Wycombe air park - accident

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

News of an accident at Wycombe.

Link (http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/9065675.Plane_crashes_at_Wycombe_Air_Park/)

[wsmempson]

A T-tail Lance, 5-up, on it's way out of Booker on 06, to the Isle of Man TT races. Allegedly, it never quite got airbourne....

[Si76]

Blimey, I should have kept my eyes open a bit more; I was up there at c.1615. Didn't see anything. They must have sorted it out very quickly.

[S-Works]

Anyone know the reg?

[smarthawke]

As wsmempson said - Piper PA32RT-300. Not a Wycombe resident, it flew into pick up pax and fuel for a flight to the Isle of Man.

Runway 06 in use but it never cleared the hedge at the end. 5 people on board, result was walking wounded. Happened about lunchtime.

[S-Works]

That's why I wanted to know. I teach and fly for an owner of one who cant get in touch with. It's why I wantedbto know the reg. If anyone can PM I would appreciate it.

[vanHorck]

What s the usable runway length of 06?
Temperature at lunchtime?

[rossi1]

the aircraft owner is in australia at the moment.

[wsmempson]

Temperature at lunchtime no more than 20 degrees.

06 at EGTB 735m. Tarmac. No up or down gradient.

FWIW I looked at a couple of very nice t-tail lances (and a couple of really horrid ones too), and a couple of non-t-tail lances also, when I was looking for something bigger after the Arrow III.

According to the POH for the T-tail that I looked at, the ground roll on take off is about 50% more than that required for the conventional tailed lance.

[proudprivate]

“A private aircraft carrying five people was in the process of taking off when it came down in a field next to a run way"

Max Gross of the PA 32-300 is 3600 lbs.
Assuming a BEW of about 2200 lbs and 180 lbs per occupant would leave us with 500 lbs of fuel (80 gallons). So a-priori nothing wrong with W&B there unless the pilot topped the tanks.

06/24 - 735 × 23m Asphalt Licensed, that is about 2410 feet.
Assuming Max Gross, 20° OAT and calm winds would give about 1800 feet ground roll; 2850 feet clearing a 50 feet obstacle.

Does anyone know what the height of the hedges is at the end of 06? There seems to be a 3x3 motorway not far beyond and trees before that. Not wanting to do "trial by pprune" here, but would this not seem like a risky venture to you ?

Bose, I tried to PM you but your box is full.

PP.

[S-Works]

Yep it's my friends aircraft.

[stevfire2]

lucky people g- rhht.

[stevfire2]

oic crash crew.:)

[wsmempson]

MAUW 3,600 lb

Dry weight typically circa 2,275 lbs

Circa 1,325 lb is the usual useful load for a PA32R-300

Full fuel 84 USG = 504 lbs

Tips and tabs 66 USG = 400 lbs

Say you are a typical renter and you want 75% power for max speed 26 inches/2,400rpm. Consumption is 16.5 USGph

Or maybe the pilot is more sympathetic mechanically, he'll run at 65% power, which is 23/2,300, and gives about 15 USGph.

For flight planning purposes, you can budget on Wycombe to the Isle of Man probably being 2-2.25 hrs depending on how fast you go and whether you have a strong wind on the nose, plus an hours reserve at least, bearing in mind where the nearest divert might be. So you could go with Tips and tabs, but you'd probably want a bit more

5 Blokes might all be 180 lbs apiece, or they might not! But suppose they are, so say 900lbs.

Luggage for 5 blokes - max baggage could be 100 lbs in the front locker and 100 lbs in the rear. Pre-supposing there weren't any tents or beer...

No tall trees at the end of 06, but there is a hedge and the M40 beyond (with overhead lights) and a left turn for noise abatement on climb-out.

Wycombe's runways and approaches are totally unproblematic as far as I'm concerned.

[C130Dreamer]

I hear it departed on 06 Grass - 610m! :eek:

[mmgreve]

a few years ago it apparently had difficulties producing full power, leading to a very similar incident in Fenland. It may be completely unrelated, but never the less interesting

Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-32RT-300, G-RHHT (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_bulletin/piper_pa_32rt_300__g_rhht.cfm)

[S-Works]

It is undoubtably completely unrelated. I have hundreds of hours in that aircraft both teaching in it and flying it and the performance within correct loading has always been sparkling.

I suspect earlier theories will be closer to the mark.

Glad everyone was ok.

[smarthawke]

C130Dreamer - you were wrongly informed.

It was departing on 06 Hard.

[proudprivate]

...a left turn for noise abatement on climb-out.

Wycombe's runways and approaches are totally unproblematic as far as I'm concerned.


Reading your comment, I had a look at the UK VFR guide and the 06 VFR departure procedure is really strange. I can understand some planning commission hating departures overflying the village of High Wycombe, but the procedure seems to suggest a 45° left turn when overhead the M40.

For anything decent like a Lance or a Bonanza at Max Gross, that would imply turning left at typically 100-200 Ft AGL. Isn't that dangerous ?

Would it make sense to
* increase the landing (departure) fee for Aircraft above 1.5 MT (3300 lbs) ramp weight for 06 departures and allow those pilots to depart 06 straight ahead; while paying the difference to the council as an "appeasement fee".

* extend the runway in the environmentally less problematic 240° direction (maybe with -> -> -> only to facilitate 06 departures)

Shoot me down if it is complete nonsense, just thinking aloud here...

PP

[wsmempson]

Proud Private, I'm going to let the people on this forum who are based at Wycombe answer your comments.

However, my view of noise abatement procedure is quite simple - if they are safe to execute in the context of my flight, then I will adhere to them. If they aren't then I will ignore them.

Having learnt to fly at Wycombe and been based there for two years, I don't think the noise abatement turn for 06 ever caused any problems, as it was performed in small increments, as and when it was safe to do.

However, this has no relevance to this accident because, AIUI, the aircraft never actually left the ground in a meaningful sense - so the turn for noise abatement never took place.

[proudprivate]

However, this has no relevance to this accident because, AIUI, the aircraft never actually left the ground in a meaningful sense - so the turn for noise abatement never took place.


Apologies for going off in a tangent is this thread, I'm aware that this is unrelated to the incident under discussion.

The reason I was asking is that, at my airport, we also have very strict noise abatement procedures, which ATC enforces rigourlously, but they involve things like "no turns before XXX AGL" which is never compromising from a safety perspective.

I also fully support your attitude to let safety issues prevail in any action. It just struck me as odd that, when flying a 6 seater SE or light twin, ignoring the noise abatement procedure would almost become the de facto SOP for safety reasons. I hope this clarifies my position.

[Mark1234]

proudprivate: as you asked, in my opinion (and I'm being blunt) if a bit of a turn at 200ft is a safety issue, give up flying. 200 or 2000, the aircraft knows no different, and you'll still die if you spin at 500. Simply use the footrests appropriately, and make sure you're travelling at a reasonable velocity.

Alternatively, isn't being at 200ft over a housing estate a flight safety issue? Or do you just take it on trust that everything will continue working?

wsempson is absolutely right though. You're the a/c commander, you decide - that even includes telling ATC 'unable' if you see fit.

[proudprivate]

if a bit of a turn at 200ft is a safety issue, give up flying.

and

[...] Or do you just take it on trust that everything will continue working?

are unlikely to feed a constructive debate.

I'll try one more time before turning the page on Wycombe for good:

* I believe that under current maintenance standards the probability of an engine failure after takeoff is significantly lower than that of a mishap while manoeuvering. Both are obviously low, it's not as if every third 6 seater doing so is going to crash on the M40. And it's not as if accident statistics would make us wiser. The prevailing runway in use would be 24, not 06; And the number of 6 seater Max Gross taking off movements at Wycombe will remain in the single digits, even on a good day.

* I wondered if a possibility existed to remedy this situation taking the local circumstances into consideration, knowing fully well that I'm not from around there.

[Elledan]

I guess it is a lucky thing that those houses and other obstacles weren't there, as noted in the comments on the article's page :) Grass is a whole lot softer than brick buildings and tarmac :p

Aren't there regulations regarding clearance around an airport anyway?

[JOE-FBS]

As a non-Brit, you may not have knowledge of the insanity of the Not In My Back Yard tendency in this country. They will (and they have the support of the law in doing this) buy a house next to a long-established airfield or school or church then complain about the aircraft or children or bells and have action taken by the local authority on their behalf. It's insane but that's how it works.

Your proposal of a fine or tax would almost certainly be described by the media in this country as bribes paid by rich people to make "ordinary hard-working families" lives a misery. (OHWF is a favourite phrase of our politicians and media)

:-) through gritted teeth!

[vanHorck]

Congratulations cmh67 on walking away from a failed take off, which is slightly different to a botched landing...

[Genghis the Engineer]

I was on the airfield trying to weigh an aeroplane at the time, but was unable to fuel the aeroplane because the fuel pumps had been sealed pending AAIB's arrival. Particularly if power loss was a suspected factor, quite a sharp move on somebody's part.

(Drained the tanks and weighed it empty instead).

G

[smarthawke]

Shutting the pumps was a standard airfield management precaution given the aircraft had uplifted fuel prior to departure.

Given that dozens of aircraft (including I understand, an aircraft that was in company with (and took off before) the incident aircraft) had been refuelled that day from the same installation it is most unlikely to be a contaminated fuel induced problem. I understand that it was business as normal today at WAP.

Incidentally, any development plans that have been rumoured for Wycombe Air Park didn't include houses (or anything else) being built at the end of the runway!

The departure procedure for 06 has been in place for many, many years. With 100,000 plus movements a year at WAP, incidents are very, very few and far between. Not much point trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair point Steve!

