Light Aircraft Crash on Isle of Wight

[pubsman]

BBC News reporting light aircraft accident on Isle of Wight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6932146.stm

[arem]

We were joining the circuit at the time and saw the smoke and flames

Was a Cherokee 140 with 4 on board from Tatenhill (so we were told by the movements people) had refuelled and was taking off for France on RW23 with a light xwind varying in direction so could have had a tailwind, witness's reported it was very low at the end of the runway, just made it over the garden centre and trees beyond in a very nose high attitude and descended into the field beyond

RIP condolences to the families

[astronaut97]

Very sad news indeed, especially as Tatenhill is my local airfield.

Just goes to show it can happen to anyone.

Condolences to the families of the people involved.

[744FO]

Hmm looks like the a/c was over its operating limit - what with the heat - lots of fuel and the 3 passengers. God bless those involved..

[gcolyer]

744FO

I didn't want to say it myself but a PA28 140 with 4 POB and full fuel is way over weight.

But it is a terrible tragedy never the less.

I might add that we do not know if the aircraft was overweight. It is highly possible it stopped at IoW for enough fuel to get it from IoW to it's destination in France with enough reserve and to remain in W&B. And for my tupence worth I think this is the case, after all a PA28 should be able to do Tatenhill to queit a few places in france on a full tank. Being 4 up I am willing to put money on the fact the pilot done his W&B correctly and took enough fuel to get to IoW and so on.

Again terrible tragedy.

[Sallyann1234]

A very sad accident, but it could have been a lot worse if the plane hadn't made it over the H&J garden centre that would have been full of people at midday on a Sunday.
I've been over there a few times, and wondered whether they might get an unwelcome aerial visitor one day. With the new runway attracting more and possibly heavier traffic the garden centre people may be getting nervous.

[JP1]

I flew yesterday with my instructor and since I am just finishing off my PPL it was the first time I had flown in hot humid weather.

Nothing different about the aircraft, full fuel as usual. I was really surprized about the takeoff performance, the take off run did not feel right, there was a reluctance to leave the ground, but the real surprize was the climb rate, it felt around 40-50% slower. I of course was checking the configuration and engine settings to work out was was wrong. It was my instructor pointing out the poor performance due to the temperature. The aircraft is a bulldog.

I know the comment is not related to the incident directly, but just an observation on how I found this weather to affect aircraft performance.

[bunnywabbit]

Unfortunately for those concerned they did not learn from the same accident about ten years ago at the same airport with the same aircraft (PA28 140) and the same weather conditions. Thanks to people who dont learn from History airfields like Sandown will end up closed my mother has got a house not too far from the site and is having a hissy fit about aircraft. The old git will now join the local noise committee and will probably become one of the constant moaners. She does have reason now to complain and whinge !!! As stated in previous post the 140 is not the best perfomer and may be it should have been pointed out to pilot.(You can not make a silk purse out out of a pigs ear)
It is a very sad outcome for all involved, but they successfully created an incident and accident which has already been proved!

[VFE]

Notwithstanding the obvious, any number of reasons could be attributed to this awful accident...

My condolences to all concerned.

Been a busy GA aviation day today due to the lovely WX.

Remember to maintain a good lookout and take into consideration the aircraft's reduced performance on such unusually nice days this summer.

Let us not jump to conclusions involving pilot error at this stage tho. For all we know he had engine probs etc...

VFE.

[ShyTorque]

Another tragic day. I hope that none of our regular contributors were on board..... :sad:

[QDMQDMQDM]

I watched a Warrior stagger out of Eggesford four-up towards the hill at the end of 29 a couple of years ago. The pilot had been warned by several of us individually that it would be very dodgy. We all stood there waiting for the crash but he somehow got away with it. The attitude of the aircraft as he tried to climb out of ground effect was terrifying.

If this aircraft was a 140 and they were four-up with fuel and no reliable headwind on a warm day then the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

The Colombian Cessna 182 video whould be mandatory viewing ten times for all PPL students and about yearly for the rest of us.

[MikeJ]

QDM,
Agree totally. How sad. Remember Bournmouth and Dunkeswell a few years ago.

Just must be a serious training problem. We all have to fly with the realities of aerodynamics.

MikeJ

[Whirlybird]

Unfortunately for those concerned they did not learn from the same accident about ten years ago at the same airport with the same aircraft (PA28 140) and the same weather conditions. Thanks to people who dont learn from History airfields like Sandown will end up closed

We don't know this. We don't know that he had full fuel. According to the BBC, there were either 3 or 4 people on board; it's not clear which. And we don't know that if there were four, they weren't all 7 stone or less.

I don't usually complain about people speculating on threads such as this, as I think it's useful. But speculation is one thing, and acing as prosecutor, judge and jury, on the basis of extremely few facts, is quite another. There could have been any number of reasons for this accident, so let's not jump to conclusions.

[Islander2]

Well said, Whirlybird. Somebody needed to!

[bunnywabbit]

Wind your neck in (Been There seen it and done it )My sis is going to do auto.

[Flying Lawyer]

Well said Whirlybird.

FL

[Aerodynamik]

We flew in to Bembridge today. We were warned before arrival that they had no fuel. Obviously pure speculation but because of the longer, harder runway Bembridge would, I guess, have been the preferable choice. It is possible that Sandown was their second choice. Links in the chain perhaps?

[SoundBarrier]

To further whirly's comments :-

An aircraft which is has been loaded correctly with the W & B checked and checked again can still show the characteristics which have been described in earlier posts, for mechanical reasons such as a stuck valve. I have seen an aircraft ditched as it had a stuck valve in high outside air temps. It was making noise but not really going anywhere. Pilot opted to ditch instead of trying to keep it flying.

WARNING :- Speculation below;
It is possible that the pilot in this incident, reached a point of no return and was trying to keep away from the garden centre ending up low, slow with high nose attitude leading to an insipient spin.

Regardless we cannot undo this accident, so lets all see what we can learn from it when the facts start coming out.

[Neo_RS14]

Extremely sad to learn of this tragedy. Was airbourne at the time en-route to Cranfield from Dunkeswell. Only my second time in a light aircraft (C172).

My condolences to the families.

[Kengineer-130]

horrible news :( Thoughts to all the familys :(

My girlfriend pointed out the accident on the news, and I have to admit the very first thing I though was W&B and performance on a hot day :(, whats the hight of the airfield?

But all speculation, poor chaps could quite easily had a partial engine failure, so don't jump to rash conclusions.

And remember kids, boring as it may be, a 5 min W&B and take off performance check might mean your next departure won't be your last :(

[IO540]

What runway direction was Sandown operating at the time?

[flyems]

I understand it was RWY23..

[ChampChump]

They were landing on 23, taking off on 05 when we arrived, unaware of any previous events. It was all quite jolly, as has been posted by another visitor on another forum.

The breeze was quite wafty everywhere in the south yesterday. Having experienced and watched arrivals and takeoffs at a fly-in earlier the only clear thing was that hot, humid weather with little useful wind concentrates the mind.

Enough factors there, even at low level airfields, to keep us humble, whatever the facts were in this sad event.

[IO540]

How far from the end of the runway did it crash?

If it cleared buildings it must have been out of ground effect, IMHO.

[d192049d]

As another Tatenhill flyer, does anybody know whether this was one of the two club PA28's or privatley owned?

Condolences to anyone connected to this sad event.

M

[Sallyann1234]

"Police name four who died in light aircraft fireball"
-rather confusing as it starts off talking about a helicopter in Cumbria!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23407181-details/Police+name+four+who+died+in+light+aircraft+fireball/article.do

[west lakes]

The names refer to the Cumbria heli crash on Friday Night

[Sallyann1234]

Yes, they have conflated the two accidents into one. Can we ever believe anything printed in the press?

