Taxiway take-off trims the trees...
 

One does wonder what goes through peoples' minds on occasion...


I reckon he started the take off from this point... 350', bit optimistic even for a 180? Hope it will be rebuilt.

Hmmm... My first though is that making an insurance claim on that one probably has little chance of a payout - as it does not appear to be an "accident".

I admit that I've done that - with lots of headwind, good distance margin for the abort area, and success. From the look of the performance, I'd wonder if there was a performance shortfall; no wind, high elevation, or heavy. In any case, an experienced pilot, well familiar with the plane, would have known by the point he reached the other end of the apron, that it should have been airborne, or need to be aborted.

Unlike the Hurricane, that will be rebuilt, but at a high cost. What a waste......

380 ft of paved surface, 550 ft to the trees, and about 15 kts direct headwind at start of roll. Field elevation 1,150 ft so guess DA no more than 3,000 ft. There appears to be no fence before reaching the tree line. Easily enough room for my aircraft but I think I would have gone to the main runway and waited for a lull in the cross wind. The wind shifts close to 45 degress during the ill fated takeoff attempt.

I have to wonder how much the pilot was influenced by having someone present to take the video.

Immediately before the engine picks up steam, the person in the cockpit looks like they move backward... wonder if the cessna seat rail played a part, it doesn't look deliberate...


EDIT: Apparently my faith in the application of survival instincts was misplaced in this event. My bad.

From the YT video:

"On March 30, 2022, a Cessna 180, registration N4738B, was involved in an accident at Lampasas Airport (KLZZ), Lampasas, Texas, when the pilot, Robert Earhart, attempted to take off in high winds and crashed into trees.

According to Mr. Earhart, when he landed at Lampasas, the landing was "rough" and right at the edge of the airplane's crosswind capabilities. Due to the strong crosswind, Earhart thought that he would be better off taking off from the perpendicular taxiway that was oriented more into the wind.

Earhart reported that the wind was not as strong as he had thought and he wasn't able to clear the trees in the departure path. When asked if there were any mechanical problems with the airplane, he stated that there were none. Earhart further noted that he had owned the airplane since 1983. His intended destination was the Lakeview Airport in Dallas, Texas (30F)."

Get-There-Itis strikes again.

Accident was back in March. My read is that pilot was spooked by conditions on landing and assumed they would be similar for the later departure.

Met info is included in this report - Kathryn's Report: 04/01/22

NTSB docket is here - https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=104862

Edit to add: ADS-B shows aircraft about 25 miles South of the airport at about 1600Z. Seems likely this was intended to be a quick fuel stop.

What a plonker.

So are you allowed to take off on a taxiway if requested?

You couldn't make it up...

Was really not expecting that level of natural selection. My bad.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....67b66bb2ed.png

Owned the airplane for the last 40 (!) years and can’t adequately judge its performance or lack thereof.
Assuming he bought the airplane when he was in his 30’s that puts him in his 70’s.

Another incompetent that destroys a perfectly good aircraft. We hear these stories of people landing on taxiways because it was too windy. Should only be done when one has no other choice. There is an easy no fly choice for takeoff. I doubt he operated from 400’ runways, why would you operate from 400’ taxiways with an obstacle.

The guy videoing seems to say that the wind…..‘it’s down the runway now’ which would explain the pilot not having as much wind as expected. Maybe check for this first. But some want the beer stories and we pay the price.

I prefer not to vilify the pilot for what he did, certainly I'm not perfect, however it appears to me there's at least a couple of useful takeaways from this unfortunate accident (apart from the obvious):

• If he had decent headwind at the start of takeoff it's quite possible that dropped significantly as he approached the trees. Trees will have quite an effect on the air between 5-10 times their height downwind, something the pilot may not have been aware of - especially if he didn't walk the proposed runway.
• From what I could tell the pilot didn't use any particular short field technique? I'd have expected full power on the brakes (and stick hard back!) for a time before releasing brakes and beginning the run, but it didn't seem to me he'd done that. Happy to be corrected, and I'm not saying it would necessarily have helped here, nevertheless it's a potentially useful practice for such instances and could make the difference in some circumstances.

Also, my 180 time is pretty minimal and very distant, but in other tailwheel craft I'd usually want to get the tail up in order to reduce drag asap. It didn't seem to me that was done here; apart from there perhaps not being enough time due to the (too) short runway I wonder if such would be useful given a 180's characteristics? Please note I'm genuinely asking the question because I'd like to know, not making a statement!

Yes, but if no tower state your intentions and go However could be considered a fars violation if not prudent