Bonanza crash caught on video

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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