[airborne_artist]

I'm not entirely sure that the unfortunate victims of the Cumbria heli crash were on their way to shoot pheasants in Scotland either. The pheasant season is closed, and the grouse season has yet to open.

[arem]

At the time of the crash RW 23 was the runway in use for T/O's and Landings

After landing our new mode S (Garmin) was giving a temp of 24 and a density altitude of 1400'

[Cusco]

Sorted:

The article has 'disappeared'.

Safe (and accurate) flying.

Cusco;)

[IO540]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I have a number of hours in a PA28-140, including having done the whole IR in one so I have actually read the handbook, and if there really were four adults in there, of anywhere near the average "modern British" size, plus any useful fuel, there would have been very little point in doing a W&B calculation....... it would have been massively overloaded. I recall 3 adults and fuel somewhere below tabs = MTOW.

OTOH, if the crash happened 2km after the end of the runway, after the aircraft climbed high enough to clear a building, I don't see how W&B could be the primary cause, because one can get more or less anything into the air if one has enough distance, and once it's flying (out of ground effect) then it's just a case of a slow and gentle climb. There have been cases of massively overloaded transport jets (where the pilots presumably didn't know about density altitude etc) taking many miles to climb a few thousand feet after departure from Heathrow or Gatwick, obviously ending up in Class G.

Unless one is flying into rising terrain, but I have just looked at the 1:50k O/S map of the area and can't see rising terrain beyond about 150ft AAL, on anywhere near the runway 23 heading.

[Sleeve Wing]

As Whirly said, enough speculation, people.
This is a real bummer of an accident, on a beautiful day, from a super grass airfield.
So, again, let's just wait for the results of the enquiry, eh.

[Sallyann1234]

The crash site is about the same asl as the airport. There is a significant hill further SW on that flightpath but he didn't get that far.

[Final 3 Greens]

IO

I once took a 140 (actually with a 150hp engine) and 4 POB - me - circa 12.5 stones, my dad 8.5 stones (really), my young daughter (5 stones) and a mate (13 stones.) Less than 1/2 tanks, month August, about 22 deg.

We started to roll for a local and I rejected the takeoff as I wasn't happy with the acceleration.

Went back to the flying club, the CFI saw what happened and met me.

Did the perf calcs together and established aircraft 50 lbs under gross.

The CFI insisted on cancelling the time on the aircraft on the basis that he wished to support a safe decision.

Two weeks later, the aircraft suffered a catastrophic engine failure, on the ground.

There are so many unknowns in this accident, god bless all of them.

I often wonder what would have happened if we had continued.

[IO540]

F3G

Indeed; what I am getting at is that there may have been a loss of power.

[Rod1]

“if one has enough distance, and once it's flying (out of ground effect) then it's just a case of a slow and gentle climb.”

Works unless you hit a downdraft in which case you are going to fall out of the sky. There was quite a lot of thermals, lots of air rushing up and down, it could easily have taken him out if the aircraft was over weight or had lost some power.

Rod1

[comflyer]

Was neither one of Tatenhills two club PA28's or privatley owned, it was fbased at Tatenhill untill approx 18 months ago

[comflyer]

I0540 wrote

and if there really were four adults in there, of anywhere near the average "modern British" size, plus any useful fuel, there would have been very little point in doing a W&B calculation....... it would have been massively overloaded. I recall 3 adults and fuel somewhere below tabs = MTOW.




It depends on what weight you put as 'modern British' and what you deem useful fuel is.

I for one have flown a PA28 140, four adults with useful fuel for distance of trip and 45 mins reserve, at MAUW but within W&B envelope.

[ComJam]

Guys, i really don't think speculating over the cause of a tragic accident like this is going to do anyone any good.

I just hope there are as many people who will read and learn from the accident report as there are those who speculate on this forum.

[proplover]

Having been standing by the Sandown Control Tower waiting for an aircraft to arrive I will comment thus, any other information I have I will fwd to the AAIB for them to sort as usefull or not. I find the speculation and some earlier comments distastfull
The runway in use was 23 for TO and Landing.
The circuit was very busy with at the time of the accident aircrafts departure call, up to 4 in circuit, 3 waiting to leave at 23 threshold with approx two others and a high perfomance aircraft about to join the circuit.
The weather was hot however I dont have a temprature reading
The wind was southerly and was fluctuating around to the point where it slightly favoured one runway or the other for minutes at a time - certainly not enough time (in my opinion) to keep changing the runway and circuit direction.
23 is slightly up hill, especially at the start.
Operating our aircraft it was better to land going uphill with maybee a knot or two tailwind than to land into a knot or two going down hill - our choice.
The ground away from 23 does rise, however not steeply, there is a garden centre higher up and behind that higher again trees . After the trees the ground may fall away I cant see from the tower area.
When the aircraft was noted as struggling there was immediate concern, as it disapered behind the trees it was followed seconds later by a large amount of smoke.
The airfield fire engine immedtialy left to go to the scene.
A helicopter which had just lifted off went directly to the site of the accident, it was there within 90 seconds.
One of the crew jumped to the ground, saw two witnesses to the accident. he attepted to get near the aircraft but was beaten back by the fire - they returned.
I understand the Airfield Fire engine put the blaze out in difficult circumsatances.
The fire crew retuned when Police etc turned up - they were in shock and quite rightly relieved of further duties.
The airfield was closed whilst a detailed FOD check was carried out.
The airfield re-opened unlicensed with 05 being used for TO and 23 for landings. This kept aircraft away from the scene which had a large helicopter poss Coast guard hovering for a time.
With no smoke later on and the accident behind trees it looked like a normal day and unless you spoke to someone who was there at the time, it was difficult to believe that such an event had taken place.

I hope I have not upset anyone but these are simple observations as to events as I saw them. I will not comment on the aircraft, pilot or radio talk as there are better qualified people than me to deal with that.

[expedite08]

A lesson to all. Aviation is one of those things in life that people will pay the ultimate price for.

I have been to Sandown many times and seen it happen. I was sat on the veranda at the cafe earlier this year, and the local pleaseure flight a C-172 was filled up to the brim with pax and fuel. The guy sat next to me having a drink rated the guy as a good pilot! I beg to differ!! Said cessna got airbourne just!! Hmmm:ugh:

Was a performance take off used? ie full power on the brakes and one or two stages of flap. I never saw it applied once when I was sat watching for an hour or so. I applied this and was airbourne in half the length. Come the end of the runway I was cleaning up with a good positive rate. But then again I wasnt full up and well over limits.

Condolences to all involved. Please though let this be a lesson to the rest of us!

[Whirlybird]

Was a performance take off used? ie full power on the brakes and one or two stages of flap. I never saw it applied once when I was sat watching for an hour or so. I applied this and was airbourne in half the length. Come the end of the runway I was cleaning up with a good positive rate. But then again I wasnt full up and well over limits.

I don't like to make accusations unfairly, but the tone of your post suggests that you don't think the appropriate take-off technique was used, and/or that the aircraft was overweight. We still have no evidence of this. It is certainly a possibility, and is one possible reason for the accident. But there are other possibilities too.

How many times do I have to say it....

Speculation is useful, and has brought home the words DENSITY ALTITUDE to a group of pilots who probably hardly knew what they meant. that can't be bad.

But jumping to conclusions about the cause of the accident, based on few definite facts, is inappropriate and wrong.

I'll keep repeating that till I'm blue in the face if you all insist, but I'd rather not.