It was all a bit unclear, if you weren't dealing with the emergency, what was going on. On the whole, it seemed that the chaps over the other side of the airfield had more important things on their mind than telling the rest of us, so we stayed out of the way and drank tea.

At one point I think I counted 4 police cars, 2 fire engines, 1 ambulance, 1 police helicopter and 1 air ambulance. Whatever else, the emergency services certainly took this accident seriously.

G

[stevfire2]

outside emergency services have a procedure which may seem overkill to some, but covers all eventualities. c152 or c425 gets same response. (hopefully!) its better to turn excess away as un- needed than to stand around waiting for assistance that isnt coming. much police as any incident is a "potential scene of crime":eek:

[smarthawke]

Alas GtE, I'm not Stev and not part of the Duty Crew....

The Duty Crew were at the incident site within seconds of it happening until past 1900hrs. The AAIB were then waiting to remove the aircraft to wherever - all organised by themselves.

If you wanted to know what was happening regarding the airfield state and the refuelling situation then the airfield reception was the place to go - as you summise, the Duty Crew were a tad busy!

(Edit to say that Stev in Post #31 is Stev....)

[stevfire2]

sorry, managed to double delete my earlier post and reply to genghis:mad:, that fuel would have been unavailable anyway due to fire duties, and that smarthawke quite correctly states, no other aircaft, of which there were many, had problems. wap fuel is 100%, as to be expected.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I was just curious and it was neither affecting me, nor anything I could do usefully to help. So, I took the view that everybody else was either (a) as in the dark as me, or (b) had better things to do than tell me. Pprune, as ever answered the main questions within 24 hours.

I'm very glad that nobody was injured badly. Everything after that was just nuisance value.

G

[A and C]

I am not sure if it was made clear in some of the posts above that the noise abatment turn at EGTB turns the aircraft away from a built up area and points the aircraft towards fields.

In my opinion as a long term user of EGTB the safety advantage of having the aircraft pointed at a clear area outweighs the performance disadvantage of a climbing turn.

[IB4138]

The ARC for this aircraft appears to have been issued only the day before the accident (02/06/2011).

[Jan Olieslagers]

at my airport, we also have very strict noise abatement procedures, which ATC enforces rigourlously

Off-topic: may I inquire which airport you are referring to?

[folberts]

I visited the airport on my trip from Holland to the UK and I witnessed the crash.

It was a horrible sight and I thought at first nobody would survive. I'm a grown up guy but it was one of the most awful things I have seen. I almost broke into tears expecting nobody would have survived. I have been told everybody has, which is a miracle.

Even though I saw what happened I cannot and I dont want to judge. I saw a nose up pitch and the plane had troubles to get airborne, buy everything else I would post would be sheer speculation.

Having witnessed an accident I feel I would like to make a general comment: Please be mild when judging. Until investigations are completed please refrain from speculating. Because even having witnessed a crash I do not feel I can make any useful comment other then describing my observations.

[wsmempson]

Folberts,

This is Pprune "professional pilots RUMOUR NETWORK".

This is where pilots come to swap gossip, rumours, theories and stories. Some prove to be right, some are not.

However, it is what it is and if you don't like it, it's probably best to give it a miss.
:bored:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Folberts,

This is Pprune "professional pilots RUMOUR NETWORK".

This is where pilots come to swap gossip, rumours, theories and stories. Some prove to be right, some are not.

However, it is what it is and if you don't like it, it's probably best to give it a miss.
:bored:

I prefer to think of it as the PROFESSIONAL pilots rumour NETWORK.

G

[smarthawke]

Surely if it was restricted to PROFESSIONAL pilots then it would be a pretty quiet forum with only you PROFESSIONAL pilots here, GtE (that is presuming you hold a PROFESSIONAL pilot's licence...)!

[Folberts - I'm pleased to here you got off home okay.]

[Genghis the Engineer]

I do have a professional licence as it happens, but my emphasis was on both "Professional" (far more a state of attitude and behaviour than just the fact of being paid), and "Network" - somewhere that we can share experiences and help each other out.

We've all used the phrase "that's not very professional" at some point - I hope we're all aspiring not to have it used of us: whether we pay, or get paid, to fly.

G

[IO540]

Has anybody read the comment by one of the readers under that article linked in the first post?

Somebody called "luckonmyside" claims to have been a passenger on the flight.

Looks like the pilot's choice of passengers might not be the same next time :) Well, not if he wants to support GA. Unless, of course, she is referring to banning property development near an airfield, which is hardly going to ever be achieved.

[S-Works]

ARC...How very interesting....


Indeed, however I would be interested in having a brief discussion around the weight and balance calculations as someone who has significant time teaching people to fly that very aircraft I am struggling to make the numbers work. Were the passengers 2 adults and children or was the plan to stop for fuel again? Clearly they must have worked as you mentioned before so I would appreciate if you could just run us through them.

I do know that if that aircraft is heavy and you try and hau, it off the grou d it will wallow and fuel like it is not producing enough power. It does the same thing if you try run down the runway with column pulled back in the hope of getting it off early which only serves to make the situation worse by preventing it accelerating.

On a short runway on a hot day at max weight and the nose being held to high it would give very poor acceleration. This could lead the pilot to try and yank it off the runway before it is ready to fly right on the back of the drag curve.

Just a thought.

[Conventional Gear]

There have been some very supportive and helpful comments on here which are greatly appreciated, yours being one of them. Although we may have differing opinions at times, one fact remains clear, everyone commenting has safety in aviation as a priority.


If one observes these threads one notices patterns such as:

People speculate wildly

People close to an accident sometimes try to stifle any debate

In all most of us realise that speculation may be completely wrong. However speculation regarding W&B on this thread reminded me of the numerous PA-28 non take-offs that have occurred in hot weather 4 up on full tanks. Totally irrelevant I'm sure to this accident but it keeps things fresh. The majority visit PPruNe I would suggest for just this reason, to refresh, get timely reminders and when accidents happen that will always be at its highest.

I'm glad cmh67 you have not taken the route of stifling the debate and I'm also very glad that you are around to inform us. :ok:

As for the **Professional** in PPRuNe I'm lucky enough to fly at club where as a lowly PPL I can talk to numerous professional pilots - they are the worse gossips you could ever have the good fortune to meet :) I'm sure I'm not alone in visiting PPRuNe on my non-flying days for the same sort of wise and educational gossip - it's not a case of are people always 'right' it's often a case of following logic and attitude that keeps one safe :ok:

So back to the W&B - if limits OK the plane can take-off (given enough runway) but there is more to it as Bose says - one can check W&B is within limits but has one also checked the performance figures for the day, runway length available and also considered pilot ability - I'm not saying for a moment any of this is the 'cause' it's just a timely reminder that there is more to a safe take-off than calculating that the aircraft is within weight (mass) and CofG limitations.

[cmh67]

Well said conventional! :)

[S-Works]

Can you tell me exactly what the W&B calcs were so that I can do the other factoring calcs?

I have calculated that the flight would need 2 hours of fuel plus a diversion to allow return back to the mainlan in case of the legendary 100 mile an hour fog arriving. Bruning 15USG and hour that I make that a minimum fuel load of 45USG. What was actually onbaord and what was picked up at Wycombe?

Fuel 270

I make 4 x pax allowing 190 per pax = 950

Baggage 1 bag per person at 20lbs (Ryanair standard cabin bag) = 100

So I make that 1320lbs. Do you know what the max take off weight and useful load is?

This does not allow for the extra stuff in the aircraft that lives there like flight guides, oil, towbar etc.

Do those numbers look about right?

Outside temp was around 24c looking at the aftercast?

Which runway was used, grass or tarmac, length?

Eliminating the obvious stuff then allows investigation of other factors? The first thing I believe the AIB will do is look at the fuel actually onboard along with the other factsors I have listed above. They will then take into account the temperature, runway surface and slope etc and calculate the performance requirements and actuals. From there they will be able to calculate if the aircraft was performing under par. Obviously the pilots handling of the aircraft as I mentioned in an earlier post would have to be considered.

What are the pilots views on possible causes?

I am not seeking to conemn anyone, just interested to discuss the possibilities as it is a great learning excercise for us all and of course as I have direct experience of that particular aircraft.

[jonnyn]

A couple of months ago I was flying that exact aircraft and didn't check the trim wheel before take off. Since I had flown in with 2 on board and departed with 5 plus a dog (only a bit of fuel) the trim was so far out that it felt ready to rotate at about 75Kts and with that weight and speed it did the whole wollowing thing in the ground effect. To all the world it felt like it wasn't producing enough power because of the high drag.

Also as a T-Tail at low speeds it requires very positive pressure on the controls for the elevator to bite. Pretty hard to convince your brain to apply hard down pressure when you're so close to the ground but to avoid a stall with the trim really out I think you'd need to.

That said it's funny how everyone always assumes it's pilot error - Let's hope something broke on the plane so the Pilot can be a hero.

It's all fairly accedemic though, so long as everyone walked away and it's insured then no harm's really done. I don't suppose anyone knows if it will ever fly again? I'll miss it... it is/was a great plane.

[S-Works]

That said it's funny how everyone always assumes it's pilot error - Let's hope something broke on the plane so the Pilot can be a hero.

Has anyone suggested it was the fault of the pilot? Reading back through I cant see that.

The discussion is really just exploring all of the possibilities rather than pointing a finger and saying pilot error.

You, yourself have just added another element for consideration. Usuing your logi of accusing pilot error your suggestion that the trimmer could have been in the wrong position makes the same intimation......

As I have said a couple of time the purpose of the discussion is not to aportion blame, it is to use the incident as a learning excercise.

