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