[IO540]

I for one have flown a PA28 140, four adults with useful fuel for distance of trip and 45 mins reserve

The problem with that is this: the "useful fuel" is likely to be say 1hr - the average UK flight perhaps. If you have 1:45 of fuel the fuel level in a PA28 will be below what can be visually inspected. If one keeps doing that (depart with fuel below visual inspection level, without precise fuel flow instrumentation) one is going to get a suprise one day.

[comflyer]

I for one have flown a PA28 140, four adults with useful fuel for distance of trip and 45 mins reserve

The problem with that is this: the "useful fuel" is likely to be say 1hr - the average UK flight perhaps. If you have 1:45 of fuel the fuel level in a PA28 will be below what can be visually inspected. If one keeps doing that (depart with fuel below visual inspection level, without precise fuel flow instrumentation) one is going to get a suprise one day.

Exactly correct, I was planning flights just over one hour and toured Ireland doing so, (although fuel was not below visual inspection level and well understand your point) paying great attention to wind direction etc for timing of flights. I firstly spoke in depth with my CFI, he gave me a sectional diagram of a PA28 fuel tank giving quantities from empty to front corner of tank, then tabs and full. I also drained the tank and spent some time at the pumps to test the figures and also take the time to make myself a personal fuel gauge.
Thanks for your advice, with proper planning and further advice and tips from instructors and the forum I hope not to get the suprise you suggest.

Thanks again.:)

[Whirlybird]

Crash victims now named. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/6933745.stm

[christimson]

Lots of factors to consider. I'm trying to get my head around airlaw which does explain this and makes you think about the many variables. Considerations to take off run available, wind speed, outside temperature, whether the runway is grass/tarmac etc all can make a huge difference to take off performance and passenger carrying capability.

[Zulu Alpha]

How can an aircraft designed with four seats, designed to carry four people, where the weight of a full tank of fuel will have been known during the design, possibly be overweight in such circumstances?

The idea is to give you flexibility.

If there are two of you then you can go a long way with full tanks. If you want to take 4 people then you can only take a bit of fuel.

You could fit a big engine but this then gets expensive.

So thats why the W&B in the POH is so important and varies between different models of the same aircraft.

[Whirlybird]

And you can possibly take two light adults and two kids with full fuel, although I don't actually know if you can with this particular aircraft. But as Zulu Alpha says, 4 seats gives you flexibility. And even with a two- seater, you need to calculate weight and balance; you often can't take two large people and full fuel. You certainly can't in the R22!

[Fright Level]

Hooloovoo, I fly a 400 seat aircraft and we can't take a full load of pax & cargo with full tanks either. As ZA says, it's to do with flexibility of aircraft use.

[IO540]

As the others have said, it is done for operating flexibility.

However, different aircraft designs have the compromise at different points. I think it's fair to say that a Warrior has the compromise rather a long way down, and while it was probably quite a flexible design when it was new 50+ years ago, when the average Yank or Brit male was say 60kg as compared to 100kg today, it is nowadays only a 2-seater if going on any decent trip.

A PA28-140 with four average adults is likely to be overloaded unless it is carrying so little fuel that the fuel level is way below inspectable level (which itself is a dim way to do things) so a large percentage of them are routinely overloaded, and people get away with it because they are coming off a long runway.

PPL training has a lot to answer for. In 2000 (UK), I did W&B but density altitude was never covered, I never saw the handbook for anything that was being flown, and certainly never saw a proper takeoff performance chart of the sort that takes into account elevation, temperature, weight, runway-end obstacle clearance, etc.

I am not suggesting this accident was caused solely by overloading and density altitude though, for the reasons I gave earlier. The aircraft was already airborne, apparently out of ground effect, so some loss of engine power seems a likely possibility. This may or may not be evident in the AAIB report; they can't find what they can't find... I have read many of those reports and while their speculation is educated it is often just that... speculation.

[david viewing]

PPL training has a lot to answer for. In 2000 (UK)

I wonder why it's so different in America? Density altitude is about the first thing an FBO says to a prospective renter and the aircraft's own, original POH is part of the furniture and always in the aircraft. It's no good saying "Oh, that's in the West, hot n' high" because while we lack the mountains we have very short runways compared with almost anywhere over there.

The Cessna POH has concise performance tables showing takeoff at different elevations and temperatures, inherantly taking into account the density altitude and climb to 50'. No-one who has been checked out in a 152 or 172 can possibly fail to have seen these easy to understand tables.

I was once with a US FBO when 4 well built British lads with luggage turned up for a Warrior rental to go touring. They seemed genuinely surprised when the FBO scuppered their plans. I know they were well built because I gave them a lift to the hotel and the car grounded on a speed ramp!

There really does seem to be a cultural difference over this.

[Dave Gittins]

The only reason it is the first thing mentioned is because it is usually very important. I have just returned from Colorado Springs where I have been doing a little mountain flying.

The field I flew from - Meadowlake - has a unicom with automated "ATIS" and it always gives a caution about the density altitude. As the field is at 6,800 above sea level, performance is almost always critical even with a 6,000 foot runway, when the DA is almost 9,000 feet.

Last Thursday we flew 2 up, restricted our fuel to less than half tanks in a 172 R and did a lot of gradual climbing to get to just under 12,000 to safely circle Pikes Peak, 14,100.

Denver is at over 5,000 feet and much of the countryside around is flat but 9,000 above sea level (no QFE then !!!)

Because in our cool climate and low altitudes (my home field is 81 Ft AMSL) we generally don't need to worry about density Alt, doesn't men that on the wrong day it isn't out there waiting for us.

[tonyhalsall]

Guys, i really don't think speculating over the cause of a tragic accident like this is going to do anyone any good.

I just hope there are as many people who will read and learn from the accident report as there are those who speculate on this forum.

Comjam - This forum is called the ''Professional Pilots Rumour Network'' Ok so in this section most of us are amatuers but it is still a rumour network.
Why would you not want to speculate?
There have been all kinds of suggestions on this thread about the cause of the accident and every one of us will now take that little bit of extra care when we take our next flight - that is why it is good to speculate about the cause of accidents - it broadens the mind and opens it up to possibilities.
It may well be that this Pilot did everything right but then his engine ran rough or lost a bit of power - problem is that he had sliced his luck into a wafer thin portion due to all of the other actions and an engine problem proved to fatal as opposed to an inconvenience. That is complete speculation of course but maybe next time you are convinced that a heavy take off is safe - it may just make you think about the engine and prop and wonder if your assumption that your calcs - based on a correctly functioning engine and prop - are up to scratch.
This pilot had no margin for error at all left in his bag of luck and that is why it had tragic results.
I vote for speculation all day long especially if it makes us think twice about our own performance and limitations.

[S-Works]

Why would you not want to speculate?

Exactly! As I pointed out on flyer, speculation makes us stop and think, makes us run different scenarios.

All the bleating about showing respect for the dead and wait for the AIB that comes every time we have a discussion/speculation on an accident is more often than not a result of guilt from our own mistakes rather than respect for people we don't know. Millions die every day, we have to live with it.

If I pop my clogs from a flying accident I hereby actively encourage you all to speculate to your hearts content on what happened. See how close we can get to the AIB's speculation and see if we learn from it!

[Sallyann1234]

further speculation:
Four adults on a trip to France were probably going to stay overnight or longer, and would have needed baggage.
I've been scoffed at for the care I take in weighing baggage, but in a case like this one it could really have been the last straw. Something the AIB will be looking for amongst the wreckage.

[sternone]

If you would have jet fuel in your tanks instead of the highly flameable 100LL and you crash in a field,..

do you believe you would have more chance to survive and not get into an inferno ?