[vanHorck]

Bose X you are asking the right questions, especially since you know the airplane...

It would be great to get the W&B, not as a conviction tool but a learning tool

[S-Works]

We seem to have gone a bit dead on the weight and balance discussion?

My understanding was that there four men and one woman on board, plus bags, mains were filled to the max and the tips partially filled. What about any weight in nose locker? It strikes me that apart from being heavy the aircraft also had a very aft CofG.

Eyewitness accounts seem to indicate a very high alpha on rotation which much as I described earlier when trying to pull the aircraft early and heavy.

Perhaps a list of the actual mass calculation carried out would help better understanding of the configuration of the aircraft?

[S-Works]

Please feel free to correct me if I have been misinformed?

As I said I am trying to promote discussion of an incident that nearly cost you your life. Something that others can learn from and hopefully prevent a repetition.

If you have any comments contradictory to what I have been told please share them with us.

[wsmempson]

Mains full to the max are 300 lbs, alone.

Full tips are 204 lbs. Tips 1/2 full are 100 lbs, although this can be a little difficult to judge by sight.

Bose-X, do you happen to remember what the useful load for this particular aircraft is?

As a slightly curious aside (which is nothing to do with this accident), the POH for my old Cherokee 6 300 (which is essentially a fixed gear Lance) used to advise the pilot to run the inboard tanks dry first, before running on the fuel in the tip tanks - which felt a bit counter intuitive. The reason given was that the fuel load at the end of the wing helped to un-load the main spar. However, it always seemed preferable to me to use the tips first and thereby dispense with the 100 lb dumb-bell at the end of each wing.

The other oddity to the Cherokee 6, Lance and Saratoga family is that you have to concentrate quite hard on not just how much weight you have on board, but where it is stowed. It is unhappily perfectly easy to be within weight limits but have the weight in the wrong place, thus putting you ouside of the 'envelope'; for instance, full tanks and two 200 lb blokes in the front of my Saratoga is quite a long way forward of C of G. Which is why I tend to stash a couple of cases of beer and wine in the rear, whenever I 'bunker' with fuel in Guernsey - it's strictly there for weight and balance reasons....:}

[Rod1]

cmh67

Do you have the W & B numbers for the accident flight?

If so are you prepared to share?

This will be in the AAIB report anyway but it would be nice to understand the aircraft config.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

Im afraid it would be highly unprofessional at this stage in the enquiries to begin to publish that sort of information Steve. I am happy to allow the AAIB to make their determination on whether the maths were correct.

Exactly.

I am all for discussion but publishing data of this sort would go way beyond efficacy in the circumstances of an ongoing investigation.

We should know better.

[stickandrudderman]

I'm pleasantly surprised. For once, a thread about an accident contains measured comment and temperance. How refreshing!:ok:

[S-Works]

Out of interest did the other aircraft also picking up friends for the TT that diverted to Waltham after the incident carry on with the trip?

[englishal]

People might speculate, but I reckon that in 99% of the cases of speculation then the right answer is arrivaed at far before the AAIB get anywhere near it.

Just my own gut feeling but 5+ adults off a 610m grass runway (if that one was used), even in a powerful aeroplane (and I don't know what HP this Lance has but I suspect 300HP when new), is always going to be close to the edge and won't leave much room for errors, unless it is a STOL aeroplane. If the grass was used then one has to question why the tarmac one wasn't used (which is what I would have gone from). Also IMHE, many pilots will fudge the W&B calculations to "make them correct" because it worked last time and "the fuel will burn off".

The ARC is a red herring. We all know that the ARC means nothing other than a very expensive paperwork exercise, and 9 times out of 10 the person signing the ARC doesn't even look at the aeroplane....IMHE.

I am glad no one was seriously injured.

[wsmempson]

englishal - the tarmac 06 was used, not the grass.

I happened to notice that there is a website for this aeroplane with a link in the righthand margin of the "private flying" page of this website.

Here is a link to the FAQ's page.

Piper Lance - FAQ's (http://www.piperlance.co.uk/FAQ.html)

[wsmempson]

I see that the website for this aircraft has been de-activated today, since I posted the link to the FAQ's page.:hmm:

[jon fuller]

A couple of pics....

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap1.jpg

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap2.jpg

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap3.jpg

[Barcli]

excellent job !!:ok:

[VOD80]

Nice pictures. Very narrow gap in the hedge! :eek:

[S-Works]

i think you will find that it is a new gap caused by in excess of 3600lbs of metal and people being hurled through it......

[Barcli]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
yea - didnt he do well following the white line in the road as well !!!
:\:\:\:\:\

[astir 8]

How come it didn't catch fire & then explode violently - all plane crashes end like that -in films! (cars too for that matter).
:ooh::ooh:

[VOD80]

Hi Bose-X, I'd worked that much out :)

Just didn't seem to be as wide as a PA32... I was doing some gliding at Booker an age ago and a Grob 109 went through the hedge - the gap was as wide as the Grob... About 15 metres.

[sunday driver]

How come it didn't catch fire & then explode violently

I think the pilot pulled the 'jettison wings and tanks' lever. :rolleyes:

[S-Works]

VOD80
*
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 50
Posts: 103
Hi Bose-X, I'd worked that much out

Just didn't seem to be as wide as a PA32... I was doing some gliding at Booker an age ago and a Grob 109 went through the hedge - the gap was as wide as the Grob... About 15 metres.
Last edited by VOD80; 8th Jun 2011 at 16:12. Reason: iPhone keyboard and fat fingers...


Ever seen the wings ripped of a fly.........

The wing was left in the hedge as the aircraft carved a new hole through it. As the wing ripped off the other wing folded backwards and so the hole is much narrower........

[wsmempson]

VOD80

My impression is that he went through at quite an angle - I would guess that the white line on the perimeter road was from his wing-tip.

[scpc]

Crash
I visited the airport on my trip from Holland to the UK and I witnessed the crash.

It was a horrible sight and I thought at first nobody would survive. I'm a grown up guy but it was one of the most awful things I have seen. I almost broke into tears expecting nobody would have survived. I have been told everybody has, which is a miracle.

Even though I saw what happened I cannot and I dont want to judge. I saw a nose up pitch and the plane had troubles to get airborne, buy everything else I would post would be sheer speculation.

Having witnessed an accident I feel I would like to make a general comment: Please be mild when judging. Until investigations are completed please refrain from speculating. Because even having witnessed a crash I do not feel I can make any useful comment other then describing my observations.


Did the AAIB give any indication when you spoke to them?

[24Carrot]

What impressed me, looking at the pictures, was how intact an aircraft cabin can still be after losing one (or both?) wings.

[SDB73]

Counterintuitively, losing both wings is probably one of the things which aided the cabin remaining intact. Shedding mass in an accident is usually (not always) a good thing as it's just energy being dumped along the way.

I'd rather be in an accident where you cartwheel for 100meters throwing bits away as you go, than one where you shed the same speed over 5meters and are fully intact.

[thing]

Crikey, looking at those pics I'm just glad everyone walked away, couldn't give a hoot about fault or blame.

[patowalker]

For those of you that are pilots I hope and pray that you never have to live through this experience and then face the childish and critical comments that have been displayed on this thread.

You have to face? Why did you come on here and why are you continuing to read this thread if it offends you in any way?

You might want to put your legal hat on and tell us why a there should be no rumours on a rumour network.

[FlyingEagle21]

cmh67, I can see where you're coming from, but you have to understand this is a forum, generally people discuss and give their opinion about things, there are no set rules about what can be said..

[S-Works]

We are all adults here with a keen interests in flying which has its risks. Let's make this experience a positive one.

This is a rumour network. Were you the pilot by chance rather than just a passenger?

All of the other questions I have asked have been perfectly legitimate in trying to gain an understanding of the incident. By trying to understand the conditions at the time of the incident and provoking discussion on aspects of loading, runway and environmental conditions I was hoping to make the experience a postive learning one.

As I have said a couple of times I am unable to reconcile the W&B and was asking for a little help in understanding the numbers. You clearly stated the W&B was done so running through the numbers would have helped dispel the theory that the aircraft might have been overloaded? That leaves other areas for consideration.

I was also curious if the other aircraft in the party carried on or if the whole trip was binned as clearly it would have been a downer going off knowing your friends had been in a crash?

I have not accused anyone of anything, just tried to examine logically the conditions of the accident and see what can be learnt from them. Exactly the same as the AIB will be doing. It is all part of the learning experience to see if we can draw the same conclusion as the AIB.

I should imagine that the usual things will be examined by them. Such as the mechanical state of the aircraft, crew experience and competance, loading of the aircraft, witness statements on the attitude of the aircraft during the take off run. Then you have the usual questions about purpose of the flight you know the usual was it a club flight a public transport flight or just a group of friends cost sharing etc.

Whats the problem with a group of pilots expressing there own theories as surely there is nothing to hide?

The pictures just give us a better understanding of the conditions of the accident. I do agree that making light of the situation is a little bit of bad taste but I don't agree that discussing it sensibly and in context is wrong.

Feel free to knock up a solicitors letter to me. Not sure on what grounds you feel you have recourse but hey I am game!!!

[vanHorck]

Talking about Rumours, there is nothing worse than suggesting the W&B was done and found to be well within the limitations of the plane (factual) and by extrapolation (he decided to take off) the pilot but then to decide not to come up with these W&B calculations.

Especially coming from somebody who also claims to have a legal hat...

giving a finger and withholding the hand seems to be to being an invitation for rumours.

[Sillert,V.I.]

For those of you that are pilots I hope and pray that you never have to live through this experience and then face the childish and critical comments that have been displayed on this thread... ... regarding a horrific experience that haunts every moment of my day and night.

cmh67,

This forum is probably not the best place to be to help get your head around recent events.

