Bonanza crash caught on video

"RST Engineering" wrote in message ...
That is correct by my memory.

Jim

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ...


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

Matt



Yup, you folks are right...Johnson said simplicate, don't complicate...

"RST Engineering" wrote in message ...
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.



But it was the best I could do. Simply stating the weather from Grass Valley is a better indicator would be enough.
Funny how well it does match up with what folks are saying, though...

In article ,
Newps wrote:

And how many people have an analog video capture card in their
PC?

I have a small external device that converts full-frame analog video
to firewire digital out. It simply connects to the firewire and I use
iMovie to capture it. POC.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup to
do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.

I can do it for you, if you like.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote

We don't have a formal "If the runway is 71% gone we'll abort" rule,
but if any of the five parameters (listed above) are not nominal, we
abort.

It might be a good idea to think about adding some type of abort limit,
such
as the 71% rule, even with the other checks you do.

The video sure has given me something to chew on. I think the spooky
thing
is that the whole takeoff looks so normal, right up to the part the wings
start to wobble, and it falls in the dumpster. Most other videos I have
seen, such as the failed takeoff in (where, Columbia, or something) look
like problems, much, much sooner.
--
Jim in NC


The nice thing about 71%, beside being memorable, is that will probably give
you somethine similar to "balanced field length" in a typical GA airplane.
The only time, in my personal experience, that an airplane was not airborn
at that point was in a Piper Tomahawk on a 2600 foot grass runway with a 20
foot obstacle at the boundary. We chickened out, tried the other direction,
chickened out again and then finally did the calculations in accordance with
the POH. Those calculations should have been done first, as we are all
supposed to do for any set of conditions not already calculated, and the
calculation revealed that we would have crashed if we had continued either
of the take off attempts. BTW, the engine sounded normal, and the
performance proved to be exactly in accordance with the POH for the weight
and conditions.

The only suggestion I have ever read that still makes a lot of sense is to
do the calculations, determine whether the field length and obstacle
clearanced are adiquate, and (presuming that a take off is still planned)
determine the location at which lift off at the correct speed should occur.
Then, if an obvious landmark is not available at the calculated take off
point, pace off the distance and place a disposable marker.

I rotation/distance counter on one of the landing wheels could be a really
nice feature, but I have never seen one.

Peter

Morgans has generously volunteered his son {;-) and I'm going to take him
up on it. But thanks a mil for the offer.

Jim

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup
to
do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.

I can do it for you, if you like.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

Yes, but as others said, he did manage to struggle into the air. He
never got out of ground effect. He saw the trees coming and tried to
pull it up and stalled. Probably over weight. The airport security
fence finished the job when he hit it and the plane flipped over. Ten
knots lower stall speed, no fence, no tailwind, cooler temperature, no
trees, less load: any one of those factors would have broken the chain
of events leading to the crash.

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Now we have BVM in addition to his BMV and BMW. I've never heard either a
BMV or BVM so I'll take your word that they sputter.

LOL. I didn't even realize I did that. Interesting!

Real engines
tuned properly (excluding racing engines with aggressive cams) don't
sputter. I don't consider Harley's to sputter either. They have an
uneven cadence, but I don't consider that to be sputtering by any
definition I'm familiar with.

You don't think Harleys sputter? I know you know they have an uneven firing
cadence, due to the angle of the cylinders, but besides the uneven
bap-bap---bap-bap---bap-bap, many times they don't hit on both cylinders on
every two revolutions. I call that sputtering. Perhaps you don't.

I guess sputtering is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder?

Read the url I gave for the Webster's definition of sputtering. That is
my reference point. No, I don't think Harley's sputter given that
definition. Top Fuel dragsters sputter and at night you can see the
explosions coming out of the straight pipes.

Yes, it is in the eye of the beholder, but to say that ALL airplane
engines sputter is simply not correct by any stretch of the imagination.

Matt

RST Engineering wrote:
I don't know how to digitize VHS video tape, but if anybody has the setup to
do it, I'll make it available to anybody that wants it.

The only casualties were the aforementioned video camera (bounced it off the
top of the airplane which by that time was the bottom, we did, we did) and a
severe ding on my watchband where it hit the mag key. Not a drop of blood
or a scratch on any of the four of us.

Of course, two of the miserable b@$!@rd$ claimed their sex life was ruined
and got my insurance company to dish out $100k and my airplane was beer
cans, but nothing else. The hell of it was that it was a charity flight to
raise money for a memorial to a cancer victim at the airport.

Jim


I'm glad to hear that everyone was well, if sex impaired! :-)

I'm not a big fan of seeing things where people died, but it is useful
to see how different emergencies are handled.

Unfortunately, I have no equipment either for digitizing VHS. I do
still have a VHS player, but I try not to brag too much about that.


Matt

cjcampbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

Yes, but as others said, he did manage to struggle into the air. He
never got out of ground effect. He saw the trees coming and tried to
pull it up and stalled. Probably over weight. The airport security
fence finished the job when he hit it and the plane flipped over. Ten
knots lower stall speed, no fence, no tailwind, cooler temperature, no
trees, less load: any one of those factors would have broken the chain
of events leading to the crash.


Maybe, maybe not. You have no idea what caused the crash so saying that
you know the solution is simply dumb.

Matt