Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow?

Matt Whiting wrote:
You know, I almost wonder if the pilot's seat didn't slip back on him. That
might explain the cocked attitude going down the runway. If his load was
marginal (and it sure looked like it was) it would have been easy to lose it
while trying to reach the rudder pedals without pulling back the yoke at the
same time as he tried to scoot forward. Plausible?

I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
remember now the details.


I had it happen to me one day years ago when I was atempting to fly a Turbo
C-206 off a short grass strip on a hillside. The runway lead directly to Lake
Norman but there was a small shed right at the water's edge (and right in the
middle of the slot between the trees). I'd never flown one before and I was by
myself. When I poured the coal to it, the seat slid back. I definitely had my
hands full until shortly after liftoff when I got it sorted out.

I'm pretty sure my takeoff looked much like the video for the first 30 seconds
or so. Of course, I didn't crash and had plenty of excess power. The memory of
that is what prompted my original comments.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Didn't we go over this about 6 months ago?

Yep, I had deja vu. I had to check and double-check the dates of this
thread to be sure my news provider hadn't sent me old content.

--
Peter

Flyingmonk wrote:

I don't know, did we? I must have missed it. You got a link?

http://tinyurl.com/l7avs


--
Peter

Matt Whiting wrote:

I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
remember now the details.

Matt

It's an AD:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...0?OpenDocument

The biggest settlement in general aviation history arose, as
I remember, out of the crash of a 185 on floats in which the pilot lost
control when his seat slid back at liftoff. Something like US$450
million awarded. I can't understand that, as the AD is a mandatory
thing and if those seats and tracks are properly maintained they don't
let go like that. It's the owner's responibility to see that ADs are
complied with.

Dan

Peter R. wrote:
Flyingmonk wrote:

I don't know, did we? I must have missed it. You got a link?

http://tinyurl.com/l7avs


--
Peter

So I did miss it... Thanks Pete!

Monk

Dave Doe wrote:

In article .com,
says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2X...rplane%20pilot

Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?


Looked overweight to me - rotated a bit early too (inducing unecessary
drag) - and *chit* - he never uncrossed the thing once airborne! (more
uneeded drag). Couldn't tell what he was doing w' the flaps - but he
shoulda been 1 notch (maybe none?) - and left it that way (or gone to 1
notch) until climb was achieved.

I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
for a short-field take-off.

Matt

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
remember now the details.

Matt


It's an AD:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...0?OpenDocument

The biggest settlement in general aviation history arose, as
I remember, out of the crash of a 185 on floats in which the pilot lost
control when his seat slid back at liftoff. Something like US$450
million awarded. I can't understand that, as the AD is a mandatory
thing and if those seats and tracks are properly maintained they don't
let go like that. It's the owner's responibility to see that ADs are
complied with.

I concluded many years ago that "jury award" and "logic" shouldn't
appear in the same sentence, or paragraph or story.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
for a short-field take-off.


It was a C-182. You could see the cowl flaps as it went by. I don't recall
seeing the wing flaps down at all.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
for a short-field take-off.



It was a C-182. You could see the cowl flaps as it went by. I don't recall
seeing the wing flaps down at all.

I noticed the flaps. Looked like flaps 20 to me, but hard to be sure.
However, up to 20 would certainly have been appropriate. My 182 took
off a lot shorter with flaps 20 and would climb at a pretty impressive
deck angle as well after lift-off.


Matt

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe wrote:

In article .com,
says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2X...rplane%20pilot

Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?


Looked overweight to me - rotated a bit early too (inducing unecessary
drag) - and *chit* - he never uncrossed the thing once airborne! (more
uneeded drag). Couldn't tell what he was doing w' the flaps - but he
shoulda been 1 notch (maybe none?) - and left it that way (or gone to 1
notch) until climb was achieved.

I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
for a short-field take-off.

Sure - and indeed, upon looking at it a couple more times, I'd say
that's his setting. Possibly still not the wisest if he wanted a short
field t/o (which in *my* training on a 172, is no flaps).

--
Duncan