May I suggest you give consideration to seeking professional counselling? Being able to talk through your feelings about what has happened in a totally safe environment will help to quell the nightmares.

[vanHorck]

Now now, let's cool down.....

cmh I am sorry you are not finding on this forum what you were looking for, but I fear it is of your own doing.

W&B or exit I would say, both actions would stop the rumours

[cmh67]

Constructive discussions are one thing. Clearly I was mistaken when I registered to a professional network. The recent comments are far from constructive. If it makes you feel better to attack me in light of the seriousness of this accident then feel free.

Thank you to those who have been supportive and genuinely concerned about this incident. Clearly this site has people registered who have too much time on their hands and want nothing more than to stir up a situation by adding rumours not opinions. My mistake.

And yes VanHorck it is time for me to exit. Clearly my comments being a PASSENGER are of no value here.

[vanHorck]

It seems to be in the nature of these forums that when things go off they tend to go off badly.

To recap:

We're still talking about a very lucky escape by 5 people from a failed take off by a Piper T tail Lance, which shed energy by loosing the wings in a hedge after failing t get airborne

There is doubt about the plane's expected normal performance given the intended trip and number of pax (W&B), but there is also talk about a mysterious loss of power with this airplane on previous occasions.

There is a claim that a W&B was done which suggested the take off could be done in a safe manner in the given circumstances, but this remains unsubstantiated.
The is another claim that this type of plane requires a critical take off profile to ensure W&B performance can be achieved.

What else?

[maxred]

Had read the first page of this thread, then left. Picked up to-day, christ. I have some time on a friends 300hp 32 Saratoga, a big old henry. It is a new one by the way. We take it out of a 450 tarmac, with less than half tanks, and two up. We just about make it, tight

If it was 610m, five up, with fuel to IOM, grass or tarmac, then sorry, even with a w&b telling me everything is hunky dory, I would have asked three of them to get the ferry:uhoh:

[Rod1]

Bose – I think your original idea regarding W & B looks to be likely given the lack of numbers.

Good luck with the legal argument, do post how it goes, we can be your character references.:}

Rod1

[S-Works]

The recent comments are far from constructive. If it makes you feel better to attack me in light of the seriousness of this accident then feel free

No one was attacking you. Sorry that you feel the case. It was you that started to sling around threats of legal action and contacting my employers just because you did not like what you read.

As I have said a couple of times, I am just interested in exploring the accident in a logical way. Part of that logic is understanding the envelope the aircraft was operating under at the time.

At the end of the day the questions being asked on here are no different from the questions that both the AIB and the CAA enforcement branch will be asking.

I assume you are just trying to stifle discussion through post traumatic stress rather than there being anything to hide.

[Conventional Gear]

I think we should cut cmh67 some slack guys, early days after what must have been a very frightening experience.

I've yet to be in a plane wreck and hope to keep it that way but I have been a motorcyle crash dummy on several occasions and the full effects of such experiences can come out several days or weeks after the event.

I have to agree though, probably the best move cmh67 is to avoid these threads. I've followed a couple of threads on here before I joined up that involved fatal accidents to people I knew. It wasn't a nice experience to read the rumour or conjecture that surrounded the incidents.


Counterintuitively, losing both wings is probably one of the things which aided the cabin remaining intact. Shedding mass in an accident is usually (not always) a good thing as it's just energy being dumped along the way.

I'd rather be in an accident where you cartwheel for 100meters throwing bits away as you go, than one where you shed the same speed over 5meters and are fully intact.

My thoughts too. That hedge was probably a life saver, looking at the pictures (which I found useful) there is very little disruption to the fuselage and one can only assume that was because of dissipation of energy through the hedge.

Next reminder, better to 'fly' into trees or the hedge than stall stretching the glide trying to avoid them. People have survived flying into trees and hedges, few survive a stall close to the ground for the same reasons given above that it's better to shed energy and mass in an accident then dissipate the same energy in a sudden stop.

[jonnyn]

I suspect it was a bit heavy... G-RHHT 1038Kg Empty Weight and 1633MTOW. Hot Day etc. What was the wind doing?

Either way, I find this attitude that at 1Kg under MTOW it will all be OK and 1Kg Over it's going to fall from the sky a bit weird.

I'm putting my money on the trim wheel - somehow it once got all the way to the full aft position after being parked overnight. Very easy to go straight into a stall from that.

Here's some questions for those who were there that will help us work it out before the AAIB:

-Wind direction and speed
-How far down the runway did it rotate?
-At rotation did it immediately pitch violently upwards?

I'm sorry you had such a traumatic time of it cmh - if I may suggest it then I think a good thing to do would be to get together with all those on board and drink, and drink and drink.

[jon fuller]

QUOTE:...
"My impression is that he went through at quite an angle - I would guess that the white line on the perimeter road was from his wing-tip."

The AAIB man thought it was the tail skid.

I have a few more pics, I'll post them in a bit.

[jonnyn]

"My impression is that he went through at quite an angle - I would guess that the white line on the perimeter road was from his wing-tip."

The AAIB man thought it was the tail skid.

Had it been the tail skid then the hole in the hedge would have been much larger because the plane would have been level(ish). Looks like it was just the port wing that hit the hedge.

[jon fuller]

Q's:....
-Wind direction and speed
-How far down the runway did it rotate?
-At rotation did it immediately pitch violently upwards?

I can answer some, as I had landed at WAP 10 mins earlier.

Wind roughly 10Knts from pretty much the north, so quite a cross wind on 06.

I was told (by a very good witness, as I wasn't looking at that moment) it left the tarmac roughly midways down the runway and flew low, slow and quite nose up before taking the 30-40 degree left turn & thru the hedge... Port wing stall causing the turn?? Seemed an early turn re noise abatement. dunno, but it made a ghastly noise going thru the hedge, mainly the prop contacting I think, but horrid. Not a noise I want to hear again anytime soon.

Jonnyn, the port wing was left in it's entirety in the hedge, the stbd wing was partially detached, and swung back at approx 45 degrees. (pics to follow) I think the hedge gap roughly represents the overall span of fuselage and swept back wing.

FWIW, it "looked" like the port wing detached passing thru the hedge, but the stbd wing, by just about hanging on (and subsequent drag/resistance from the hedge), caused the remaining bits to rotate (clockwise looking from above) and then rolled once it had gone thru the hedge with the stbd wing going up & over the top, coming to a rest as you see in the pic. Just my speculation based on what I saw of course.

distance from hedge to wreckage was only about 50/60ft. (IMHO)

[jonnyn]

it left the tarmac roughly midways down the runway and flew low, slow and quite nose up


Thanks, that's really useful to sort this out.

If it got unstuck half way down then it wasn't too heavy - even if it was way over MTOW.

Pilot / trim pulls nose up and the aircraft then tries to leave the ground effect and stalls with a wing drop or the pilot uses the ailerons to keep level at super low speed instead of the rudder - instinctive and completely forgivable.

Wing hits hedge.

Crunch.

Fortunately 5 walk away, although very understandably shaken.

20p says the trim was very aft...

[Conventional Gear]

If it got unstuck half way down then it wasn't too heavy - even if it was way over MTOW.

Could it not have lifted off into ground effect?

From the pictures it doesn't look like an aircraft that stalled. It looks like one that failed to get out of ground effect.

Of course I wasn't there, but surely if it had enough excess power to climb and then stalled the result would have been tragic?

[S-Works]

20p says the trim was very aft...

I will see your 20 and raise it another 20p... The CofG was also very aft due to all the weight at the back as well. 5 Adults with 5 bags. All the bags in the rear baggage area plus all the other stuff that lives there like towbar, life jackets, oil, flight guides etc

Generally the trimmer gets used in the flair to decrease the amount of effort required to flair it. Left in that rearward position along with sudden massive weight increase and rear CofG it would helped the aircraft get off the runway too early on the back of the drag curve. Once it's in that position it just wallows as it is unable to climb and unable to accelerate. Eventually it met the hedge.

Saying that it got airborne too early indicates it was not to heavy is a bit of a misdirection. I would estimate that it was probably some way over max take off weight from the amount of fuel that was uplifted plus bags, passengers and stuff already onboard.

At what point was the gear raised?

[jon fuller]

I don't think the gear got anywhere near being retracted. The wing in the hedge definitely has the gear still down, and the nose wheel was flattened flush with the underside of the fuselage, presumably thru impact with the base of the hedgerow.

re: the above comment of wing touching hedge, I'm fairly sure it was very low and the whole thing contacted the hedge, leaving one wing behind in the process.

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap5.jpg

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap6.jpg

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap7.jpg

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap8.jpg

http://www.boatmad.com/wap/wap9.jpg

[vanHorck]

The pics give a good example of the enormous power involved in such a crash.

I guess there must be a lot of luck involved in surviving such a crash. A pillar in the hedge, or a small tree or similar and the outcome might have been very different.

Thank you for the pictures

[jon fuller]

What appeared to be a fencepost had pierced the underside of the cockpit and can be seen in the pics. very lucky indeed.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Interesting article on the PA-32 here:

Six Seat Stalwart: Used PA-32 Review | Flying Magazine | The World (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/six-seat-stalwart-used-pa-32-review)

The following quote is from about halfway through:

"In 1978 Piper made what many believe is the only misstep in the progression of the PA-32 family — it put a T-tail on the Lance. Piper management was in love with T-tails at the time and claimed that the high position of the horizontal got it out of the propeller slipstream where it could operate more efficiently. To take advantage of this hoped-for efficiency gain, the tail was smaller than on previous models. The result was a loss of pitch control authority at low airspeeds that was most noticeable during takeoffs. The T-tail Lance has to accelerate to a higher airspeed before it will rotate nose-up, and even at that point it has a less satisfying response than the Cherokee Six or first Lance did with the conventional tail."