[VFE]

I too agree that speculation is a positive thing. If one person reading this thread now decides to do a mass and balance calculation when in doubt in future then it's been worth it surely? What one needs to remember is that speculation is possible without passing judgement. That can wait until the AAIB report is in and only then can the innocent man cast the first stone.

VFE.

[Whirlybird]

As I've said twice already on this thread - but I'm going to say it again because it's relevant and important - speculation is fine. What isn't fine, however, is jumping to conclusions based on little evidence but only assumptions.

We STILL don't know that they were overweight. We don't know what these four people weighed; they could have been super-fit jockey-sized types for all we know. We don't know how much fuel they had. They could have been travelling very light where luggage is concerned - I've flown to Paris for a weekend with only one spare teeshirt, and spent 5 days in France with only one change of clothes...and no extra shoes, and I'm a woman!!! Sorry for emphasising that. but my co-pilot at the time just couldn't believe that any woman could manage on one pair of shoes for 5 days. :) Well, I didn't like it, but I'd done my weight and balance checks, and needs must.

But I digress. Speculation is fine. In this case it was indeed a hot day, and being overweight was a distinct possibility. So discussing that is useful. But the discussion keeps on and on leading to assumptions that this was the definite cause, and that might not have been the case at all!

DOES ANYONE ON HERE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING????? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[172driver]

First of all please count me in - if I ever snuff it in an accident, please speculate to your hearts' delight !

Secondly, IMHO this is NOT about W&B but about density altitude and t/o performance in general. While the weight (or mass) part of the two obviously is related, they are two different beasts entirely. You can be well within W&B but don't have the power to achieve a successful t/o. It may well be that this is an area that's neglected in the UK, possibly because so much flying is done near the standard temp/pressure (15 deg C / SL). It is however, of importance not only in the US or Africa (where it is vital), but in many parts of Europe. As people can and do fly beyond the confines of the UK, PPL training there probably really has a lot to answer for.

In any case, a PA28-140 is not exactly the hottest ship around and with three adults and one adolescent plus (presumably) some luggage more likely than not was very close to MTOW. Add 10 degs above standard and a grass strip..... :(

[tonyhalsall]

Whirlybird

No one is speculating on a definitive cause at all

What is good about the speculation is that it is taking into account all possible scenario's which is increasing everyone's awareness of all the innumerable risks that this flight faced.
Weight
Balance
Density altitude
Performance charts based on a 'new' aircraft
fully functioning (or otherwise) engine and prop
fuel contamination
Field conditions
prevailing wind

etc etc

We are all thinking about all of these factors just that little bit more now and that is no bad thing.

Having said that, I am quite sure that on Sunday evening when we all heard the news on the radio or TV the first things that we thought were:

Cherokee 140
4 on board
channel crossing (fuel load)
hot, muggy day

And that is why so many on this forum and elsewhere will not be surprised at the outcome of any AAIB report because even if the factors are none of the above - the safety margin for error (or other failure) because of the above was NIL.

[S-Works]

Whirly,

No one is jumping to conclusions, they are merely speculating on the cause which as I have pointed out is healthy. If speculation causes us to think about our flight planning then it might just save a life.

I teach on one of these aircraft and can assure you it is very performance limited. Looking at the photographs of the deceased they look like the average overweight 50 plus brits. The teenager maybe have been a rake but even without him 3 adults take the aircraft out of the W&B with all but the most minimal of fuel. They were heading to France for what I speculate to be a trip so will have had baggage however minimal. Factor in density altitude, rough grass, sloping surface and weight and the POH in front of me has them way outside the envelope. So I would therefore SPECULATE that they were overweight, had not carried out the correct factoring calcs for the surface or the DA, pulled the aircraft into the air before it was ready to fly and the aircraft wallowed around on the edge of the stall falling to climb. Possibly in an attempt to get the aircraft to climb out ground effect the nose was raised just enough to turn the wallowing into a stall down it comes.

I would further speculate that as they took off from a tarmac runway of a similar length that they felt emboldened enough to attempt the same thing on a rough grass runway.

Sandown is not the most friendly of surfaces for performance limited aircraft and the optical illusion created by the runway being in a bowl would not help the situation.

This is just my speculation but I am prepared to take bets on the AIB report outcome.

So what is the outcome of my speculation? Always do a W&B, always check the DA even it seems irrelevant and always carry out the surface factoring as recommended by the CAA.

[STATSMAN]

Hi Whirly

I know your size (feather light) A/G Tatenhill (yes I always get your callsign wrong)

Statsman

[englishal]

I agree with Bose's assumptions I'm afraid. There may have been an additional factor such as reduction in power which contributed, and as a result of the reduced safety margins sealed their fate.

It also shows that no matter what happens you should *never* try to "stretch the glide" - or in other words yank it over something, for this will have a certain outcome. It is better to fly into tree tops, but still fly, than stall and nose it in out of control. Nose first from 50' will kill you just as easily as nose first from 5,000'.

If you really have no options left, a better option would be to put in all flap, balloon over whatever it is and accept the consequences later - just don't stall. Ernest K Gann managed to avoid taking out the Taj Mahal this way when he took off in a (unknown to him) massively overloaded aeroplane.

[Leclairage]

Hi Whirlybird,
Yes, I understand well what you are saying. And to me, your urging for ppruners restraint is as valuable as the speculation.
I fly one of these. And I have to be VERY careful about W&B, and generally think of Her as a 2 seater. A bit akin to a 162, if such a thing existed.
I flew Her down to Valencia this year. Very nice too. 2 up on the way down, just me on the way back. With 2 of us, minimal overnight luggage only and a couple of bottles of water I was OK for full fuel one side, tabs the other. She was within limits, and She flew slowly, but beautifully!
Whilst in Valencia I day-tripped to Valencia. 2 up, no luggage, full fuel (out of Valencia). And a hot day. Performance was as predicted, as worked out, and WAY below what I would expect on a chilly day from Biggin Hill, Her base. But there was, of course, plenty of room on commercial runways.
Coming back, I was solo, no luggage, full fuel at each stop, and had it not been for bad weather over the Channel I would have been back in Biggin that same evening.
Given my knowledge of this type, I do feel permitted to speculate, and from an informed standpoint too.
I have been to Sandown, just 2 up, no luggage on below tabs fuel and I was quite surprised at how long it took Her to unglue on a 15 degree day.
It really wouldent cross my mind to attempt a takeoff from Sandown, 4 up (whatever their weights but we are talking 3 adults plus a sporty Teen) with sufficient fuel to make it to France.
That said, any loss of life in our little community is both shocking and painful. This, of course, is nothing to those more familiar to the 4 people must be feeling.
I am sorry if you don't like my words. But I make no apology for them. If they, or the words of anyone else on this thread cause ANY pilot to think before they fly this summer, and reduce a potential risk to themselves or others, BEFORE the reports all come out they will have been wort. it Even if they have annoyed you.

[ShyTorque]

If you really have no options left, a better option would be to put in all flap, balloon over whatever it is and accept the consequences later - just don't stall. Ernest K Gann managed to avoid taking out the Taj Mahal this way when he took off in a (unknown to him) massively overloaded aeroplane.

A Beverley, if my memory hasn't totally failed.

No-one mentioned the possibility of intake icing so far, if the weather was like it was here "up north", it was a classic day for it to occur.

[treadigraph]

'Twas a Liberator ShyTorque.

I learn a great deal from these discussions - not a pilot (yet anyway) but it might stand me in good stead one day.

Sad event, let's hope the rest of the summer proves safer.

