Bonanza crash caught on video

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sat 01 Sep 2007 08:30:46p, "Morgans"
wrote:


"john smith" wrote in message
...
30-second Rule.
If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
Sort it our on the ramp.

So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the
second hand?

I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a
bit more concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better
than that!

Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.

Well, it works for carrier based aircraft.

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sat 01 Sep 2007 09:33:56p, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

OTOH, the "Harley Sound" is supposed to be part of the "Harley
Mystique"

You don't buy a Harley for performance -- you buy it for the sound. Well,
that plus the fact that us old farts look a bit ridiculous on the crotch
rockets.

"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

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?

There are two ways to look at it really.
Naturally, you can look at a video of a crash and use it as a segue into
obvious related flight safety issues. In this respect, one can say a
crash video serves a useful purpose. In this sense it's a GENERAL reminder.
The second way states emphatically that any useful data concerning a
specific crash being viewed on a video must wait for the supporting
information concerning THAT crash before the safety message dealing with
whatever it was that caused THAT crash reaches a maximum value.

In this scenario it's not what is obvious in the film that supplies the
useful data but rather what isn't obvious and might have been a
contributing factor in that specific accident that has use safety wise
and isn't revealed until the video is viewed along with accurate
information dealing with exactly what is being seen in the video.

So basically you can learn in the general sense or the specific sense.
Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at the
expense of the other.
The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route
in viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:22:54 +0200 (CEST), "Really-Old-Fart"
wrote:

old farts look a bit ridiculous on the crotch
rockets.

Plumber butt, anyone?

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:31:22 -0700, "karl gruber"
wrote:

I'd be surprised if Beech even published a short field takeoff technique for
the Bonanza. I know for sure they don't for the King Air, even though at one
time they did. It called for takeoff with approach flaps.

None for the Sundowner or it's sisters, either.

"Really-Old-Fart" wrote

Well, it works for carrier based aircraft.

At 3o seconds on an aircraft carrier launch, you had better be flying, or
under your ejection seat canopy! g
--
Jim in NC

"Dudley Henriques" wrote So basically you can learn
in the general sense or the specific sense.
Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at the
expense of the other.
The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route in
viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
Dudley Henriques

I agree 100 percent, with all you wrote.

Here's to waiting for the results to learn the specifics!
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote So basically you can learn
in the general sense or the specific sense.
Both have value as a safety message but one should never be used at the
expense of the other.
The bottom line is that although one can learn by going the early route in
viewing a film, the learning is better with the supporting data included.
Dudley Henriques

I agree 100 percent, with all you wrote.

Here's to waiting for the results to learn the specifics!

In the meantime we can study that 30 second rule :-))
In the Ultralight, you'll probably be 10 feet into the takeoff roll. In
the T38, you'll be passing 10 thousand feet :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

"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!)