Crash filmed from cockpit
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question
Without the benefit of hindsight: when exactly would you have aborted the take-off (apart from the sensible option of not even trying)?
The reason I ask is that from the moment the pilot starts the t/o roll, I see no key event that would strongly trigger revising the initial decision to attempt the take-off, just a sense of constant unease. I dare speculate that similar cases of rationalization and escalating commitment could catch some "more responsible" pilots, too.
Uh, very sluggish acceleration -- yes, but it rolls and there's plenty of space ahead. Uh, very reluctant lift-off -- granted, but we are airborne and no obstacles around. Uh, very marginal climb rate -- sure, but flat terrain ahead and we've managed to clear the trees so far.
To be honest, apart from the fact that already owing to a lack of experience with high-altitude operations I would surely have made calculations beforehand and/or tried a solo take-off (which might have made me feel sufficiently apprehensive to not try another one with additional payload), if I put myself in that pilot's position at the moment the initial decision to take off was taken (arguably in the honest belief that it might be a bit close but would turn out well) and without the benefit of hindsight, I couldn't tell whether and especially at which moment I would have aborted the attempt.
The reason I ask is that from the moment the pilot starts the t/o roll, I see no key event that would strongly trigger revising the initial decision to attempt the take-off, just a sense of constant unease. I dare speculate that similar cases of rationalization and escalating commitment could catch some "more responsible" pilots, too.
Uh, very sluggish acceleration -- yes, but it rolls and there's plenty of space ahead. Uh, very reluctant lift-off -- granted, but we are airborne and no obstacles around. Uh, very marginal climb rate -- sure, but flat terrain ahead and we've managed to clear the trees so far.
To be honest, apart from the fact that already owing to a lack of experience with high-altitude operations I would surely have made calculations beforehand and/or tried a solo take-off (which might have made me feel sufficiently apprehensive to not try another one with additional payload), if I put myself in that pilot's position at the moment the initial decision to take off was taken (arguably in the honest belief that it might be a bit close but would turn out well) and without the benefit of hindsight, I couldn't tell whether and especially at which moment I would have aborted the attempt.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, ISTM that the impact with the trees happened during a right turn.
Look for the right wingtip dipping just then.
So maybe they were either turning round (slowly) or trying to avoid something.
The plane was clearly grossly short of performance. Not the 1st time that has happened and it won't be the last.
Look for the right wingtip dipping just then.
So maybe they were either turning round (slowly) or trying to avoid something.
The plane was clearly grossly short of performance. Not the 1st time that has happened and it won't be the last.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: huj
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with armchairpilot, once committed to fly it's hard to back out of it. The sensible option would be crash land on flatter ground when you realise you haven't got the performance but that's hard to commit to. Keeping it going in the hope of gaining both height and airspeed is an easy trap to fall into. You know any attempt at a turn will precipitate a stall/spin.
But really the clues were all there before they even left the ground. It was a hot and high airfield. The aircraft was fully loaded. Any pilot should have sat down and worked it out. Possibly he'd done it before and got away with it. But this time conditions conspired against him.
One thing we pilots do is push limits. Soon what was once scary and on the edge seems normal. The more experienced we are the more confident we are in our abilities. But we forget the aeroplane has a limit and when you find it. It's not pleasant.
I often remind young pilots that the fact that you get away with something ten, twenty or a hundred times doesn't mean you're safe. You only have to crash once. That's why we set limitations.
It may not seem particularly relevant to those of us on this side of the pond. But it can happen just as easily. Consider a fully loaded aircraft, perhaps with a less than optimum engine, a shortish bumpy grass runway with some obstructions on one of our occasional hot days, zero wind. Add in less than perfect pilot technique. As you clear the hedge at the end with the stall warning yelping, you gulp as you eye the powerlines and copse of trees now seeming a lot closer than you previously thought.
Far too easy to get yourself into that situation.
But really the clues were all there before they even left the ground. It was a hot and high airfield. The aircraft was fully loaded. Any pilot should have sat down and worked it out. Possibly he'd done it before and got away with it. But this time conditions conspired against him.
