Bonanza crash caught on video

On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:

In Grass Valley, it was 94 dF at that time, and Cameron Park is about 1700
feet lower. Presuming a standard lapse rate of 3.5 dF per thousand feet,
the temperature at Cameron was about 100 dF.

Probably a bit cooler because we get the winds through the hills that
cool things down.

The aircraft appeared to be an A36. The performance charts for a density
altitude of 4100 feet showed that the aircraft should have required about
2100 feet of runway roll with a 5 knot tailwind and a climb thereafter of
1000 fpm.

So the runway was only twice what the airplane needed. Holy Cow, we
should close the airport today!!!

Cameron Park is a bitchkitty coming in or departing on either end.

Never noticed that and I've been flying in and out of there for 7
years. What part about it is a "bitchkitty"???

-Robert

"Matt Whiting" Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it.
The 172 is a
little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
power can do for takeoff.

Matt
A 182 will get in the air shorter with flaps, but Vx is still a clean wing
speed.

Karl

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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.

Or worse, I could believe that all airplane engines sputter.

Matt

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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.

I fly regularly out of airports varying from a low of 950' (ELM) to a
high of 1,900' (N38). N38 was less than 2,000' long when I learned to
fly there, but is now 3,600. I never said that the airport in question
was either short-field or high-density altitude. You need to better
your reading comprehension.

I don't have performance charts for an A36 and I don't know the loading
conditions of the airplane, the condition of the engine, etc., so I have
no way of knowing if there was lots and lots of margin. The video
suggests there wasn't.

Matt

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Sep 1, 8:59 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Yes, almost as bad as people who say that all aircraft engines sputter.

Ok, smart guy. Find one NTSB report where the witness said "the engine
sounded great, just like my BMW, it was sputtering or anything".


I wasn't commenting on what NTSB reports say. I was commenting on your
erroneous statement about aircraft engines.

Matt

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?


Cameron Park is a bitchkitty coming in or departing on either end.

Never noticed that and I've been flying in and out of there for 7
years. What part about it is a "bitchkitty"???

The airport was commissioned in late 1967 and we didn't move up to Grass
Valley until ten years later. I vaguely remember going in and out a couple
of times in the '70s, but when nobody would carry autofuel when the STCs
became available, I was in and out of there on a monthly if not weekly basis
because they had an autogas pump. When Auburn shut off the 80 pumps in the
late '80s it was a regular fuel stop both going south to San Diego and again
coming back home. At that time you could take on a full load of 80 at
Gillespie field and still have plenty of reserve when you got to Cameron.
Then another fifteen minutes and I was home.

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. It's just
like home; flat as a pancake with trees and hills all around. Once you get
used to it, no problem. Take a 40 hour student in there some time if you
want to see pucker factor. And those hills on either end juice up some
pretty fair thermals on a hot summer afternoon. I dunno if that guy was
wobbling from stall burble or thermals, but I'll bet the NTSB will find out.

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. The story is that someone in the heirarchy of the County told the
FAA to go stuff it and somehow the airport was going to be shut down for
obstruction clearance unless we put those damned steel sticks up. One of
these days I'm gonna take my portable cutting torch ...

Jim

On Sep 1, 9:18 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Or worse, I could believe that all airplane engines sputter.

Yes, you can believe that even gliders sputter. You are *WAY* too
trusting of witness statements.

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, 9:18 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Or worse, I could believe that all airplane engines sputter.

Yes, you can believe that even gliders sputter. You are *WAY* too
trusting of witness statements.


My comment wasn't about witness statements at all. It was about your
erroneous statement saying that all airplane engines sputter.

Matt

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