Bonanza crash caught on video

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?e...10X01354&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"

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

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...ation/200709/1

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

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?

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?

wrote:

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?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But
if you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


wrote:

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?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But if
you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

Remember, too, that a thermometer held in the sun is going to read higher
than a thermometer in the shade. What it's reading is the sunlight on skin
or a thermometer, not the air temp. That's why they takes temps in the
shade -- the heat transfer is much different.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:24:39 -0600, Newps wrote:



wrote:

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?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But
if you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

Even with a light breeze you should be out of the rising, high
temperature air in 30 to 50 feet unless the breeze is right down the
runway. (or if it's calm)

Roger (K8RI)

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