Bonanza crash caught on video

Blueskies wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Airbus wrote:
I was told by the a State Police officer that although in the short
term those presentations had a positive effect, the long term effect
was negative. People and particularly the young have a tendency to
push the envelope. It works out to , "I've been doing that for a long
time and nothing happened to me, or I know some one who does that all
the time". We had the same kind of problems in industry safety.

I think it was Kelly Johnson who said "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Same sort of adage, you
really don't know where the line is unless you cross it (or unless you pay attention and do what you are told!)

As much as I admire and respect Kelly, I believe that line was said
earlier by Albert Einstein.

Matt

karl gruber wrote:

OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx was
with flaps extended. So, what is your point?

Matt

Oh.....Reread my post. Evidently your inability to comprehend is affecting
your pee brain.



I did and it said nothing new. Also, many airplanes do have Vx speeds
for clean and dirty configurations. Looks like your knowledge of
airplane performance matches your writing and posting ability. Are you
going to repost the same message a third time?

Matt

Matt Whiting schrieb:

I prefer the being in the air by the 50% point as it
works for almost all airplanes on runways that are on the short side.

Just as meaningless as any such rule, and simply not applicable on
runways which are "on the short side". As I usually fly off fields with
less than 2000 ft runway, I would never get airborne if I followed your
rule.

Morgans wrote:
"Newps" wrote


For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.


Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?

He did get in the air but climbed too fast for the conditions. Once in
the air a clean airframe is better than a dirty one.




Of course, if you had to call it that close, the decision to take off with
all of the weight would be the wrong decision, anyway, so it goes back to no
flaps being correct.

I have heard of some people doing the takeoff run with no flaps, and
slightly before rotation, pop the first notch of flaps down, then milk them
up once speed and climb is obtained.

That is only beneficial for close in obstacles.

Matt Whiting wrote:

karl gruber wrote:


OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx
was with flaps extended. So, what is your point?

Matt


Oh.....Reread my post. Evidently your inability to comprehend is
affecting your pee brain.


I did and it said nothing new. Also, many airplanes do have Vx speeds
for clean and dirty configurations. Looks like your knowledge of
airplane performance matches your writing and posting ability. Are you
going to repost the same message a third time?


In the Bonanza the difference between clean and dirty Vx is 23 knots
plus or minus a couple knots for different model years.

If you're manufacturer only gives you a clean wing Vx and Vy. I have
speeds for both flaps up/clean and flaps 20/dirty

Yes......they give both speeds. But they label only one as Vx.

On Sep 1, 10:56 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

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.

Although I agree in principle as to what you said, I wonder if in this case,
we can all take away some knowledge, and cautions, just from the
speculations to the possible causes.

I don't know if I am explaining myself very clearly. What I'm thinking is
that everyone may take some cautions to not do EACH of the possible causes
that have been offered up, even if only one or a combinations of a few of
the offered explanations are really the cause.

What do we take away with us, as possible causes?

1) Downwind takeoff - bad, when conditions may be close to performance
limitations.

2) Downwind takeoffs even worse when you get above the tree line.

3) Importance of calculating DA, with a conservative slant. Also to add
other performance reducing factors into the performance calculations.

4) Overweight takeoffs are a "bad idea." Weight and CG should be closely
considered, especially when it is close to maximum.

5) Lean if necessary for an elevated DA.

6) Possible (big emphasis on this, since we don't really have a reliable
indication if the engine was running poorly) rough running engines will hurt
takeoff and climb, especially when takeoff performance calculations are
marginal.

7) Raising the nose further while on the brink of a stall is all it takes
to insure a stall will occur.

It seems likely to me, that one, or more likely more or all of the above had
a part in the crash. Possible, even probable there are others that nobody
has mentioned, or thought of.

Still, it makes me think about all of the above while preparing for the next
takeoff. Would you, and others, think about it in that way?

To me, not knowing what the cause was would remind me to consider all of the
possible causes, rather than just the one or ones that are really
responsible.

How about you? Do you have any other pet theories, or think one of the
reasons I have written down may be largely responsible?
--
Jim in NC

Jim

I dont know that the data (the video and incomplete WAT data) support
any conclusion right now.

Should pilots use prudent flying techniques? Yes. The difference
between an amateur and professional pilot is not the airplane that
they fly, but it is the method and procedures by which they fly the
airplane. All pilots should fly their aircraft within the performance
parameters of the vehicle. All pilots should use standardized
procedures and methods in their flying. All pilots should have
"benchmarks" which measure performance of the vehicle and trigger
alternate scenarios.

But otherwise right now there are no real lessons to be learned from
the video tape. This might turn out to be the Kenner crash...for the
WAT and the wind performance problems NOTHING the pilot did except not
going would have changed the outcome...or it might turn out to be that
the accident was Delta at DFW...(the 727) stupid on its face.

Robert

karl gruber wrote:

If you're manufacturer only gives you a clean wing Vx and Vy. I have
speeds for both flaps up/clean and flaps 20/dirty


Yes......they give both speeds. But they label only one as Vx.


Negative. Beech gives you the means to compute Vx for your condition.
Weight, configuration, etc.

Applying Mather weather to Cameron Park is like applying Madison weather to
Oshkosh.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Blueskies" wrote in message
news

There are no guesses about the weather in my post...the data sources are
quoted and you cut them out. The closest weather was from Mather and you
assumed the rest.

Or even better (divide by 4, multiply by 3) 75%.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

As though you could really measure 71% accurately on most airspeed
indicators. Why not just say 70%?

Matt