[jonnyn]

Saying that it got airborne too early indicates it was not to heavy is a bit of a misdirection. I would estimate that it was probably some way over max take off weight from the amount of fuel that was uplifted plus bags, passengers and stuff already onboard.


Well yes, but, too heavy to fly and too heavy to fly legally are two different things. I think it would have been OK if the pilot hadn't rotated into the back of the drag curve. Poor chap wouldn't have known what the hell was going on.

So, if we're right and we may not be, I think the thing to take away from this when flying a lance is 1. always check the trim wheel and 2. stay on the deck until 85knots.

By the way, 40p is to rich for my blood...

[wsmempson]

jonnyn, I think you are on the money!

At the risk of being a pedant, this is a Lance II; the lance I had a conventional tail. A much nicer machine, just not that much faster than a Cherokee 6.

[S-Works]

So, if we're right and we may not be, I think the thing to take away from this when flying a lance is 1. always check the trim wheel and 2. stay on the deck until 85knots.

Absolutely. Of the main problem is that if the aircraft is massively overweight it then takes a lot of runway to hit 85kts and then takes even further to be able to reach the 50ft obstacle heights. If there had been nothing in the way the curve of the earth would have got it off!

There is a reason we have a W&B schedule, temperature factoring schedule, a runway factoring schedule. If all of these are ignored then the aircraft is operating outside of the design parameters and therefore expecting it to get airborne safely is a bit of a tall order. Getting away with it in the past is not a guarantee of future performance......

[Deeday]

I wonder if raising the gear immediately after lift-off would have taken him out of the back-of-the-drag-curve pickle. On the other hand, you wouldn't rush to blow your chances of a safe landing on the remaining runway, in case you decide to abort. Tricky one, I suppose.

[AfricanEagle]

Not much left of a 610m runway once airborne if you decide to abort.

I occasionaly fly a Lance 1, most times heavy and hot, and I personally, with current experience on aircraft, will only take off with at least 1000m.

[Final 3 Greens]

I wonder if raising the gear immediately after lift-off would have taken him out of the back-of-the-drag-curve pickle. On the other hand, you wouldn't rush to blow your chances of a safe landing on the remaining runway, in case you decide to abort. Tricky one, I suppose.

I don't know this particular model, but sometimes gear in transit is draggier than gear down.

One conventional tail singles, you may also encounter a marked pitch change -not great , although on the T tail arrow, I don't seem to remember one, so the T tail Lance may not suffer from this.

[A and C]

I will chuck this in for the forum to consider on the understanding that it is pure speculation.

The pilot lines up on the runway knowing that he is at or near MTOW having done the W&B calculation. He is keen to get the aircraft into the air ASAP and so rotates the aircraft on the basis of a rapidly approaching runway end rather that by using the airspeed as his marker for rotation, the aircraft gets into the air only due to ground effect, it cant accelerate due to the high AoA and it wont for the same reason climb out of ground effect.

The aircraft is now in a state were it cant fly more than a few feet above the ground and has not enough room to stop on the airfield.

My final request is for someone with access to the flight manual for this aircraft to publish a take off performance calculation for the aircraft at MTOW using the conditions for the day.

[IO540]

I think there are two ways to look at this "ground effect" stuff, and it is connected with the "soft field" takeoff procedure.

In the SF procedure, you haul the plane off the runway ASAP, using a lot of elevator pull, which is draggy, but it gets it out of the muck ASAP and a) reduces the risk of landing gear damage from bumps encountered at high speed and b) enables the plane to continue accelerating because flight in ground effect is very efficient. If you did not do this, the plane might only reach a "terminal velocity" which, due to the landing gear drag on the ground, is below rotation speed.

However, the total takeoff run in the SF procedure is (in probably all cases) no shorter than in a conventional departure from a hard surface. This is due to the slow initial acceleration, and the large amount of elevator drag needed early on.

On the other hand, once you get the plane into ground effect and hold it in ground effect, by quite a lot of, and an increasing amount of as the speed builds up, push on the elevator, you get very rapid acceleration.

I think that most of the cases where somebody does

it cant accelerate due to the high AoA and it wont for the same reason climb out of ground effect.it is because they failed to keep the plane low down, have allowed it to climb to a height where the ground effect only just supports it (and a plane will climb to this height naturally, which is why you have to push it back "down" during a proper SF takeoff) and in this state it will indeed never accelerate because it just hangs there on the back of the curve.

I don't think many flight manuals give any figures for SF takeoff performance, and it is very variable anyway.

The most astounding example of ground effect acceleration I have seen was in a Jetprop, where the expert pilot kept it a few feet above the runway (on a low pass) and held it there up to about 170kt, and the resulting zoom climb was spectacular in reaching ~ 1000ft in just a few seconds.

[Conventional Gear]

it is because they failed to keep the plane low down, have allowed it to climb to a height where the ground effect only just supports it (and a plane will climb to this height naturally, which is why you have to push it back "down" during a proper SF takeoff) and in this state it will indeed never accelerate because it just hangs there on the back of the curve.

Rather than thinking in terms of 'ground effect only just supports it', consider what ground effect actually does. It reduces drag by a significant amount. Climbing out of it produces an increase in drag.

The scenario then becomes one of an aircraft at high aoa, no excess power, already on the back of the drag curve and decelerating because of the increased drag experienced when transitioning from ground effect. We all know to fly slower on the back of the drag curve and maintain height needs more power - as none is available the result is a predictable loss of lift.

Not only now do we have an aircraft that cannot accelerate and climb, we now have one that cannot maintain airspeed or lift.

I think it would be difficult to 'escape' ground effect in this condition, I don't know if anyone knows what height the aircraft reached, but I suspect it never really got out of ground effect at all.

[IO540]

Rather than thinking in terms of 'ground effect only just supports it', consider what ground effect actually does. It reduces drag by a significant amount. Climbing out of it produces an increase in drag.I agree but I would put it the other way round i.e. ground effect provides "support" for the vortex being shed behind the wing and thus reduces the AOA required for a specific speed and weight (and configuration, if applicable), and a lower AOA means less drag.

Climbing out of ground effect means a higher AOA is required to continue flight, but if you got enough speed while in it, the climb will be rapid.

[Conventional Gear]

I agree but I would put it the other way round i.e. ground effect reduces the AOA required for a specific speed and weight (and configuration, if applicable), and a lower AOA means less drag.

Yep, but that requires the pilot to hold the required lower aoa - I guess the question then becomes did this pilot do that?

I've done soft field take-offs and even as a newbie taildragger pilot who almost has their head around pushing the stick forward in the take-off run, doing it just above the ground takes a real 'I've just got to do this' effort and it doesn't come all that easily.

Of course it is conjecture, for all we know the pilot experienced power failure or reduced power, that's for the AAIB.

What I'm taking from this is if I plan a take-off at near the loading and performance limits - I'm going to be very sure to question my currency on the aircraft and piloting techniques.

I think if one didn't 'plan' to take-off and accelerate in ground effect, it would be very difficult to figure it out in a wallowing plane which doesn't want to fly.

[IO540]

I've done soft field take-offs and even as a newbie taildragger pilot who almost has their head around pushing the stick forward in the take-off run, doing it just above the ground takes a real 'I've just got to do this' effort and it doesn't come all that easily.Yes; it is quite counter-intuitive. But the acceleration is rapid.

Oddly enough this was never taught in my UK PPL, but the Americans love examining soft field and short field takeoffs.

I don't know anything about the accident aircraft so can't comment on the accident, but most light "6 seaters" have pretty severe tradeoffs on the W&B characteristics. And a real 5/6-person (UK sized person!) hauler is some tank like an Aztec.

[Brooklands]

Not much left of a 610m runway once airborne if you decide to abort.

The Hard runway at Wycombe (which is what the aircraft was using is) is 735m long. I'll agree that it doesn't give you much more to stop in if everything goes wrong. Also the aircraft went through the hedge off to one side, and before the end of the hard runway. Having seen the pictures I'll agree they were very luck to walk way.

Brooklands

[bingofuel]

I will not speculate on what happened regarding this incident, and I do not know what the required TODR was for this aircraft in the conditions, but will comment that if someone attempts to take off from a runway where it is only possible to attain a safe departure by using perfect flying technique, or attempting to accelerate to a suitable climb speed in ground effect, prior to attempting to climb to avoid colliding with an object on departure, then the take of distance available is inadequate, or no safety margin has been applied to the performance figures.

Sadly performance planning does not seem to feature highly in the ppl training system.

[englishal]

It was certainly too heavy to fly at the speed it lifted off...so either it was too slow to fly at the speed it lifted off (i.e. unexpected rotate - GofG or trim out, pilot SNAFU, or loss / lack of engine power), or it was too heavy to fly at the book speeds and was on the back of the drag curve and would be difficult or impossible to climb away.

[smarthawke]

"Sadly performance planning does not seem to feature highly in the ppl training system."

No doubt the comment was a general one and wasn't aimed at the incident in question as I don't think anyone confirmed if the incident pilot was a PPL or CPL.

[bingofuel]

No doubt the comment was a general oneIndeed it was, as I said I am making no specific comment on the incident, more a general opinion on how some pilots (regardless of licence held) are perhaps a little blase when operating some aeroplanes.
I am not referring to the pilot in this case, let us wait for the AAIB findings.

[proudprivate]

I just checked...


Oddly enough this was never taught in my UK PPL, but the Americans love examining soft field and short field takeoffs.


