag of the extended gear
at Vx has little or no effect on climb performance. Accordingly, on
climbouts from short field takeoffs The landing gear should not be
retracted until obstacles and terrain are cleared. Then raise the gear
and accelerate to Vy.


> A lot sooner, 33% in fact. A Bonanza with a 520 at 2800 pounds,

Not according to the manual.

>5000 feet and 32 degrees gets these results: Flaps 20...Lift off in 876
>feet and thru 50 feet in 1200 feet. No flaps...Lift off in 944 feet and
>thru 50 feet in 1600 feet. There will be minor differences among the
>various Bonanza models but all will perform basically the same.

[jjcarlson]

Cameron Park is my home airport. I own and fly a Beech Travel Air
B95. My work office is located a few hundred feet off the end of 31.
I was in my office at the time of the crash but did not see it. Here
are some of my observations fom watching the video, I used a satellite
image of the airport via Google Earth which has a handy distance
measuring tool which I used to determin key distances along the
takeoff profile. First, 31 has a displaced threshold that is
approximatly 1500 feet from the begining of the runway. The video
starts showing the plane already moving at pretty good speed crossing
over this threshold. The camera appears to be located near the fuel
island slightly less than midfield at about 1900 feet down the
runway. The plane crosses this point and seems to be picking up speed
at a good rate. The engine also sounds strong. By freezing the video
at this point it appears that all 3 passengers and pilot are sitting
in the four seets furthest toward the front of the aircraft. (I
obviously can't tell this for sure). I slowly forwarded the video
from this point on and counted five white stripes from the point of
takeoff to the end of the runway. Using the google satellite image,
this measures out to a lift off point of about 3000 feet down the
runway or about 1000 feet from the end of the runway. The distance
from the end of the runway to the crash site is about 900 feet. Also,
I can confirm the conditions at the time of the crash. The
temperature was just above 100, and the winds were light (5 or less).
I do not know the direction of the wind. My calculations show a DA of
about 4200 feet which seems to fall in line with other's
calculations. I do recall hearing several other aircraft depart using
31 within a half hour time frame before the accident.

[Newps]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

>
>
>
>> A lot sooner, 33% in fact. A Bonanza with a 520 at 2800 pounds,
>
>
> Not according to the manual.

Your manual doesn't say anything about flaps for any takeoff. Nor does
it say anything about any surface othr than a hard surface runway.
Other publications do. I'm sure you're familiar with Eckalbar's book.
The answers and more math than you can handle will spell it all out in
there. Even with out going to the book it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to tell a takeoff with flaps is much shorter.

[Marco Leon]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> This all reminds me of that 182 on Youtube with the medical patient in
> Africa that appears to be overweight.
>
> I lost a friend, along with five of his relatives, when he tried to
> depart Pullyaup, WA in an overweight Cherokee 6. His crash
> description was exactly like the Youtube 182 and this Bo.

Also, if you look at the video (as other folks have mentioned), his liftoff
was almost near the end of the runway (looks a little past the 1000 ft
marker). If you assume that he did not do an intersection departure, he must
have been rolling for about 3,000 feet by the time he rotated.

Marco

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:39:53 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> A lot sooner, 33% in fact. A Bonanza with a 520 at 2800 pounds,
>>
>>
>> Not according to the manual.
>
>Your manual doesn't say anything about flaps for any takeoff. Nor does

Good Lord! I just quoted the "short field take off procedure" from
the American Bonanza Society "Pilot Proficiency Training Manual" and
you say my manual doesn't say anything about flaps for any take off
and I even listed the name of the manual. The Short field TO is on
page 36. Having to repeat myself, it says "Do not use flaps unless
stated to do so in the POH for the specific aircraft".


>it say anything about any surface othr than a hard surface runway.

It certainly does.
On page 33 it lists the average take off distances for
concrete/asphalt, hard turf, avg field with short grass, avg field
with long grass, soft ground and very soft ground.

>Other publications do. I'm sure you're familiar with Eckalbar's book.
>The answers and more math than you can handle will spell it all out in

Although it's been a while (17 years) one of my minors was in math so
I think I could probably handle it.

>there. Even with out going to the book it doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to tell a takeoff with flaps is much shorter.

In most cases I'd agree, but, why or why does the American Bonanza
Society Pilot Proficiency Training Manual (put together by the Air
Safety Foundation), say do not use flaps unless it says to do so in
the POH for the specific aircraft. My POH does not say to use flaps so
I follow the ABS training manual and do not use them.