[ShyTorque]

Damn, me memory's gone possibly then. The one I read about was an account by an RAF pilot, published in "Airclues" some twenty years ago.

I agree, a very sad week all round.

[IO540]

To me, the worst thing about these multi-fatality accidents is that (I have no idea about this one; this is a general comment only) usually there is just one person who is the planner and the pilot, and the others are just normal people who - having squeezed themselves into the cockpit - totally trust that one person's judgement and flying.

Carrying passengers is one helluva responsibility.

[Leclairage]

I0540, yes indeed.
Our passengers put such simple trust in us as pilots to get it right and to make the right calls - the responsibility is simply awesome.

[JW411]

I speak as a pilot who has flown Performace "A" aircraft since 1962 in my day job (3 and 4 engined). I also speak as a pilot who owns a PA-28 Warrior.

You are all banging on about about the ability of an aircraft to get airborne at a given weight from a runway of a given length. That is only part of the equation. Some of you have introduced a discussion about pressure altitude etc.

What you are driving towards is a WAT limit. WAT= (Weight/Altitude/Temperature).

That limit basically means that your aircraft can get airborne in the runway available but will be unable to climb after take-off if exceeded.

I can remember meeting one of my old friends in Sharjah in the 1970s. He had just got airborne that day (and I stress the word "just") in a Victor MK.1 tanker from Dubai and they had raised sand across the desert for 3 miles much to the chagrin of Dubai ATC!

He asked me why this should be because their "take-off performance graph" showed that they had runway to spare.

I explained that it was perfectly possible to get airborne from a runway but then be unable to climb due to the fact that the weight or the temperature or the altitude of the airfeild was too high.

All that Bomber Command had was a TORR (take off run required) graph and stopwatch acceleration points.

I go to Sandown frequently with my Warrior and I would be quite bothered about getting out of there in zero wind with four on board at 30°C and with any sort of fuel at all.

I hasten to add that I have no experience of flying a PA28-140.

[QDMQDMQDM]

This is mad. Let's not get bound up in political correctness and lose sight of the wood for the trees.

A Cherokee 140 tried to get out of a grass strip on a moderately hot day 4-up with at least a reasonable amount of fuel and probably some baggage. It stalled and crashed. The chances are 99% that W+B and MTOW issues were somewhere at the heart of this accident. Why shouldn't people discuss this? It's a recurring theme, which kills lots of people in small aircraft. Most pilots would regard 4-up in any conditions in a Cherokee 140 as verging on insanity, or at least to be treated with the utmost circumspection.

Maybe there was carb icing, maybe a partial engine failure, maybe a bird strike, maybe, maybe, maybe, but that doesn't mean we should ignore, and therefore fail to discuss, the bleeding obvious. And I don't think we should have to preface everything we say with endless, self-conscious disclaimers either.

You can speculate to your heart's content if I have an accident. I'll probably have done something very stupid.

[Leclairage]

JW411
I salute your professional experience. I am simply an amateur. But an aviator nonetheless.

To clarify my ((amateur) thinking, are you talking of the inability to climb out of ground effect?

[QDMQDMQDM]

I am posting this again here so that anyone who hasn't seen it can watch it. In the aftermath of this latest crash and with JW411's comments above, it seems an apposite moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU

This guy might have got out of ground effect with a bit less nose-up attitude and slowly bleeding off the flaps, but he might not have.

As they say, however, a superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid getting into situations where he needs to use his superior skill.

[JW411]

Leclairage:

I really do not want to get into a huge technical discussion about Performance "A" requirements since such aircraft as the PA-28 are probably in the Performance "X" (no performance) category.

However, you are just about right in your assumptions.

Imagine if you will taking off from an enormously long runway and then finding that you simply cannot climb. All will be well until you meet or try to avoid the first obstacle.

If your weight is too high or the temperature is too high or the airfield is too high then you WILL have a problem.

[one eleven]

Flew a 182 thursday/friday on a 2hr flight e/w with four adults and bags. As this was the first time i'd flown more than two up on this type, diligently went through the performance/m&b calcs and not suprisingly even on this "proper" four seater tourer I had to accommodate a notable fuel reduction to stay both under weight and accommodate field limitations/factors.

There are probably not many amongst us who when we get familiar with a type, rely less on a formal calculation and more on our historical performance knowledge/seat of the pants. For me a summer departure in a 140 from Derby a few years ago cerainly gave me a "I learned about flying from that" experience

One other thought based on the eye witness above is the comment re: lots of traffic and a/c waiting departure. Not sure what the relative humidity was on saturday, but carb ice...

Lets hope we can all either learn something new or re-learn something we forgot from this tragic accident.

[IO540]

Imagine if you will taking off from an enormously long runway and then finding that you simply cannot climb. All will be well until you meet or try to avoid the first obstacle.

Agreed entirely, if not able to climb out of ground effect. But the indications in this case are that they did climb well out of GE. They crashed over a mile further down.

For a Warrior (10m wingspan) to be in GE, they would need to be within ~ 10m of the surface. As I say, the indications are they they got a lot higher than that.

I don't know the wingspan of a Victor tanker but it's a helluva lot more than 10m, and it could thus fly in GE at quite a height.

As regards carb icing, this (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGHI/2007/8/5/DailyHistory.html)(Southampton) suggests the air was quite dry. Probably not as hot as some suggest, either.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Just about my closest call in thirty-five plus years of aviating was in the rear seat of a Cherokee 140. August Bank Holiday, circa 1970, three adult males up, plus weekend baggage, taking off from Hilversum, destination Hamburg. Picture the mounting dismay of me, peering between the substantial shoulders of the two guys up front, watching the tall Poplar trees at the boundary getting ever closer. Well, we made it, but not by much!

Oh and by the way, I was by far the most experienced pilot on board, including instructing time on the Cherokee 140. (I jumped in at the last minute, as there was a spare seat going.)

Some of us live to learn ...

[Newforest]

"Oh and by the way, I was by far the most experienced pilot on board, including instructing time on the Cherokee 140"

And a DC-4 pilot?:)

[S-Works]

One thing to thing about in the ground effect scenario is that Sandown is in a "bowl" and the ground continues to rise rapidly after take off. It would not surprise me if the ground effect lasted quite a bit after the initial take off and climb out.

[merlinxx]

Thank you, first person to apply WAT applications, I always understood this to be basic in Perf A

[ShyTorque]

A single engined aircraft isn't in Performance group A.

[IO540]

there is part of the flight envelope where the take-off could be fairly normal if rather long followed by no spare performance for any additional climb

Not really; once you are out of ground effect and flying OK then the thing should carry on flying. It might climb very slowly (of the order of taking 10 miles to climb a few hundred feet) but it won't crash.

Unless the pilot pulls up a bit too hard (remember that this plane was very likely substantially overloaded) in which case a flight slightly above Vs can turn into a flight below Vs.... or there is a loss of power.

[IO540]

If you look at the map of the area, there is no significant rising terrain until some distance after the crash site.

[S-Works]

GEMMA, ground effect lasts quite a bit further than you are giving it credit for. We are also looking at the fact that the ground rises as you take off your altitude may be increasing but your height not increasing and you could be on the top of edge of the ground effect.

Ground effect would also allow the aircraft to take off but not climb in an overweight aircraft.