I concur. From personal experience : nothing of that on my JAA checkride (short field landing yes, but not take-off); Tested extensively on my FAA checkride.

But hey, its only a practical safety matter. Since when did that become an issue ? As long as you know your inner ear anatomy.


Sadly performance planning does not seem to feature highly in the ppl training system


You can earn €11 by turning it into a multiple choice question and sending it to the French DGAC.

[BEagle]

There is an entire PPL theoretical knolwedge examination in the UK, entitled Flight Performance and Planning!!

On the PPL Skill Test, I always required the applicant to complete a mass and balance calculation and take-off performance calculation for the aircraft used for the test and the weather conditions of the day. So I dispute any allegation that flight performance and planning is an afterthought for the JAR-FCL PPL(A)!

[Conventional Gear]

The issue is more habit.

For 99% of flights during the PPL I filled the Warrior to tabs, knowing that with fuel to tabs, instructor and me it would fly and have enough runway at the training field.

We all do the calculations for the test I'm sure.

The trouble comes when one then takes 2 friends, fills it to tabs and realises one is on the porky side.

It still flies and so on, until the day when it is hot, the friends become 3 friends we decide to fill it full for the trip so we don't have to refuel.

It's just an honest opinion of the mechanism behind some of these type of accidents and what I generally see. If one isn't flying a type often there is so much to remember that one can skip the most vital step, checking it will fly and give the performance necessary. I wonder how much of this actually relates to the fact that many spam cans have been designed to be easy to fly but also easy to overload.

I keep a few printed off balance sheets in my flight bag with the fixed figures pre-calculated. I also carry a small ASA book which gives an idiot's guide to the performance calculations. I'll be honest though that the last time I actually did them, eer was for a renewal test.

Makes me realise I need to change my habits.

[gasax]

I think there is a real lack of appreciation of perfromance planning for ppls. There is a short amount of w&b and take-off and landing distances. But practical experience of it? Virtually none.

The differences in real world performance between a light pa28 and one loaded to the gills is very different. New ppls will have no experience of these effects - they learn them (or not) when they start to fly aircraft with greater payloads or perforamnce differences.

My own 'conversions to C172/182/180 pa28 etc all included some chat about w&b but no flying at max weight.

The largest single difference in an aircraft's performance is caused by its weight. All of which is very topical as last weekend we took a visiting pilot to one side nad asked some pointed questions about the number of people and things he was piling into a C172 at our pretty short and difficult strip. He was adamant he could do it, checked the numbers and lifted about 150 odd metres before the end of the strip.......

[IO540]

The problem with grass is that it is highly variable.

My takeoff run is ~ 350m (MTOW) but I have seen up to ~ 800m on grass ~ 8" tall, with rough ground underneath, and I was flying alone on that occassion.

Short dry grass is about 600m, short wet grass maybe 800m.

These figures are not in the POH.

Also, a lot of planes are knackered.

[proudprivate]

On the PPL Skill Test, I always required the applicant to complete a mass and balance calculation and take-off performance calculation for the aircraft used for the test and the weather conditions of the day.


That is good for you. The fact of the matter remains that the practical test standards do not contain it;

Also, the lack of a thorough oral examination restricts the possibilities for well-meaning and true safety standards adhering JAA examiners (like yourself).

On my PPL-checkride, while doing the engine run-up, my examiner asked me : "So what is our ground roll under the current circumstances". When I replied "We're near Max Gross, Sea Level, 25° OAT, this is going to be about 900 feet", he told me "Ok, show me the takeoff as if this were 2000 feet grass".

That is what I would call emphasis on performance from the very beginning.

In all fairness, as we progress to Multi-Engine the differences between JAA and FAA in aircraft performance issues (accelerate-stop and accelerate-go etc...) become less outspoken.

But I'm convinced that the relatively high number of performance related accidents in Europe can be reduced by making it a special emphasis item on the PPL checkride. Not in order to flunk candidates who foul up, but to make candidates learn of its importance and to save lives while doing it.


So I dispute any allegation that flight performance and planning is an afterthought for the JAR-FCL PPL(A)!


Obviously the inner ear anatomy quote was meant to be inflammatory. However, the excessive emphasis on non-safety related theory in Europe inevitably degrades the attention that should be dedicated to things that matter. That is (admittedly just) one of the reasons why FAA-PPLs per flown hour are safer than JAA-PPLs.


We all do the calculations for the test I'm sure.

The trouble comes when one then takes 2 friends, fills it to tabs and realises one is on the porky side.

It still flies and so on, until the day when it is hot, the friends become 3 friends we decide to fill it full for the trip so we don't have to refuel.


Never ! Not say that you or anyone on this forum does this, but with over 95% of all accidents due to pilot error, this accident chain of events is simply inexcusable.

The surprise should come when you do your first W&B calculation for 4 people in a 4 seater and realise that the manufacturers of PA-28's, AA5A's, C172's are actually cheating when putting 4 seats in it.

So we do our calculations for each combination of passengers and see what would work and what not.
(2 adults + 2 kids, 3 adults, 2 adults and a fat guy, etc... + potential luggage, bikes, etc...)
And we don't take off unless the numbers add up. Otherwise, why bother paying insurance ?

[Sillert,V.I.]

Also, a lot of planes are knackered.

That, I suspect, is often the last hole in the swiss cheese.

A long while ago, and shortly after getting my PPL, I flew a couple of friends to a gliding site in an ancient cherokee 140. Foolishly I then let a third friend join us for the short trip back to base & took off without a W&B check. Can't remember the fuel state but I'm betting we were well overloaded. I remember it took most of the 1200m tarmac to get airborne & ROC was around 200'/min. I mentioned on returning that the engine seemed down on power & was told the following week that following an inspection it was indeed not giving all that it should and that the aircraft had been withdrawn from service pending overhaul.

Only the runway length saved a nasty incident and I learned a valuable lesson that day.

[Conventional Gear]

Never ! Not say that you or anyone on this forum does this, but with over 95% of all accidents due to pilot error, this accident chain of events is simply inexcusable.

Ever done a W&B calculation for a C 152 for a typical instructor and porky student with enough fuel for a typical 2hr PPL nav flight?

The fact this sort of practice does go on. The fact that people usually get away with it makes it to them 'acceptable'. The problem happens when as covered above, the grass is too long, the density altitude is high, the pilot skills are rusty, the engine isn't producing full power.. or more than likely one or more of the factors combine.

The fact it does go on is confirmed by simply reading the AAIB reports each year. There is always at least one of these accidents in the UK. I would rather guess that for countries where light aircraft are used far more for utility the figures are far worse. Strangely in many reports the overweight condition is mentioned but not even considered a contributing factor!

[soaringhigh650]

Could also be a half-engaged parking brake.
I've seen those before.

[IO540]

With an instructor present, nobody is going to question the w&b or the fuel endurance.

I used to do flights in my PPL training which I would have never done alone, and the intention was to fold my arms and let the instructor land it in some field if we ran out of juice.

We never did run out of juice, because the instructors knew exactly how far they could push it.

But a typical renter won't.

[Final 3 Greens]

It is also wise to remember that the performance charts are for a new aircraft.

I remember calculating 4 up, 2 guys, one 8st guy, one 3 stone child and fuel to the tabs on a PA28.

The acceleration was awful compared to 2 up and I rejected the take off when we passed an intersection where I would have expected to be well airborne and we were pushing 55kts.

I'd only about 100 hours at the time and I was cursing myself all the way back to the clubhouse for having screwed up the W&B, even the tower asked if we were alright as they saw how long the roll was, I think they suspected a major engine problem.

The club owner was waiting for me when we got back and we ran through the W&B together, 50lbs under max, just like I'd calculated.

He was a decent guy and refused to charge me a penny, saying if it didn't feel right, best to chuck it away and stop.

A while later, the engine suffered a major failure.

I wil never know whether I saw the first symptoms of the impending failure or whether the old engine just could not deliver enough power anymore.

Makes you think.

[AfricanEagle]

I think everything has been said.

- Habit, taken off before fully loaded, will manage this time too
- Performance figures are for new aeroplanes, most times we fly old clapped out engines.
- Pilot proficiency from short fields, and ability to judge grass length, also taking in to account if wet

For British pilots temprature and density altitude maybe a major unconsidered factor.

Flying in central Italy my aircraft performance changes considarably depending if I'm taking off sea level or from a strip in the Appenines, and even more so if in winter or summer.

In summer with 30° plus temprature I simply double take off roll if at sea level.

If in the mountains when hot I refer to the POH charts, consider full load even if light and add 20% scare factor. And even so, sometimes I scare myself.

[sprthompson]

Hey guys - some fuel for debate as you're all talking about weight and balance...

I read about this crash in the paper and the passenger was quoted as saying:

“The mechanical failure was unpredictable and I am sure in time when the results of the AAIB are published there will be some valuable lessons learned.”

[S-Works]

I look forward to reading about the nature of t he mechanical failure.....

[Conventional Gear]

For British pilots temprature and density altitude maybe a major unconsidered factor.

I think so to. Perhaps a twist of fate that a hot weekend in the UK is such a rare thing that many people load up the plane to head off.. It's certainly a factor I've only really begun to appreciate flying lower powered aircraft where on a hot day the climb rate is noticeably degraded.

I think the question of mechanical failure will make the AAIB report interesting. In the meantime if one flips back a few pages I think it is pretty clear people are discussing the issue of weight & balance in a general way.

[IO540]

sometimes gear in transit is draggier than gear down.

There are very few (any?) piston GA types for which this is true.

The reason is that the gear doors are very simple, are usually only partial, and the parts which are presented to the airflow do not change in cross-section during the gear transition.

