July 16th Accident In Vancouver

Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa

How can you tell from that report?

If they were slow and retracted the full flaps that could be a problem.


"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa

I am a local and was at the airport the day the of the accident. It was over
100 degrees out and high humidity look at the performance of a almost run
out "tired" C-150 when it is 104 degrees out, humid, pushing gross weight
and landing on a short grass strip with tall trees not far from the end of
the runway.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
How can you tell from that report?

If they were slow and retracted the full flaps that could be a problem.


"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as
aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa

RUNWAY 13
Obstructions: 50 ft. trees, 1000 ft. from runway

RUNWAY 31
Obstructions: 30 ft. trees, 200 ft. from runway


"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
I am a local and was at the airport the day the of the accident. It was
over
100 degrees out and high humidity look at the performance of a almost run
out "tired" C-150 when it is 104 degrees out, humid, pushing gross
weight
and landing on a short grass strip with tall trees not far from the end of
the runway.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
How can you tell from that report?

If they were slow and retracted the full flaps that could be a problem.


"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as
aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but every plane has its limits and it is the
responsibility of the pilot to know and respect those limits. If they were
unable to execute a go-around then either they did something wrong (like
completely retracting full flaps all at once?) or they initiated the
go-around too late. Performance degradation due to known conditions such as
density altitude and operation near gross are the pilot's responsibility.
An engine not producing full power due to age is marginal, I know I take
that into account and a lot of others do also, but sometimes that is tough
to do but in any case they seemed to have gotten too close to what they
thought was the edge of the envelope but what was outside it.



"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
I am a local and was at the airport the day the of the accident. It was
over
100 degrees out and high humidity look at the performance of a almost run
out "tired" C-150 when it is 104 degrees out, humid, pushing gross
weight
and landing on a short grass strip with tall trees not far from the end of
the runway.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
How can you tell from that report?

If they were slow and retracted the full flaps that could be a problem.


"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as
aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
I am a local and was at the airport the day the of the accident. It was
over
100 degrees out and high humidity look at the performance of a almost run
out "tired" C-150 when it is 104 degrees out, humid, pushing gross
weight
and landing on a short grass strip with tall trees not far from the end of
the runway.

Apparently you know some things about the 150 that are not in the report. I
have no idea what the pilots weigh, either, or anything about the loading of
the airplane.

It seems to me that the 150 should have been able to handle the landing. The
mistake seems to me that the instructor allowed himself to get behind the
student and the airplane and did not initiate corrective action in time.
Raising flaps at the wrong time sure did not help.

I don't buy the "tired" bit. I would bet dollars to donuts that the airplane
would have performed almost exactly the same way on the day it rolled out of
the factory.

Lucky they did not stall and kill someone like that similar accident we
talked about in another thread here a month or so ago -- the one where an
inexperienced instructor took her student and two of the student's children
to a short field. She got behind the student, initiated a go around too
late, and when the student saw that they were going to hit trees he grabbed
the controls and stalled, killing himself.

"NW_PILOT" wrote in
:

I am a local and was at the airport the day the of the accident. It
was over 100 degrees out and high humidity look at the performance of
a almost run out "tired" C-150 when it is 104 degrees out, humid,
pushing gross weight and landing on a short grass strip with tall
trees not far from the end of the runway.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
How can you tell from that report?

If they were slow and retracted the full flaps that could be a
problem.


"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as
aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa







Facts not in evidence your honor.

You asked us to review a factual report and then comment on it. Based on
the report a poster said if you raise the flaps in the situation
described in the report, that would account for the loss of altitude.
You then added a bunch of additional information that was not available
to the reader of the report. ( near Run out engine, high temps, heavy
weight, with obsticles near the end of the runway. ) Now I would
question just where you got all these facts. The average temp in
Portland ( about 10 mile south ) for July is 80 degrees. Now that does
not mean that it could not have been 104 degrees at 11:00am local ( the
time of the accident ) but I wonder about it. You said it's a almost run
out 150. Are you familiar with this aircraft? We can't guess from the
factual report how many hours it had on the engine. Did you you see the
CFI and the student closely enough to accurately guess their weight? The
surface of the runway has nothing to do with this accident as it was a
failed go around, so the surface of the runway is not a factor. According
to the report, the landing was to be made to runway 13, which has 50 foot
trees 1000 feet from the end of the runway. If you can't clear 50 foot
trees 1000 feet from the end of a sea level 2200 runway on a go-around
then I would question where you decided to start the go-around much more
then the aircraft.

Bottom line is there in not enough information given in the factual
report to make a good estimate of what caused this accident.

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as
aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa



1. PULL the throttle to initiate a go-round?

2. I tried, without any success, to get the NTSB to run a quick and
dirty "bootstrap" performance analysis on aircraft types involved in
accidents, so they could determine whether the unfortunate operator was
working beyond the airplane's performance envelope. The idea was to
accumulate, over time, a database which would allow future analyses to
be done in a more informative and telling manner. As it is, the NTSB's
work is mostly about on the level of our current politics -- bumper
sticker slogans only! "Failure to avoid terrain", .... etc.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

How do you get the report in that format?

Is there a path of links from the NTSB home-page, and what are they??




"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Read this and see if it sounds like something is missing such as aircraft
performance and other things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04CA136&rpt=fa