[Leclairage]

Hi G-EMMA
Ground effect wouldent last very long at all in a 140 - see posts below for my 140 credentials.
As it would appear that several houses had been cleared, also that no high terrain is present between runway and where the aircraft came to rest so it does seem unlikly to me that ground effect has much to do with it.
It appears that this machine was way outside its weight envelope (leave alone balance) but I would be interested in the flap setting.
I use 1st stage of flap for just about every takeoff but sometimes on a 'short' strip the 2nd stage can be useful. To quote the owner of the machine I fly, with 2 stages of flap She tends to levitate rather than rotate.
On the odd occasion when I have been near, but within limits I have to be very careful with RoC - it is only a tiny engine.
But VERY forgiving before stalling - about 30 knots with 2 (big) chaps

[nouseforaname]

I had a lucky escape not long after I got my licence doing some hour building in California. It was 110degrees on the ground in Maclellan airport, we decided we had enough fuel to get back to California with a 172, thank God we didn't fill it.
Took off with 3 up and bag's. got out of ground effect, next thing was airspeed was reducing from 70kts back to 60kts. We raised the nose and were still simmering down toward the ground. Then the aircraft stopped decending, stayed at the same level for about 20sec's (felt like 20 mins) then slowly, very slowly climed away. We were lucky and I learned from it.

[englishal]

SF technique in this aeroplane SHOULD be 2 stages of flap. Otherwise you are just adding drag and not improving climb performance much.

Unless the pilot pulls up a bit too hard (remember that this plane was very likely substantially overloaded) in which case a flight slightly above Vs can turn into a flight below Vs.... or there is a loss of power.
From an eyewitness:
"He tried to pull the aircraft up to clear the trees which he did do and in order to get lift he pushed the nose of the aircraft down and it immediately crashed and there was an extremely large black bloom of smoke."
I speculate that flight above Vs could have become flight below Vs.

I had a lucky escape not long after I got my licence doing some hour building in California. It was 110degrees on the ground in Maclellan airport, we decided we had enough fuel to get back to California with a 172, thank God we didn't fill it.
Took off with 3 up and bag's. got out of ground effect, next thing was airspeed was reducing from 70kts back to 60kts. We raised the nose and were still simmering down toward the ground. Then the aircraft stopped decending, stayed at the same level for about 20sec's (felt like 20 mins) then slowly, very slowly climed away. We were lucky and I learned from it.
Me too in an Archer 3! We left Palomar and bearly got off their 5000' runway, with the stall warner buzzing away. Luckily the ground drops at the end of the runway (my father-in-laws office is at the end, so I wouldn't have been too popular if I'd landed on it!). Our IFR clearance was something like "climb straight ahead to 1500'". By 1500' we were way, way, way out to sea!

[Skertch]

We have an elderly but much loved PA28 160. We have writtenan automatic weight an balance calculator and keep copies of the performance tables on our web site.

Even with 160hp engine there is no way we would take 3 passsengers. We also have the W & B calculator on a PDA which can be useful.

There are some real odities in the Cherokee which John Davis our local tame instructor pointed out at my biennial, like full fuel and 2 front seat pilots the C of G is in front of the limit so we can (and do) run out of elevator in the flare. Take a look at www.g-atis.co.uk

Sandown is in a bowl. Runway 23 is significantly uphill and even when lighly loaded the acceleration is slow. The temptation is to try and drag the aeroplane off and having dragged it off the slab wing Cherokee soon gets behind the lift drag curve.

For years I have explained to friends and relatives under extreme peer pressure, why I can only take 2 passengers, thankfully I havnt given in yet, there but for the grace of God go I.

[Leclairage]

Hi Englishal

If that eyewitness quotation is accurate, I have to concur with your speculation.

[Sallyann1234]

Be careful about the eyewitness report.
Having done that takeoff several times I can tell you that the trees immediately behind the garden centre - which the plane cleared - are on a slight rise and are the highest point on that heading. If the plane was continuing to climb or even just maintaining altitude it should have cleared the next row of trees.
But there are hills only a mile or so ahead and the pilot would either have to gain another 600 feet on that heading or 100 feet after a turn east to clear Shanklin and get out over the sea. So he would have been desperate to gain height.

[Jumbo Driver]

G-EMMA, in reply to your questions about Ground Effect, there is a rather "techie" treatise to be found here (http://www.se-technology.com/wig/html/main.php?open=aero).

From this article, it would seem that about 70% of the span-dominated ground effect is lost at a height equivalent to 20% of the aircraft wingspan and it becomes negligible at a height of 100% of the wingspan.

The wingspan of a PA28-140 is 30 feet, so 20% represents 6 feet. As the wing is already 3 feet agl when the wheels are on the ground, this means 70% of any benefit would be lost when the wheels are 3 feet above the ground and there is virtually no beneficial effect at 27 feet agl.

The chord-dominated effect seem much more complicated, so I'll leave you to read the rest ...

Hope this helps.



JD
:)

[QNH 1013]

SF technique in this aeroplane SHOULD be 2 stages of flap. Otherwise you are just adding drag and not improving climb performance much.
The later, and more powerful versions, of the PA28 do indeed specify 2-stages of flap for a short-field takeoff. However, I have never seen a Cherokee 140 flight manual specify this. The only performance figures I have seen for the Cherokee 140 are 0 degrees of flap for take-off. I would be interested if someone has a Cherokee 140 with performance figures in its flight manual for take-off with flap selected.
SF technique in this aeroplane SHOULD be 2 stages of flap. Otherwise you are just adding drag and not improving climb performance much.
Take off with 0 degree of flap does not add drag, but it may reduce lift at a given airspeed.

[englishal]

Take off with 0 degree of flap does not add drag, but it may reduce lift at a given airspeed
I meant if you just add 10° of flap.

Because 10° (1 stage) is so often used, it is easy to think that all aeroplanes use 1 stage. I had an arguement with an instructor on a checkout once - he wanted me to use 10° of flap in the Warrior, and I was sure that it was 2 stages. Anyway, him being the instructor I did it his way, and we survived.

[fireflybob]

If my memory serves me correct the CAA scheduled performance in the AFM for the PA28-140 for take off is flaps up. However the FAA manual also shows figures for take off with Flaps 25.

That said take off with flaps 10 degrees in the PA28 is quite a nice compromise where runway performance considerations are not a factor.

Dare I say it but of course aircraft can fly overweight and indeed on ferry flights across the pond in light a/c there is often dispensation given to fly 10% overweight subject to certain conditions. One would only contemplate this off a very long metalled runway (ie not grass) etc.

Sorry to hear our fellow aviators came to grief at Sandown. Remember the swiss cheese model - you get the accident when all the holes line up.

[flyingwalrus]

I was at Sandown at the time, having flown in on Saturday, and was enjoying the sun at the beach with friends. I was alerted something was amiss by fire engines and ambulances screaming through Sandown, then a bit later by my extremely worried mother who has just heard that 4 people had been killed in a light aircraft crash at Sandown.

We departed at 6pm local, and could clearly see the still smouldering wreckage in a corn-field just beyond the ridge at the end of r/w 23. The crash site showed no signed of any marks leading up to it, and two straight black, wing-sized marks coming from a central crater, leading me to think it had most likely stalled and gone in vertically. I am sure the AAIB will do their usual thorough and professional investigation and we will all find out the cause of this terrible tragedy.

I used to fly PA28/140's and hated their poor performance, even in cold weather with a long runway. I feel very fortunate now to have an over-powered wood and fabric 4 seater taildragger which leaps into the air fully loaded, even hot and high.

I hope we can learn something that will help avoid accidents like this in the future when the full causes are known.

God rest the souls of those involved.

[high-hopes]

A couple of weeks ago I flew a Cherokee 140 in Italy fully loaded, in fact 15 kgs above MTOW. Outside temperature was 32 C and field elevation 900 feet.