What you can get is a bit of yaw, during gear extension prior to landing, caused by gear on one side moving before the gear on the other side. This is common.

[smarthawke]

"I look forward to reading about the nature of t he mechanical failure....."

Scales and calculator failures....?

[thing]

It is also wise to remember that the performance charts are for a new aircraft.

I remember calculating 4 up, 2 guys, one 8st guy, one 3 stone child and fuel to the tabs on a PA28.

The acceleration was awful compared to 2 up and I rejected the take off when we passed an intersection where I would have expected to be well airborne and we were pushing 55kts.

I'd only about 100 hours at the time and I was cursing myself all the way back to the clubhouse for having screwed up the W&B, even the tower asked if we were alright as they saw how long the roll was, I think they suspected a major engine problem.Funny that, bearing in mind I'm an incredibly novice power flyer I always find our club 28 painfully slow to get off the ground compared to the 172's, you could read a book waiting for the ASI to creep up. It doesn't accelerate to rotation speed it 'proceeds'.

I asked one of our instructors about this and he said it's because the 28 is a heavier a/c but looking at the figures there's hardly anything in the weight between it and a 172. Same hp and everything. It also seems to take ages to accelerate to cruise speed at top of climb. I would be reluctant at my stage of the game, in fact I probably wouldn't at all, take a 28 into a smallish grass strip whereas it wouldn't bother me in a 172.

It is very nice to fly once it gets its breath back.

[folberts]

I was called app. a week ago. I just told them what I saw.

They did not give any indication about the crash which I consider to be professional since the accident is still under investigation.

[vanHorck]

Well done Folbert for speaking to the AAIB.

Did you see only the crash or also the run up ?

[JW411]

He did not speak to the CAA. He spoke to the AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation Branch).

[Hiwyflr]

I have been following this thread with interest ... especially as I witnessed the incident.

As an old, low hours JAR PPL, I was waiting for the return of a WAC a/c for my booked slot at 13:45 on 3rd June. I was watching the activity on the apron, the arrivals and departures and listening in on 126.55. I watched the two visiting a/c being loaded for their trip to IOM, watched them taxi to the 06 hold.

The first a/c took off perfectly doing a good climb out on the NA turn to 03 and then onto a N departure. Soon after the Lance was cleared FTO ... watched it gain speed, it appeared to rotate soon after (on my eyeline from outside WAC to the tower in the range to the north of the airfield) 2/3rd's along the hard runway. It never reached higher than the windsock height and was obviously not going to get airborne ... wallowing and mushing, with no more than two pitch oscillation cycles. The pilot did not attempt any turn although the port wing was probable low as it impacted the hedge. The rest of the subsequent gyration of the fuselage was out of my view.

However, as Jon's excellent photographs show, the subsequent flip and slide were relativley short due to the inertia absorbing effect of the hedge which was sufficient to deccelerate the fuselage. However, I feel the significance of the post protruding from the undersurface of the fuselage (wap8.jpg) suggests that the post was picked up by entering the nose-wheel well destroying the starboard side of the nose-gear and impacting the firewall, flipping the fuselage ... rolling and yawing it to the right ... rather like a polevaulter rises using the pole to go over the bar.

This would have taken a lot more of the remaining intertia out of the Lance's progress across the field towards the M 40. The distance from the end of 06's asphalt to the M 40, as measured using Google Earth is 600 ft ... so had the aircraft not hit the hedge, the accident would have been far worse ... the M 40 Northbound gets busy on a Friday afternoon and its proximity to the incident can be assessed by the lamp-posts clearly seen in some of the images.

The incident certainly must have been a salutary lesson for any flyer who saw it happen. It was a mercy that there was no fire. Having seen two accidents in the past ... resulting in horrific conflagrations ... the Invadar flown by Don Bullock at Biggin and the Lighning, claiming the life of "Hoof" Proudfoot at Duxford ... it was such a relief to see all five walking through the gap in the hedge.

I need to get back into the LHS ... soon ... but glad I missed my slot that day!

[smarthawke]

AAIB report:

G-RHHT (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Piper%20PA-32RT-300%20Cherokee%20Lance%20II%20G-RHHT%2003-12.pdf)

I keep reading it but haven't spotted the aircraft's mechanical failure yet....

[Genghis the Engineer]

AAIB report:

G-RHHT (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Piper%20PA-32RT-300%20Cherokee%20Lance%20II%20G-RHHT%2003-12.pdf)

I keep reading it but haven't spotted the aircraft's mechanical failure yet....

No, me neither. Although the bit about being 3.3" behind the aft CG limit and 186lb over MTOW seem clear enough.

The pilot stated that he did not have access to the actual passenger and baggage weights and therefore assumed values for his weight and balance calculation.
Hmmmm. I've never found it all that hard to ask my pax what they weigh and use us a cheap luggage balance to check bag weights.

There was also the point about the runway being several hundred metres too short if correct numbers and safety factors were used. I notice however that the AAIB didn't actually state (although it's easy enough to work out) that using the CORRECT weight, and the correct safety factors, the runway was about 240m too short. (Whilst still being 3.3" out of aft CG!).

Ho hum, I'm glad it's not me who has to explain that one to their insurance company.

G

[peterh337]

186lb is quite a lot. Were the passengers all female by any chance?

[S-Works]

Just as I said. It did not take rocket scientist to work out it was overweight. I flew and taught enough in that aircraft to recognise it. :ugh:

[frontlefthamster]

Genghis,

You wrote:

I notice however that the AAIB didn't actually state (although it's easy enough to work out) that using the CORRECT weight, and the correct safety factors, the runway was about 240m too short. (Whilst still being 3.3" out of aft CG!).

I presume this would involve extrapolation beyond the limits of the performance information in the manual, which some manufacturers get very upset about, and which may indeed be invalid.

A purist might argue that the CofG being out of limit would also invalidate use of the data, whether within or without the graphs or tables.

Finally, there might be the effect on a reader. Faced with an accident report which included reference to performance calculations for a weight over MTOW, he might believe there was something justifiable in flying overweight as long as the data was extrapolated to show that the runway was long enough...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair points - although doing those calculations isn't hard, and even if AAIB might be best advised not to publish such things (and I'm willing to bet that they spent a lot of time debating whether they should or not) most of us are quite capable of doing the sums.

The message however is pretty clear! Stay in weight and balance, and don't try to take off where there's less runway than you need.

G

[A and C]

While I compleatly agree with the post above I thing the root of this accident was the C of G position not the weight.

If the aircraft had behaved as the pilot was expecting the chances are he would have cleared the hedge by a narrow margin and we would be reading A confession about this in the back pages of Pilot.

The control difficultys put the aircraft into a high drag situation that the aircraft did not have the performance to recover from.

The bottom line is that a marginally overloaded aircraft will fly badly, a marginally mis-loaded aircraft may not fly at all.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Except that neither the overloading, nor the misloading, were marginal!

About 5% over MTOW, and 3" out of what I imagine was about a 9" CG range, is a hell of a lot.

But yes, knowing more than most about aeroplane design, I know well that there are large margins on weight, but basically none on CG.

G

[MichaelJP59]

This thread serves as an interesting case study for those who would quell any speculation following an accident. Early speculation got this one exactly right and served well as lessons to us all to make sure we check W&B and take off distance required accurately.

On another issue, it's often stated insurance would be invalid following pilot error such as this - is that really true and was it in this case?

[peterh337]

About 5% over MTOW, and 3" out of what I imagine was about a 9" CG range, is a hell of a lot.

But yes, knowing more than most about aeroplane design, I know well that there are large margins on weight, but basically none on CG.Yet, it's not quite so simple, is it?

5% overweight means you need 10% more runway. I hate to post this but loads of people fly 5% overweight. Your average PA28 making its way across the Channel on a sunny Sunday with 4 people is unlikely to be below that. They get away with it because they operate from long runways. In the UK, most hard runways are about 2x longer than is actually needed by the common spamcans at MTOW.

The front and back of the loading envelope are determined initially by the elevator authority at/near Vs. You can fly a plane loaded slightly in front or behind the envelope if you are flying appropriately faster. That is why, for example, if you have collected a lot of ice on the elevator, you are advised to land at a higher than normal speed, so that pitch control is retained all the way to the runway.

it's often stated insurance would be invalid following pilot error such as this - is that really true and was it in this case? I doubt the owner is going to post his insurance outcome here... they rarely do.

It is usually said by people close to the business that insurers tend to not pay out if the flight was illegal before it got off the ground e.g. a duff license, duff medical, duff CofA, etc. Overweight should be in the same category but I have never heard of any actual cases on that. It would be interesting to find out. Insurance definitely covers pilot negligence though.

[S-Works]

Insurance have paid and did so within weeks.

Insurance is about agreed hull value. Whilst the forum experts will look for every reason why they think the claim would not be settled on the whole unless the flight was proven to be totally illegal by a court then they will pay up.

On the whole aircraft insurance is actually a pretty fair business. They charge the premiums to make it that way...,

[peterh337]

I know what "agreed value" insurance is, but that doesn't mean that I can tow my plane out to Beachy Head, push off off the cliff, and collect the agreed value.

Evidently there are unspoken boundaries below which they pay up but beyond which they will haggle. Unfortunately nobody is any wiser about what these are.

Also not everybody has "agreed value" cover.

If this chap got his dosh (a lowish 5 figure sum, I would guess, on a 1978 Lance (http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/455373.html)) that is good, and also interesting. Presumably the insurer would have been unaware of the loading, at the time, but maybe it made no difference given the low insured value.