One thing we pilots do is push limits. Soon what was once scary and on the edge seems normal. The more experienced we are the more confident we are in our abilities. But we forget the aeroplane has a limit and when you find it. It's not pleasant.
I often remind young pilots that the fact that you get away with something ten, twenty or a hundred times doesn't mean you're safe. You only have to crash once. That's why we set limitations.
It may not seem particularly relevant to those of us on this side of the pond. But it can happen just as easily. Consider a fully loaded aircraft, perhaps with a less than optimum engine, a shortish bumpy grass runway with some obstructions on one of our occasional hot days, zero wind. Add in less than perfect pilot technique. As you clear the hedge at the end with the stall warning yelping, you gulp as you eye the powerlines and copse of trees now seeming a lot closer than you previously thought.
Far too easy to get yourself into that situation.
Last edited by bluecode; 9th Aug 2012 at 15:06.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That plane was more than "fully loaded", relative to the performance and conditions.
A certified plane at MTOW, ISA conditions or appropriately corrected as per the POH, will climb adequately.
IMHO, those people were something like 20% to 30% overloaded, to be just stuck there, not climbing.
Unless flying into rising terrain which they didn't know about before departure (which is also really stupid).
A certified plane at MTOW, ISA conditions or appropriately corrected as per the POH, will climb adequately.
IMHO, those people were something like 20% to 30% overloaded, to be just stuck there, not climbing.
Unless flying into rising terrain which they didn't know about before departure (which is also really stupid).
There's a good general rule: half take-off speed by halfway down the runway, and airborne by 2/3 down the runway - or abort.
Given the massive length of that runway (say 2 minutes at an average of about 40 knots = 2000m+, that would have been easily followed and allowed plenty of stopping distance.
And let's face it, if an aeroplane like that isn't airborne by 1300+m of runway anywhere, it's time to stop and re-assess!
I've had a similar sight out of the front, twice that I can recall, in correctly loaded aeroplanes but due to longer than expected grass and the aeroplane just refusing to accelerate past a point. Both times I followed that rule, stopped, and re-assessed. It's not difficult.
G
Given the massive length of that runway (say 2 minutes at an average of about 40 knots = 2000m+, that would have been easily followed and allowed plenty of stopping distance.
And let's face it, if an aeroplane like that isn't airborne by 1300+m of runway anywhere, it's time to stop and re-assess!
I've had a similar sight out of the front, twice that I can recall, in correctly loaded aeroplanes but due to longer than expected grass and the aeroplane just refusing to accelerate past a point. Both times I followed that rule, stopped, and re-assessed. It's not difficult.
G
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without the benefit of hindsight: when exactly would you have aborted the take-off (apart from the sensible option of not even trying)?
The reason I ask is that from the moment the pilot starts the t/o roll, I see no key event that would strongly trigger revising the initial decision to attempt the take-off, just a sense of constant unease. I dare speculate that similar cases of rationalization and escalating commitment could catch some "more responsible" pilots, too.
Uh, very sluggish acceleration -- yes, but it rolls and there's plenty of space ahead. Uh, very reluctant lift-off -- granted, but we are airborne and no obstacles around. Uh, very marginal climb rate -- sure, but flat terrain ahead and we've managed to clear the trees so far.
To be honest, apart from the fact that already owing to a lack of experience with high-altitude operations I would surely have made calculations beforehand and/or tried a solo take-off (which might have made me feel sufficiently apprehensive to not try another one with additional payload), if I put myself in that pilot's position at the moment the initial decision to take off was taken (arguably in the honest belief that it might be a bit close but would turn out well) and without the benefit of hindsight, I couldn't tell whether and especially at which moment I would have aborted the attempt.
The reason I ask is that from the moment the pilot starts the t/o roll, I see no key event that would strongly trigger revising the initial decision to attempt the take-off, just a sense of constant unease. I dare speculate that similar cases of rationalization and escalating commitment could catch some "more responsible" pilots, too.