We indeed had a very long tarmac runway and gave it an extra 10 MPH on takeoff roll and seemed to behave quite nicely. I guess the long runway/clearway makes a huge difference though.

I don't have a lot of experience on 140's and I wonder if the unusual instrument layout (compared to the modern T shaped), the MPH airspeed and the absence of an aural stall warner could have played a part ?

[Dave Gittins]

We used to fly a Cherokee 140 and a Warrior in our club and the MPH speedo, lack of aural stall warner, shortage of footbrakes and roof mounted trim wheel on the 140 didn't seem to cause anybody constantly swapping between the two any problems (that I know of).

As I understand the pilot in this case to be the owner and thus presumeably using the same aeroplane most of the time, I doubt it even more ..... however high workload/stress situations certainly reduce the ability to respond to the normal number of external stimulii.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Around 1972, our new Cherokee 140s, as they were known to me, came with a T instrument panel layout, a quadrant throttle, and the elevator trim on the floor between the seats. I see that I first flew one of these in September 1972. All this Warrior and Dakota stuff came a year or so after!

(I see that according to Wikipedia, the 'new style' Cherokee - also incorporating the extra cabin window - was introduced as early as 1968.)

[Whirlybird]

I heard from someone today that they didn't actually refuel at Sandown! Maybe it was just a lunch stop. Afer all, if they'd refuelled at Tatenhill, it ought to have been enough to get to Cherbourg...maybe. Who knows?

[Bahn-Jeaux]

From Whirls,
you often can't take two large people and full fuel.

I did W & B for a warrior a month ago and with two 15 stone passengers and full fuel, it would have been outside the envelope.

Also flown a Cherokee and it is far more critical than the warrior.

My experiences only, not an opinion or speculation, I will leave that to the authorities.

[Saab Dastard]

It is not the speculation per se that gets to me on this - and other, similar threads.

It is the descent into bickering between individuals - a la bose-x and choperpaul, for example.

In a thread discussing the possible causes of the deaths of 4 people it really is - IMHO - disrespectful.

Please understand that I don't want to single out the above 2, I simply use them as an example - and at least bose-x has tried to take it "off-line".

SD

[BBCapt]

'high-hopes', indeed! as to your comment - why even get airborne knowing you are 'in fact 15 kgs above MTOW' ?

Most likely many have all been there/got the T-Shirt but committing aviation with knowledge that 'something is amiss' is just ...plain daft!

[eharding]

It is not the speculation per se that gets to me on this - and other, similar threads.
It is the descent into bickering between individuals - a la bose-x and choperpaul, for example.
In a thread discussing the possible causes of the deaths of 4 people it really is - IMHO - disrespectful.
Please understand that I don't want to single out the above 2, I simply use them as an example - and at least bose-x has tried to take it "off-line".
SD

Indeed, but you only have to pop over into Rumours & News to witness threads relating to airliner crashes with major loss of life ending up as an anorak fight between ostensibly professional pilots.
__________________

[ozzieausterdriver]

Having read this thread and looked at the links I have to say I am very sad to read how this tradegy transpired. I once landed at Poham in an Auster J5P and re-fuelled, it was a hot summers day. We had 4 up and full fuel on our way to Bembridge. I didnt fancy my chances off 26 and requested the cross runway, the number escapes me, and remember the resistance from ATC to this request, but used the ''in the interests of safety'' chestnut to get my own way. I have to say I was very pleased I had in fact got the nod to do this as soon after everyone else also requested the southerly runway.

We had no problems but I believe that 26 would have been a close call on the day with the wind direction etc.

Condolences to all concerned and hope Sandown can keep their spirits up in these difficult times.


OAD

[Whirlybird]

It is not the speculation per se that gets to me on this - and other, similar threads. It is the descent into bickering between individuals - a la bose-x and choperpaul, for example. In a thread discussing the possible causes of the deaths of 4 people it really is - IMHO - disrespectful

You've hit the nail on the head.

Indeed, but you only have to pop over into Rumours & News to witness threads relating to airliner crashes with major loss of life ending up as an anorak fight between ostensibly professional pilots.


It doesn't matter who does it, it's not on, IMHO.

[fireflybob]

As a qualified flying instructor I have been thinking about this accident. Until the final report is published we can only speculate as to the probable cause.

Error chains can start a long way from the final event. If during flying training a loading calculation and performance calculation was made for every single sortie would this go a long way to eliminate performance related accidents? In the airline world it is taken for granted that a correctly appended loadsheet must be produced and signed for, also that Performance is checked for every takeoff. The latter is often presented in a "simplified" form to enable rapid and accurate calculation.

[S-Works]

Erm.... to be fair I did not get into any bickering, I just said that if anything needed to be said then take it off line. I was most careful not to bicker.

I do agree bickering does a disservice to the dead, but healthy speculation could save a life.

[Saab Dastard]

If during flying training a loading calculation and performance calculation was made for every single sortie would this go a long way to eliminate performance related accidents?

Possibly, but it might actually be counter-productive, in the sense that during training the load is rarely going to be more than 2 up (P u/t + inst), no baggage and almost always from the same strip, so the results will almost always be virtually identically satisfactory, potentially leading to a blase attitude and a false sense of security.

It would definitely be of considerable benefit to always do such calcs with an instructor if landing and taking off from a different airfield - particularly grass / short / sloping strips.

And that leads into another discussion of the PPL syllabus, regarding the variety and types of airfields that students could / should be introduced to during training rather than after.

SD

[Dysonsphere]

Slightly off thread I was taking off in a PA 28 140 with 3 up 1 being an instructor and we selected 2 stages of flap to practice a SF take off, we got off the ground then suddenly found our selves back on the ground for no apparent reason(luckly we were at White Waltham so 1000m to play with) after finally getting airbourne on the climb out we discovered only 1 stage of flap set. As far as we can worh out the last bump on the runway on the first lift off cause the flaps to lose on stage of setting, on a shorter runway we would have been in trouble.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

The flight manual, and pilots manual, gives guidance, but most private pilots, (myself included in an earlier life), have all overloaded singles, without even thinking about it.
In later life and a ATP behind me, I realised just how stupid some or even all of my private flying escapades were. I do not intend to go into to many details.

I have limited experience on type, but have an association with a group 140.
The standing instruction is no take off without LOAD SHEET.
Basically fuel to tabs, 2 on board only, suitable runway, and WAT considerations. (even if not perf A.)

Just what was the density altitude at Sandown. ?
How long was the grass. ?
How much fuel, and payload. ?

All of these will be in the official report.



I had a great procedure for SF take off, full power until brakes unable to hold, then light pressure to reduce nose wheel contact, then at 75% of rotate speed, rapidly appy TO flap, the airtcraft went into hover mode, and after a slight pitch down, accelerated away.
I am still alive to tell the tale, but my instructor almos hung me out to sry, when I tried to advise a new guy how to operate. Bush pilots are &&&&&&& all he would say.

Take care guys. RTFM.

glf

[Whirlybird]

The flight manual, and pilots manual, gives guidance, but most private pilots, (myself included in an earlier life), have all overloaded singles, without even thinking about it.

In some flying schools the POH is hidden away, and a student or pilot practically has to sign the official secrets act to get hold of it!

IMHO, the whole problem starts in SOME flying schools (I'm not suggesting ALL flying schools). School aircraft are sometimes overloaded during training, since they were never designed to take two large people and lots of fuel. Instructors know they can get away with it if the runway is long, the weather is cool, and they have a headwind. So they do, not realising that in the absence of any explanation, students will copy what you DO rather than what you SAY. I asked an instructor about this way back when I was a very new PPL. He told me that although you really shouldn't go over the weight stated in the POH, there was usually some leeway. Just don't do it, he said, if you're at 2000 ft and there's no headwind and the weather is hot and the runway is short and you're uphill on grass...ie, don't push your luck. It was good advice, because it led me to understand these things rather than just following the rules...or ignoring them.