This is what they teach in the "Bonanza Specific" pilot proficiency
program and I'm quite willing to take their experienced word for these
specific aircraft.

BTW when you go through the manual they have you using *full* flaps on
all landings too.

If you still have a problem with this I suggest you call the American
Bonanza Society http://www.bonanza.org/ at:

The American Bonanza Society
P.O. Box 12888
Wichita, Kansas 67277
Telephone: 316/945-1700

And argue with them.

Roger (K8RI)

[Friedrich Ostertag]

wrxpilot wrote:

> Agreed... This "30 secs" rule is pretty impractical. I like to use
> Sparky Imeson's rule of 71% rotation speed by 50% of the runway.
> Having done a lot of my flying out of Colorado during the summer
> months, it was a comforting rule of thumb.

interesting. That implies that your horizontal G somewhat increases with
speed during the second half. Based on a flat horizontal G throughout the
takeoff run, whatever speed you have 71% of at halfway point, you would just
about reach when you run out of runway.

(71% is roughly sqare root of 2)

regards,
Friedrich

[M[_1_]]

The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070910X01354&key=1

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> http://fox40.trb.com/
>
> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was atCameronPark
> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
> to the web site and click on "CameronParkPlane Crash" on the right
> side.
>
> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

M wrote:
> The NTSB preliminary is out:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070910X01354&key=1

So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?

Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.

Matt

[RST Engineering]

The fire department can opine all they want; there is no way in hell that
the temperature was 107 except on a black piece of metal aimed directly at
the sun.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The NTSB preliminary is out:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070910X01354&key=1
>
> On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> http://fox40.trb.com/
>>
>> In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was atCameronPark
>> airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
>> had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
>> to the web site and click on "CameronParkPlane Crash" on the right
>> side.
>>
>> It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
>> altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>M wrote:
>> The NTSB preliminary is out:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070910X01354&key=1
>
> So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
> this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?
>
> Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.

Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
<http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag36/specifications.aspx>

1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.

Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.

How about you?
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> M wrote:
>>> The NTSB preliminary is out:
>>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070910X01354&key=1
>> So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
>> this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?
>>
>> Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.
>
> Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
> tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
> <http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag36/specifications.aspx>
>
> 1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
> weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
> 3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.
>
> Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
> Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.
>
> How about you?

Yes, 248 lbs over would be substantial, however, if two of the
passengers were women, there is a chance that the average weight was
less than 170. However, nowadays in America, the odds of being much
less than 170 are slim. And I'm nearly certain they didn't average less
than 432/4! Then again, we need to know for sure what the useful load
was for that particular aircraft.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> The fire department can opine all they want; there is no way in hell that
> the temperature was 107 except on a black piece of metal aimed directly at
> the sun.

Even above a paved runway? The temps at an airport, especially large
ones (I realize this isn't a large one) are often well above ambient
elsewhere. Concrete and asphalt are great sun collectors.

Matt

[Newps]

Those useful load figures are for the new G36, they're as much
overweight as your new Cessna 206's. 2700 pound empty weight? That's
pathetic. The A36's had a typical empty weight of 1980-2050 so the
useful came in at around 1550. So looks like he was under gross, even
if the Bo was heavier than normal.




Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>M wrote:
>>
>>>The NTSB preliminary is out:
>>>
>>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070910X01354&key=1
>>
>>So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
>>this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?
>>
>>Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.
>
>
> Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
> tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
> <http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag36/specifications.aspx>
>
> 1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
> weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
> 3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.
>
> Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
> Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.
>
> How about you?

[[email protected]]

> > Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
> > tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
> > <http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag3...>
>
> > 1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
> > weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
> > 3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.
>
> > Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
> > Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.
>
> > How about you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I ran the numbers through this calculator and it doesn't look like he
was over-gross:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/a36bonanzawbcalc.html

The density altitude was 4592 feet, which would have had some impact
on climb performance, but he still should have been able to climb at a
decent rate. I wonder if the prop control was set correctly for take-
off?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>Even above a paved runway? The temps at an airport, especially large
>ones (I realize this isn't a large one) are often well above ambient
>elsewhere. Concrete and asphalt are great sun collectors.
>

I think that could make the difference. According to the report, the fire
dept. measured the temperature at the site. Temps issued for weather reports
are taken in the shade under somewhat controlled conditions. They can differ
substantially from the absolute temperature measured on a hot ramp in the sun.


