Bonanza crash caught on video

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby wrote:
Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
engine splutter...

All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
They don't sound like BMV engines.


Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
isn't running well.

Matt

Dan Luke wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby wrote:
Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
engine splutter...

All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
They don't sound like BMV engines.

Is it possible the pilot decided to abort after he was airborne? The engine
sounded strong and the airplane came off fine at rotation, then it seems to
run out of steam. Or was that simply due to its climbing out of ground
effect?

It definitely wasn't obvious from the vantage point of the camera.
Could have been wind shear, coming out of ground effect too soon, engine
trouble, etc.

Matt

On Sep 1, 8:34 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:40 pm, Mike Granby wrote:
Another witness mentioned an engine sputter
Whatever the cause of a crash, there's always someone who hears the
engine splutter...

All aircraft engines sputter, that's just the nature of how they work.
They don't sound like BMV engines.

Bull. I can easily tell a well-running aircraft engine from one that
isn't running well.

So what? You've probably be near a running airplane engine. If you
think that the common layperson can tell the difference between a good
running airplane engine and bad running one than you should follow
Alice to Wonderland.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
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.
Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.

Matt

Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
density couldn't have been monsterous.

Well, at 90 degrees with an altimeter setting of 30.00 inches (I don't
know what it was, this is just a guess) and a dewpoint of say 60 degrees
(again just a guess), the density altitude is 3600 ft. This gives a
substantial performance loss compared to sea level STP conditions. If
he was at gross and really was taking off downwind, this could well have
been enough to remove his margin.

Matt

Jack Allison wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
density couldn't have been monsterous.

-Robert


A guy from the Cherokee Pilot's Association calculated DA at 4500. Not
sure where he got the relevant info...maybe there's a local weather
reporting station at someone's house in the area. Higher DA than normal
but no, definitely not HUGE.

I'm always using two notches of flaps in the Arrow when taking off from
3-4K ft. runways, any significant DA, or terrain such as exists at
Cameron Park.

This one will be interesting to follow up with when the NTSB report
comes out.

Sparky Imeson's rule of thumb here is a good reminder. He states that
you should have 71% of your takeoff speed at the halfway point of the
runway or abort the takeoff.

My rule with the 182 was to be in the air by the halfway point. It was
a very easy rule to follow.

Matt

Dan Luke wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.

What's horrifying is how everything looks fine and then suddenly goes all
wrong.

Yes, that was my first reaction also. The airplane appeared to pass the
camera with good speed, good acceleration and a good engine sound. It
was incredulous to watch it go so wrong.

Matt

Airbus writes:

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. . .

I think it's too dramatically different from everyday experience, so the
people watching the gory pictures tend not to identify with them, so they
really don't have much effect.

There's always the danger of being too over-the-top in safety warnings, such
that people realize how improbable or exaggerated the risks are and then fail
to pay attention to the parts that are truly relevant.

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!!

No brain! Dumb post!!

On Sep 1, 8:41 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
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.
Wow, that was ugly. It looked like he was accelerating pretty good when
he went past the camera, but just couldn't quite establish a climb. I
did hear the one witness mention it being a downwind takeoff. Another
witness mentioned an engine sputter, so it also sounds like it wasn't
leaned at all for the altitude. Very unfortunate.

Matt

Even if it was 90 degrees outside, we're only at 1200 feet so the
density couldn't have been monsterous.

Well, at 90 degrees with an altimeter setting of 30.00 inches (I don't
know what it was, this is just a guess) and a dewpoint of say 60 degrees
(again just a guess), the density altitude is 3600 ft. This gives a
substantial performance loss compared to sea level STP conditions. If
he was at gross and really was taking off downwind, this could well have
been enough to remove his margin.

I"m not sure where you fly out of but for most of us 3600' density
altitude with 4000' of runway it not considered close. I take off out
of there with 4 on board, a week's worth of luggage and enough fuel to
reach Mexico or Canada (usually downwind because the socks on each end
usually face away from each other). In short, this airport provides
*LOTS AND LOTS* of margin, this is not a short-field or a "high-
density altitude" airport by any stretch! BTW The pilot held a Comm,
CFI, and A&P.

-Robert

Airbus wrote:
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. . .

I think it is useful, but only once you know for sure what happened.

Matt