[bunnywabbit]

Yet another incident at Sandown yesterday Its on IOW radio station website and I do not know how paste it on here.

As a GA pilot I think its about time that we look out our actions as pilots and clean up our act and have more sensible approach to flying. This incident has gone straight to news desk and the public will make there own minds. At the moment aviation on the island is giving the NIMBYs ammunition.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

As well as the take off and climb performance being affected by a density altitude higher than many would be used to in the UK climate, no-one has yet mentioned the higher liklihood of plug fouling, which could explain a loss of already somewhat limited power ..two fouled plugs in one cylinder can be hard to detect in cruise or on a mag check and may only show up as less than minimum static RPM on full power at take off.

The 140 is a lovely machine, but those little fat wings can quickly get you on the wrong side of the drag curve and keep you there if other things are already stacked againt you.

In my experience as a stude and instructor in the UK, (including flights to Sandown) and as an instructor here in Aus checking out UK pilots, the old adage "I was told NEVER to touch the mixture below 5000 feet!!!!" in direct contrdiction of the POH seems to be taken as gospel...:ugh:

Condolences to those involved and their loved ones.

[172driver]

School aircraft are sometimes overloaded during training, since they were never designed to take two large people and lots of fuel.

Whirly, you and quite a few others here seem to confuse W&B with MTOW. Two average sized adults and full fuel will put you slightly out of CofG (forward) on a PA28, however it will NOT put you over MTOW.

In any case, relevant to this accident there are three distinct issues, which keep being conflated:
1) W&B
2) MTOW
3) TO performance

While all three are of course related, it would really help to keep them apart for the sake of this discussion.

On a different note, I am always flabbergasted by this idiotic don't touch the mixture attitude. How many people in the UK are being taught how to lean for best power ???

[high-hopes]

Whirly, you and quite a few others here seem to confuse W&B with MTOW. Two average sized adults and full fuel will put you slightly out of CofG (forward) on a PA28, however it will NOT put you over MTOW.


It is also true that two average/large adults and full tanks will most likely be over MTOW on a C152 where most dual hours are being logged.
Or even worse on a DA20 on which I logged quite a few PUT hours.

I don't recall any mf my instructors defuelling or doing a 15 min run up to burn off fuel !

Like everything it's common sense, don't think that 10 kgs over, on a long tarmac runway , is a major sin.
Different story on short grass strips / adverse weather / wind / temperature conditions.

[Whirlybird]

I was indeed thinking of C152s and PA38s when I posted. I certainly wasn't confused in my own mind, but my apologies if I confused others.

[bunnywabbit]

G-EMMA thanks for that I am hopeless with computers!
The point of my post was to get GA to be more responsible for our actions and not get ourselves on the radio and in the papers. Accidents do happen its a fact of life, but the last two on the island have had a bit of a human input both could have been thrown away at an early stage. As an instructor I do go thru tyres, before a first solo I will demo an emergency stop and will generally pop the door on a student to find out what they do. Why continue when it does not feel right, look right, :ugh:perform right or sound right:ugh:
I do not like to say it, but if GA keeps having accidents which can be avoided the NIMBYs will have some of the best airfields in the UK shutdown!!!

Lets take action now and think about safety!

[airborne_artist]

From http://www.iwradio.co.uk/news.aspx

."..luckily he’s avoided lots of farmer’s bails..." - clearly the IoW Farmers' cricket champs was on?

[A and C]

I can assure you that two fowled plugs in the same cylinder can't be missed at any time exceping power off decent.

As for the mixture control it is fitted to be used as stated in the flight manual or POH, you should not take folk lore of old wives tails in to account.

[stickandrudderman]

To clarify A and C's statement:

If you can't spot TWO fouled plugs in the SAME CYLINDER then kindly make sure that you post notice on here of any intended flight that you are planning so that we can all avoid you!;)

[Sallyann1234]

Report on initial inquest held yesterday:

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/News/PILOT_PUZZLE_OVER_TRAGIC_FLIGHT.aspx

[cotterpot]

Two average sized adults and full fuel will put you slightly out of CofG (forward) on a PA28,
I just checked for our PA28 140 and two 15st ers in the front with full fuel is still inside the envelope - just. Not that we allow such porkies in the group:=

[fireflybob]

I just checked for our PA28 140 and two 15st ers in the front with full fuel is still inside the envelope - just. Not that we allow such porkies in the group

When you say "inside the envelope" is that Weight AND C.G. Limits? The PA 28 - 140s I have flown were very close to if not beyond the forward c.g. limit in this situation.

[llanfairpg]

For anyone interested in speculation which may have some practical value they could do no better than to read the CAA safety leaflet

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_web07ssl7.pdf

Note the reference to applying public transport factors to take off and landing performance.

Nearly airborne and nearly climbing have no place in professional flying and by professional I mean by attitude rather than occupation!

Remember history shows that people do not learn from history!

Some of the comments in this thread such as, flaps do not increase drag or flaps increase climb performance show a dangerous lack of basic understanding.

When these types of accident surface, which sadly they do on a regular basis. I am reminded of the statement an old DC3 captain I used to fly with always used to make, " Leave flying to the professionals"!

[rmac]

The dark art of leaning has many surprises. My aircraft has turbocharged engines with automatic wastegates, push everything to the front and go. However in the POH there is still a procedure for hot day takeoff which allows for reducing fuel flow by up to 10% to improve engine performance.

So for those with normally aspirated engines (and even turbocharged), the arrival of UK and Europe in the tropics suggests a visit to the POH is in order, even if you know the particular aircraft back to front.

rmac

[cotterpot]

ffb

When you say "inside the envelope" is that Weight AND C.G. Limits? The PA 28 - 140s I have flown were very close to if not beyond the forward c.g. limit in this situation.

Inside the weight limit (2041lbs with a MAX of 2150lbs) and just inside the C.G. (min C.G 87'' aft of datum at that weight, actual on same weights, 87.147'' aft of datum). So as I said, 'just' inside. I wouldn't normally fly it in that configuration but just to show it is a possibility that can be calculated and as such flyable.

[Final 3 Greens]

FFB

It's nearly 15 years since I flew -140s (god I'm getting old), but IIRC correctly there were two versions, 1950lbs MTOW an 2150lbs MTOW.

And the W&B and C&G limits were different for both, so it may be that cotterpot and you are both correct!

One reason why one must always read the POH for a Cherokee, since they made so many subtly different versions, that its important to know which one you are about to fly in :confused:

[fireflybob]

It's nearly 15 years since I flew -140s (god I'm getting old), but IIRC correctly there were two versions, 1950lbs MTOW an 2150lbs MTOW.


Final 3 Greens, its nearly 30 years since I flew the PA 28 -140 so that makes me ancient!

Rather than two versions I recall that there were two categories - Utility and Normal. Certain manoeuvres were only permitted when within the Utility cat (1950 lbs and below and different cg limits).

[Final 3 Greens]

FFB

Agree about the utility and normal categories, but still remember flying an early -140 (mid 60s with plunger controls) and the MTOW was 1950lbs IIRC - cannot remember the utility restriction!

Sadly I don't have a copy of the POH.

[cotterpot]

Your memory is still ok - our 1967 pa28 140 is 1975lbs in the aerobatic? catagory and 2150lbs in the utility. If you can keep the weight down to 1650lbs the C.G can be at 84'' aft of datum.