Bonanza crash caught on video

On Aug 31, 8:44 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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I watched it a couple of times...

I wouldnt discount that he caught some sort of sheer or something else
coming over the terrain.

A lot depends on how he was loaded and the DA...but there could be
other factors.

Robert

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa
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.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

Taking the last item first; yes, it is very possible. One day, about 25
years ago, I was out with an instructor practicing in a Cessna 150M. The
wind was nearly 20KTS and he, being a bit of a "good ol' boy", elected to
demonstrate a downwind touch and go. The terrain is southeastern Florida is
*very* flat, with the usual urban ground clutter sticking up, so it is
fairly easy to have a fairly sharp gradient in the wind as you climb out of
ground effect--which works in your favor when you go the right direction,
but... He had been away for about a month, and flying only twins which have
almost no p-factor with all engines running. As we reached the top of
ground effect, rapidly losiing airspeed and in a wings-level left turn, he
announced: "We're in trouble!" To which I responded: "We're also in a
hell of a right slip!" He then got his right boot down firmly on the rudder
pedal, and we flew away without further incident--although there were no
more downwing touch and goes!

The temperature and humidity appear to have been sufficient to give plenty
of importance to a DA calculation--I know that it is always required--and
probably enough to suggest a fudge factor for the effect of humidity on
available power and required mixture.

The same Fox station had historical weather in Sacremento available, so here
is the range of weather for yesterday, August 31, 2007:

Temperature
Mean Temperature 85 °F 74 °F
Max Temperature 99 °F 90 °F 104 °F (1998)
Min Temperature 71 °F 57 °F 50 °F (1957)
Degree Days
Heating Degree Days 0 0
Month to date heating degree days 0 0
Since 1 July heating degree days 0 0
Cooling Degree Days 20 9
Month to date cooling degree days 329 303
Year to date cooling degree days 979 967
Growing Degree Days 36 (Base - )
Moisture
Dew Point 56 °F
Average Humidity 43
Maximum Humidity 61
Minimum Humidity 24
Precipitation
Precipitation 0.00 in 0.01 in 0.11 in (1964)
Month to date precipitation 0.00 0.06
Year to date precipitation 6.60 12.04
Since 1 July precipitation 0.01 0.11
Snow
Snow 0.00 in - - ()
Month to date snowfall 0.0
Since 1 July snowfall 0.0
Snow Depth 0.00 in
Wind
Wind Speed 5 mph
Max Wind Speed 15 mph
Max Gust Speed 18 mph
Visibility 10 miles
Key: T is trace of precipitation, MM is missing value
Source: NWS Daily Summary

Peter

"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.



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. . .

Probably because of political correctness.

I presume that the level of effectiveness was related to how well the causes
were known, and how well the decision tree was reconstructed. If they tried
to fill in too much data that they did not fully verify, or tried too hard
to make a point, then their credibility was lost. OTOH, if they avoided
reaching too far, or preaching too much, they could have substituted for a
lot of life experience. I don't know which they really did, but since they
should have had more than enough cases to choose from, I suspect a sort of
middle ground.

Peter

Really-Old-Fart wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 09:40:01p, Mike Granby
wrote:

Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
engine splutter...

Yeah, they would hear the engine sputter even if it was a crash of a
glider.

You have to wonder on cases like this if it wasn't that they heard the
engine sputter as the prop started chewing up the terrain.

Sounds like it was a case of, "Come on baby... Come on... You can make
it... A little more... Ahhh ****!"

You got it! Ahhhh ****!!!

I was at a poker run a week ago in my A36 with 5 people we took off at BNG
(banning) we were behind a Cherokee 140. We watched the 140 almost crash. I
got on the radio and asked if he was in trouble he replied back yes. I told
him keep the nose down 3 or 4 times as i was watching him. He made it thank
god. My Bonanza has a 1450 useful load with the 5 people and not much fuel
we took right off with no problems.
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa
wrote:

Maxwell wrote:
"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.
--

Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the
rest
of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.



No flaps!! No lift!!

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.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

On Aug 31, 11:36 pm, "Really-Old-Fart"
wrote:

You have to wonder on cases like this if it wasn't that they heard the
engine sputter as the prop started chewing up the terrain.

No, all airplane engines sputter. Just park your BMV next to your
airplane and compare the sounds.

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.

Also looks like they were taking off 13, so they had a right cross wind.
(http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61)

No, it was 31.

-Robert

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?

Both Vx and Vy for virtually all light aircraft are without flaps.



The only time a POH will recommend flaps for takeoff is short field, and
then the speed used is a speed below Vx. This is a speed to clear close in
obstacles and does not result in best angle of climb. It is a compromise
speed used because the short field distance doesn't allow the aircraft to
accelerate to the greater Vx speed.



You might call this "compromise" with flaps speed Vxwithflaps, but they
don't.



Mostly the aircraft that have this "lower than Vx with flaps speed" used for
takeoff have fairly powerful engines. My Cessna 185, for instance has this
speed published and the POH shows 20deg flaps for short field. But once past
the close in obstacles one should accelerate to Vx and raise the flaps to
clear far obstacles.



If the airspeed is in the green arc, the airplane will climb better without
flaps.



Karl

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
\
It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

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.

-Robert

In a previous article, Mike Granby said:
Another witness mentioned an engine sputter

Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
engine splutter...

Have you ever noticed how much the engine note changes as a plane taxis
or takes off past you? You get very different engine noises depending on
whether the prop is moving towards you or away from you. It's no wonder
naive observers think the engine was spluttering or dying.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
....if Paul's really talking about truly average people, then they'd probably
die in either case, because common sense isn't.
-- Derick Siddoway