When the tower is reporting 110 degrees here in Phoenix, it's not unusually
for the plane mounted temperature probe (out in the sun, several feet off the
shimmering asphalt) to report temps in excess of 125 degrees.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Matt Whiting]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Even above a paved runway? The temps at an airport, especially large
>> ones (I realize this isn't a large one) are often well above ambient
>> elsewhere. Concrete and asphalt are great sun collectors.
>>
>
> I think that could make the difference. According to the report, the fire
> dept. measured the temperature at the site. Temps issued for weather reports
> are taken in the shade under somewhat controlled conditions. They can differ
> substantially from the absolute temperature measured on a hot ramp in the sun.
>
>
> When the tower is reporting 110 degrees here in Phoenix, it's not unusually
> for the plane mounted temperature probe (out in the sun, several feet off the
> shimmering asphalt) to report temps in excess of 125 degrees.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

I flew out of Willow Run in Detroit one August day and the temperature
on the ramp was 110 when the weather service was reporting 102. That
was just nasty even with the windows open and the big fan running.

It still sounds like there is more to this story than simple overloading
or density altitude. Hopefully, the NTSB will be able to put the pieces
of the puzzle in place.

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 11, 10:16 pm, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:
> The fire department can opine all they want; there is no way in hell that
> the temperature was 107 except on a black piece of metal aimed directly at
> the sun.
>
> Jim


The other thing I thought was interesting is that the NTSB estimated
60 gal of fuel and 270 lbs of luggage (I've flown with 4 for a week
and a half and only got 150 lbs so this sounds strange). Considering
two women and two men, using an average of 170lbs that would put the
average A36 within 50 lbs of being under gross. I can personally
estimate one of the individuals at 140 lbs but one of the guys they
pulled out looked a bit big. In anycase, its certainly not a clear
case of over gross.

This accident has bothered me a lot. Pilots have been so excited to
jump all over this pilot and say this accident was because he was
taking off from a short (not true), high altitude (not true), airport
over gross (not sure). Its amazing how fast fellow pilots are to try
to say an accident pilot screwed up. It got me thinking. I think
pilots, really, really want to believe that any pilot involved in
fatal accident made a serious mistake and moreover, than it was a dump
mistake. They want to believe this because it allows them to separate
themselves from the accident pilot. Its a way to say "this would never
happen to me". No one wants to believe that this pilot could have done
everything right (or at least as right as most of us usually do) and
still had such a traggic ending. I just hope that if I'm ever in a
serious accident that the news crew points the camera at some random
passer-by and not a pilot. I actually heard one pilot say "I trained
in a Warrior, which is like the accident plane, and I would not have
taken off". Maybe the NTSB should ask him to consult on the next 737
accident as well.

-Robert

[Jay Honeck]

> pilots, really, really want to believe that any pilot involved in
> fatal accident made a serious mistake and moreover, than it was a dump
> mistake. They want to believe this because it allows them to separate
> themselves from the accident pilot. Its a way to say "this would never
> happen to me".

Absolutely true. We all want desperately to believe that every
accident pilot was a dunce, and did something terribly wrong, since to
believe otherwise would place in doubt our decision to launch
ourselves into the wild blue yonder...

The reason many of us are so interested in aviation accidents is
because we are looking for reassurance that we're truly NOT "reckless"
or "crazy" to "fly those little planes", as so many of our
contemporaries like to trumpet. (We've all got friends and relatives
who -- at least privately -- think we're nuts to fly.)

I, for one, am continually analyzing and studying GA accidents, and
comparing them with my own experiences and habits, in an effort to
make sure that my family is as safe as possible.

I believe this is healthy, and a good way to stay that way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 13, 12:41 pm, john smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> When was the last time you saw two men and two women and the average
> weight was 170 lbs?

Frequently. The woman who died weighed about 140-150 in my estimate.
That would allow the guy to be around 200 lbs. Its reasonable that the
guy was 200 lbs. Again, I'm not saying there is no way they were over
gross, I'm just saying its not clear cut that they were as much as
people would like to believe.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> pilots, really, really want to believe that any pilot involved in
>> fatal accident made a serious mistake and moreover, than it was a dump
>> mistake. They want to believe this because it allows them to separate
>> themselves from the accident pilot. Its a way to say "this would never
>> happen to me".
>
> Absolutely true. We all want desperately to believe that every
> accident pilot was a dunce, and did something terribly wrong, since to
> believe otherwise would place in doubt our decision to launch
> ourselves into the wild blue yonder...

