Bonanza crash caught on video

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, 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!!

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

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. . .

"Airbus" wrote in message
...
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.

Three survivors and one dead, is what was said, along with a light wind
downwind takeoff. The pictures appeared to me to be anything but light,
from how much the trees were moving. My guess is 10 to 15 knots, with gusts
higher.
--
Jim in NC

"Airbus" wrote in message
...
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. . .

Probably because of political correctness.

I presume that the level of effectiveness was related to how well the causes
were known, and how well the decision tree was reconstructed. If they tried
to fill in too much data that they did not fully verify, or tried too hard
to make a point, then their credibility was lost. OTOH, if they avoided
reaching too far, or preaching too much, they could have substituted for a
lot of life experience. I don't know which they really did, but since they
should have had more than enough cases to choose from, I suspect a sort of
middle ground.

Peter

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.

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

Airbus wrote:


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. . .

Crash video is most useful as a safety tool if it's accompanied by a
factual report on probable cause.
Crash videos presented in this manner have proven extremely useful in
imparting a safety message that is lasting as opposed to temporary
retention.
Other than presented in that scenario, videos without correct and
detailed analysis can actually be counter productive, as the speculation
that is the natural result of viewing such video can be misleading and
confusing as pertains to any useful and tangible positive flight safety
retention.
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.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, 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

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.

Here's the aircraft, Roger. It was an A-36:

Check for printing
N-number : N1098F
Aircraft Serial Number : E-3059
Aircraft Manufacturer : RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Model : A36
Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
Model : IO-550 SERIES
Aircraft Year : 1996
Owner Name : AEROMETALS LLC
Owner Address : C/O MR WALTER NORWOOD
: 2202 W CHARLESTON BLVD STE 7
LAS VEGAS, NV, 89102
Type of Owner : Corporation
Registration Date : 03-Jul-2001
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard
Approved Operations : Utility


On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:56:17 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, 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!!

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"