Bonanza crash caught on video

On Sep 1, 9:35 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
cool things down.

We do too; it was well above 100 dF down in Sacramento that day and we maxed
out at 94. That's why my best guess. What is your best guess or is there
hard data? And you say "we". Are you based out of Cameron?

I am based out of Cameron Park. Its a great drive up there because its
usually 5 degrees cooler than it is in Folsom.

Bitchkitty? The geese coming off of the lake about a hundred yards off the
runway come to mind, as do the terrain and flora on either end.

No geese today. Probably run off by the development.

And those hills on either end juice up some
pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon.

Yea, but the termals usually get you on downwind.

I dunno if that guy was
wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.

It will be interesting to find out. Its just impossible to tell at
this point. A friend of mine had a very similar accident. The NTSB
found the result to be two partially plugged injector lines. That's
just an example of how non-expected the results could be.

The thing Cameron does NOT have that we do are those goddamned 80' steel
pigstickers with obstruction lights on them all across the north side of the
runway.

Yea, those things always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
airplane obsitcles.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:35 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
cool things down.
We do too; it was well above 100 dF down in Sacramento that day and we maxed
out at 94. That's why my best guess. What is your best guess or is there
hard data? And you say "we". Are you based out of Cameron?

I am based out of Cameron Park. Its a great drive up there because its
usually 5 degrees cooler than it is in Folsom.

Bitchkitty? The geese coming off of the lake about a hundred yards off the
runway come to mind, as do the terrain and flora on either end.

No geese today. Probably run off by the development.

And those hills on either end juice up some
pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon.

Yea, but the termals usually get you on downwind.

I dunno if that guy was
wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.

It will be interesting to find out. Its just impossible to tell at
this point. A friend of mine had a very similar accident. The NTSB
found the result to be two partially plugged injector lines. That's
just an example of how non-expected the results could be.

The thing Cameron does NOT have that we do are those goddamned 80' steel
pigstickers with obstruction lights on them all across the north side of the
runway.

Yea, those things always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
airplane obsitcles.

-Robert

I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
things.
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:

I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
things.

Wait for the facts? Wow...what a novel idea! :-) Just think what that
would do to the noise level on threads like this...

In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:



I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
things.
Dudley Henriques

I'm wondering if perhaps this guy did an intersection takeoff.

Dale wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:


I Agree. This one just might turn out to be an engine issue suffered
right at or after rotation. No telling without the analysis that will
follow the crash, but it very well might not have been a density
altitude problem or an over gross problem at all.
I agree with you that waiting on the facts is a prudent move with these
things.
Dudley Henriques

I'm wondering if perhaps this guy did an intersection takeoff.
Making a judgment from a video is difficult without correlated data but
the run looked normal to me right through rotation. The aircraft seemed
to have required acceleration and I couldn't see or hear anything wrong.
Rotation seemed normal without excessive nose attitude or rate.
The slight wobbling and sudden decrease in rate of climb seemed visually
at least what would be expected with a sudden change in engine power.
These of course are nothing but experienced observations based on not
enough data to reach any kind of assumption or conclusion.
It's difficult to determine if the takeoff was initiated from an
intersection but the rate of acceleration and the length of the run
didn't indicate that to me.
The aircraft was absolutely in stall mush when it when in and there was
little change in angle of attack during that period before impact.
I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.



--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

The aircraft was absolutely in stall mush when it when in and there was
little change in angle of attack during that period before impact.
I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.

Yes. Something happened at about the end of the runway that made the airplane
start to wobble and mush, where a moment before it appeared to be flying ok.
The more I look at it, the more I think the power failed.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

act.
I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.



--
Dudley Henriques

All sorts of things could have affected the TO as well. Parking brake? Were
BOTH mags on? Was the airplane in trim? Did he have the mixture way out for
taxi and forget to push it up some? Etc.

Karl

It was Caltrans, the *******s. THey issue the airport permit, you know.

Jim

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



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message Yea, those things
always give me the chills. I can't believe that the
FAA (or more likely CalTrans) required your airport to *install*
airplane obsitcles.

-Robert

RST Engineering wrote:
It was Caltrans, the *******s. THey issue the airport permit, you know.

Jim

I always wondered about those ugly red/white airplane skewers at KGOO.
The first time I rolled out on final, they were a bit unnerving to see
as it seems the can reach out and grab you.

"Jack Allison" wrote

I always wondered about those ugly red/white airplane skewers at KGOO. The
first time I rolled out on final, they were a bit unnerving to see as it
seems the can reach out and grab you.

I've never seen such things. Anyone got some pictures of them?
--
Jim in NC