Absolutely false. I don't feel this way at all and thus we "all" don't
believe as you believe.


> The reason many of us are so interested in aviation accidents is
> because we are looking for reassurance that we're truly NOT "reckless"
> or "crazy" to "fly those little planes", as so many of our
> contemporaries like to trumpet. (We've all got friends and relatives
> who -- at least privately -- think we're nuts to fly.)

The reason I am so interested in aviation accidents is to learn how to
no be the next accident.


> I, for one, am continually analyzing and studying GA accidents, and
> comparing them with my own experiences and habits, in an effort to
> make sure that my family is as safe as possible.

Bingo, you finally got it right!


> I believe this is healthy, and a good way to stay that way.

On this we agree.

Matt

[Newps]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:


>
> I think that could make the difference. According to the report, the fire
> dept. measured the temperature at the site. Temps issued for weather reports
> are taken in the shade under somewhat controlled conditions. They can differ
> substantially from the absolute temperature measured on a hot ramp in the sun.
>
>
> When the tower is reporting 110 degrees here in Phoenix, it's not unusually
> for the plane mounted temperature probe (out in the sun, several feet off the
> shimmering asphalt) to report temps in excess of 125 degrees.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)




And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The
official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a
runway in the shade?

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:07:47 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I think that could make the difference. According to the report, the fire
>> dept. measured the temperature at the site. Temps issued for weather reports
>> are taken in the shade under somewhat controlled conditions. They can differ
>> substantially from the absolute temperature measured on a hot ramp in the sun.
>>
>>
>> When the tower is reporting 110 degrees here in Phoenix, it's not unusually
>> for the plane mounted temperature probe (out in the sun, several feet off the
>> shimmering asphalt) to report temps in excess of 125 degrees.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>
>
>
>And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The
>official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a
>runway in the shade?

The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above
will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to
reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 11, 10:16 pm, "RST Engineering" >
> wrote:
>> The fire department can opine all they want; there is no way in hell that
>> the temperature was 107 except on a black piece of metal aimed directly at
>> the sun.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> The other thing I thought was interesting is that the NTSB estimated
> 60 gal of fuel and 270 lbs of luggage (I've flown with 4 for a week
> and a half and only got 150 lbs so this sounds strange). Considering
> two women and two men, using an average of 170lbs that would put the
> average A36 within 50 lbs of being under gross. I can personally
> estimate one of the individuals at 140 lbs but one of the guys they
> pulled out looked a bit big. In anycase, its certainly not a clear
> case of over gross.
>
> This accident has bothered me a lot. Pilots have been so excited to
> jump all over this pilot and say this accident was because he was
> taking off from a short (not true), high altitude (not true), airport
> over gross (not sure). Its amazing how fast fellow pilots are to try
> to say an accident pilot screwed up. It got me thinking. I think
> pilots, really, really want to believe that any pilot involved in
> fatal accident made a serious mistake and moreover, than it was a dump
> mistake. They want to believe this because it allows them to separate
> themselves from the accident pilot. Its a way to say "this would never
> happen to me". No one wants to believe that this pilot could have done
> everything right (or at least as right as most of us usually do) and
> still had such a traggic ending. I just hope that if I'm ever in a
> serious accident that the news crew points the camera at some random
> passer-by and not a pilot. I actually heard one pilot say "I trained
> in a Warrior, which is like the accident plane, and I would not have
> taken off". Maybe the NTSB should ask him to consult on the next 737
> accident as well.
>
> -Robert
>
Not wishing to seem confrontational but this is a gross over
generalization in my opinion.

I've seen 32 of my fellow pilots killed in accidents and served on
several accident investigation committees and have never felt this way,
nor do I know personally any pilot that I would say feels this way and
would be extremely surprised to learn did indeed feel this way.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

john smith wrote:
> Following the Palm 90 crash in Washington DC, I heard someone in
> aviation say something to the effect that if you are not airborne within
> 30-seconds of brake release following throttle up, abort and determine
> why you had not reached flying speed.

I wouldn't be a fan for such a rule.

--
Dudley Henriques