I had a prop strike in 2002, during differences training with an instructor. The insurer paid the bill very fast indeed, having merely checked the instructor had valid papers. They happily paid 2x more for a new prop with a JAR-1 form, over one with an 8130-3 form ;)

[24Carrot]

Perhaps cost and certainty are the keys?

Checking paperwork to determine the legality of the flight is quick and cheap and gives a simple yes/no answer. An illegal pilot's decision to take off is taken on the ground before the flight, so it must be hard to plead special circumstances.

Anything to do with airmanship, even very, very, basic airmanship, is more arguable and so inevitably slower, more expensive, and harder to establish.

[S-Works]

I know what "agreed value" insurance is, but that doesn't mean that I can tow my plane out to Beachy Head, push off off the cliff, and collect the agreed value.

Which would be fraud Peter and thus I send you back to my original point.

[englishal]

I presume insurance companies tend to pay out if the flight was intended to be carried out legally. If you jump in the cockpit without a licence and stuff the aeroplane then there is a pretty clear case not to pay out.

The only ones that I know about where the insurance didn't pay out were the ones with either massive paperwork irregularities for the aeroplane or pilot.

[Duchess_Driver]

The pilot started to rotate the aircraft at 65 KIAS and, as it became airborne, he realised that it was no longer accelerating or climbing.

Way too slow for a heavy Lance.

[mary meagher]

Having just read the thread for the first time, after reading the AAIB report, I wonder if anyone could comment on the relative performance in marginal takeoff between high wing (Cessna 172, etc) and low wing.

Certainly the Robin tug, being low wing, despite having 180 hp, we think of as a groundhugger, climbs well enough once it gets going. The Piper Cub modified to carry a 180 hp Lycoming will fairly leap off the ground, and being high power to weight ratio, is actually considered by many to be a better tow aircraft.

With either one, taking into consideration length of runway, hot day, tall or wet grass, no headwind, and a heavy glider, we often recommend an alternate method of launch. Of course we have the option of dumping the load if things go pearshaped.....

[mm_flynn]

I believe the answer is

A - For a marginally - but successful takeoff - wing position makes no difference as you reasonably quickly climb through the narrow altitude where the ground effect is different (high wing wings being further from the ground at any given wheel altitude than low wing wings).

B - For overloaded, aft CG takeoffs that rotate early and remain behind the drag curve until they crash - the high wing has the benefit of exiting ground effect and sagging back to earth at a slightly lower height above the airfield than the low wing.

I would be a bit surprised if for a given weight, power, drag, airfoil section, wing loading, etc there was a material performance difference based on wing position. On the other hand, I am pretty sure the substantially greater ground clearance on high wings provides more flexibility for big flaps.

[peterh337]

Most planes are designed for some sort of mission profile, and I think that high wing aircraft have tended to be aimed at the short field capability market and thus have a lower wing loading to deliver a lower Vs which then directly translates into a better short field capability.

High wing planes also float less due to the reduced ground effect, which also improves short field landings.

I know Cessna are trying to hit every bit of the GA market but otherwise I think the above is overwhelmingly true in the real marketplace, with maybe the MU-2 being an exception :)

[Pilot DAR]

I have no particular knowledge of this accident, and I have not flown a Lance. However, I've flown the Cherokee Six, and done many things in Arrows and other PA-28's which have taught me a few things about them. For the puprose of the following, I'm presuming the Lance is similar, but I am subject to being told otherwise. All of the following is relative to the low tail aircraft. T tail aircraft are quite different in this regard.

The high lift Piper wings are great, it's the stabilators which end up causing the challenge, when you drag the plane off the ground too early. Yes, you get get it airborne, and hanging in ground effect at a low speed. However, to escape ground effect, yet more energy will have to be added to climb away. The energy is slowly being added, if you accelerate, as the engine and propeller will become more efficiant.

However, what got you there was a large pitch control input, which equals a large angle of stabilator deflection. Perhaps beyond it's critical Cl max. This was a problem with the earliest Cessna Cardinals, and an AD'd modification to the stabilitor was the result.

In the low tail Cherokee of your choice, with lots of nose up applied, you have lots of drag from the deflected stabilator. A larger deflection angle of the stabilator is necessary than the equivilent stabilizer/elevator arragement elevator deflection, as the stabilator is not changing camber, where the stabilizer/elevator is when deflected. The increased camber of the stabilizer/elevator gives you a better chance of getting the lift, without stalling it, and getting huge drag as the same control input would do with the stabilator.

I have suffered this a few times in Arrows and regular Cherokees. The first time, in the Arrow, I was right seat on a hot day, 1000M runway, just two of us, and very slight crosswind. The pilot owner was inexperienced, and rotated too early. We hung in ground effect, not accelerating or climbing away perceptably. I got more and more nervous. He let it drift left off the runway, and remaining runway was disappearing. As I realized that we were now stuck in ground effect, and could not land back, I retracted the gear, and we slowly accelerated, and climbed away.

I later took a Cherokee out onto the frozen lake, where the runway length was about 25km. Repeatedly, I could rotate too early and too hard, get airborne too early, and stick in ground effect, unable to climb away (and this was with very favourable atmospheric conditions). In that case, landing back was not a problem, though the risk of a tail strike was there.

I don't know if this is well trained to Cherokee pilots, it never was to me. We just jumped in and flew, learning as we went. But this is an aspect of Cherokees which should be highlighted during differences training, if you can figure out how to demonstrate it without falling back to earth. It's just when the pilot least expects this, that it is most likely to happen.

My experience with other stabilator types (Cardinal, for the most part) is the different wing, further out of grond effect, just will not let you get into the air until the plane is going to fly properly anyway.

I have no idea if this could have been a factor int he accident discribed, (and I admit to not haveing read all the posts in this thread) but I think these characterisitcs are relevent in any case

[Final 3 Greens]

Pilot DAR

For the record, the Lance II involved in this incident was a 'T' configuration.

Let's just say they require careful handling at low airspeeds - others have explained this in detail earlier in the thread.

The original Lance was a low tail config and in my (limited) experience of flying one, a very nice aircraft to handle (then again, I learned on PA28s and had PA32 fixed gear experience.)

It's interesting to read your comments about PA28s, for it seems to me that there are so many different versions with varying power, wing types, gear, tails, that it is difficult to generalise other than to say they are at the docile end of the handling range ;) (but will still bite the unwary and thanks for making a good point about that.)

Your íce runway experience sounds like a -140 to me, can you remember?

[Pilot DAR]

F3G

Yes, I suppose it would have been a PA-28-140. It was decades ago, and I don't remember for sure.

Yes, the T tail Pipers are a whole other type of thing to fly. Good, if you're well trained on them. Not so good for short & soft runways!

[mary meagher]

Immediatly preceeding the AAIB report regarding the Cherokee Lance II at Wycombe, another remarkably similar event is reported on page 28, at Netherthorpe, South Yorkshire. Insufficient runway for the Cherokee PA-28 to take off. It "collided with bushes beyond the end of the runway before crossing a road and coming to rest in a field on the far side." Considerable damage, but right side up, and the occupants only minor injuries.

I do get upset seeing a pilot loading up any airplane which which I am familiar, with large adults and heavy baggage, and have once or twice timidly asked if he has done his weight and balance checks....to be told in no uncertain terms that the calculations have been made and it was none of my business. But if I had said nothing, and the aircraft had come to grief, I would have felt partly responsible. Have others had that experience, I wonder?

On a happier note, I remember watching a friend preflight his 180 Cessna on floats (or was it a 182?). It was kept on a bayou in Louisiana, near Morgan City. My friend had a lot of experience in Alaska, he knew what he was doing, loading up on a hot afternoon, with a crew change for an oil rig in the gulf.
In went sacks and boxes of food and beer, and two very large bearded oilmen. I knew better than to comment, just watched, because like DAR on his frozen lake, he had a runway of infinite length! The Cessna taxied down round the bend, I could hear the engine powering up, and here it came, up the bayou, and round two more bends, still on the water, and eventually, when enough fuel (or beer) had been used, it rose like a goose and headed south.

He took me up one moonlit night, looking down on all that water, infinite choice of places to touch down, or take off. Rivers and bayous, winding through the trees, all lit up with the moon, shining brightly. Who needs runway lights?

[Pilot DAR]

I used to fly moose hunters in a 180 floatplane - I had to learn to say "next trip". I used to jumpers in a 185, I had to learn to say "you can't come this time". I used to fly scientists in a 207, I had to learn to say "that can't come". I used to fly the boss's 182 - he used to load the freight I flew.

One day I arrived, the plane was loaded and fuelled. He said: "she's heavy today, take it easy on her". The length of the runway remained unchanged at 1600 feet.

Yup, it was heavy, I took it easy. When I got where I was going, I counted and weighed what came out - 800 pounds over gross!

I find when I test fly, weight and balances are the most screwed up things by far. If people even do them, they seem to very often not really be accurate. I asked for the Caravan to be reweighed, because I didn't believe what I read on the W&B amendment, and I get a new weight 260 pounds lighter... Which one is right? Weigh it again.....

If pilots realized how much the aircraft's handling and ability to be recovered from unusual attitudes, they'd pay a lot more attention to the weight and balance!

[mary meagher]

I remember reading that a Dakota will carry anything if you can shut the door....

[Daysleeper]

I remember reading that a Dakota will carry anything if you can shut the door....

Douglas not Piper

:}

[smarthawke]

Even Piper Dakotas are good load haulers...

As far as this incident was concerned, I was somewhat surprised to see that all the pax bags had been loaded in the aft baggage compartment. The forward baggage bay was completely empty - demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge on weight and balance calcs.

I would imagine the pilots' passengers will go elsewhere for their lift to the TT races this year...