Bonanza crash caught on video

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.

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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 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".