Bonanza crash caught on video

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

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

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

"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.

Recent experience gives me a lot of empathy with this situation. Never
hesitate to abort the instant you have any doubt about the success of a
takeoff.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

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

"Dan Luke" wrote:

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

I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
airspeed.

It would be interesting to know the wind speed/direction. I believe
that he took off on runway 31.

Ron Lee

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

I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
airspeed.

It would be interesting to know the wind speed/direction. I believe
that he took off on runway 31.

I just watched the video again, and noticed something that seems odd
-- there was no fire.

A rescuer commented that at least one survivor was splashed with gas,
so fuel exhaustion isn't (apparently) the cause -- but I wonder why
there was no fire, with all the violent twisting/shearing of metal and
the hot engine?

Good fortune, I suppose. Similar videos always seem to end in smoke
and flame...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Good fortune, I suppose. Similar videos always seem to end in smoke
and flame...

I was amazed by that, also. My first guess was that it plowed into a rather
sandy hill, and perhaps the sand helped to smother any chance of fire, but I
guess it is mostly luck, as you say.
--
Jim in NC

"Ron Lee" wrote:

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

I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
airspeed.

That's just it: the speed looks fine and the airplane gives no appearance of
struggling into the air. The wing rocking and mushing come on suddenly,
almost as if the engine lost power or there was wind shear. There's something
strange about this accident.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:07:31 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


I disagree Dan. When he lifts off you can see the end of the runway
near. Obviously he saw that as well. The initial wing rocking may
have been just after leaving ground effect at lower than optimal
airspeed.

This all reminds me of that 182 on Youtube with the medical patient in
Africa that appears to be overweight.

I lost a friend, along with five of his relatives, when he tried to
depart Pullyaup, WA in an overweight Cherokee 6. His crash
description was exactly like the Youtube 182 and this Bo.