Uh, very sluggish acceleration -- yes, but it rolls and there's plenty of space ahead. Uh, very reluctant lift-off -- granted, but we are airborne and no obstacles around. Uh, very marginal climb rate -- sure, but flat terrain ahead and we've managed to clear the trees so far.
To be honest, apart from the fact that already owing to a lack of experience with high-altitude operations I would surely have made calculations beforehand and/or tried a solo take-off (which might have made me feel sufficiently apprehensive to not try another one with additional payload), if I put myself in that pilot's position at the moment the initial decision to take off was taken (arguably in the honest belief that it might be a bit close but would turn out well) and without the benefit of hindsight, I couldn't tell whether and especially at which moment I would have aborted the attempt.
I suspect (but it's only a guess) that nobody seems too scared in the video by the lack of climb, because they had already flown that day (probably to get to that airfield) and know that it was hot/high/heavy and expected the climb performance to be marginal.
What they might have missed could be an increase in tempertature, or down flow of air from the higher ground ahead, or simply turbulence. As they obviously took off upwind, any wind would have been flowing down this side of the higher ground ahead.
Clearly taking off with such marginal performance is wrong, but if you flew into that airport on the same day, it is a big decision to say that we can't fly out, unless we make two or more flights to bring the passengers one by one. It's easy to see how you'd be tempted to try it. Wrong thing to do, but unless you can imagine the mental pressures to fly, it's hard to learn from it.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to side with Armchair here. The Stinson has a great reputation has a load carrier - and at MSA would easily loft the load onboard.
At the sort of density altitude they were at the sluggish takeoff and climb would be expected. So there is no clearcut 'go no-go' event. Once airbourne the climb rate would be expected to be poor. The more experience that you have in this areas the more likely you are to expect the poor performance and to be able to eventually get away.
From the video if this flight had been attempted a earlier or later in the day it would probably have succeeded.
From my own experience I know my old Terrier seemed to suffer disproportionately with high temperatures in terms of takeoff - to the point that on hot days (over 30 C - generally not in this country) I just avoided trying. The Stinson may be a little similar.
At the sort of density altitude they were at the sluggish takeoff and climb would be expected. So there is no clearcut 'go no-go' event. Once airbourne the climb rate would be expected to be poor. The more experience that you have in this areas the more likely you are to expect the poor performance and to be able to eventually get away.
From the video if this flight had been attempted a earlier or later in the day it would probably have succeeded.
From my own experience I know my old Terrier seemed to suffer disproportionately with high temperatures in terms of takeoff - to the point that on hot days (over 30 C - generally not in this country) I just avoided trying. The Stinson may be a little similar.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when exactly would you have aborted the take-off
It looks like a similar story at 1:25 and 1:50.
Last edited by The500man; 9th Aug 2012 at 15:45.
If, as it appears, that was a Stinson 108 (the yokes are wrong but the rest looks right), the useable payload is around 800lb. With those 4 who all looked reasonably slim and half tanks, it probably was in weight limits, with full tanks not far over MTOW.
Visually it was hot, and probably high. The Stinson whilst it will carry a lot of load and lands on sixpence, does take quite a lot of runway on a good day to get airborne, so I think that's a pure performance issue, not an overload issue. Personally in the UK I wouldn't try to get airborne from less than 600m of grass in one.
Still an idiot who if he survived, which I of-course hope he did, was clearly needed some substantial aeronautical re-education.
G
Visually it was hot, and probably high. The Stinson whilst it will carry a lot of load and lands on sixpence, does take quite a lot of runway on a good day to get airborne, so I think that's a pure performance issue, not an overload issue. Personally in the UK I wouldn't try to get airborne from less than 600m of grass in one.
Still an idiot who if he survived, which I of-course hope he did, was clearly needed some substantial aeronautical re-education.
G
Moderator
when exactly would you have aborted the take-off
Seriously, any airplane which is not airborne and climbing away in the 50+ seconds I saw in that video, should be put back on the surface, and stopped to figure out why. (though the reason is not a mystery here). Even the fully loaded heavy jets only use 45 to 50 seconds on the roll.
So, I use time. My all time short time for becoming airborne in the 150 is 9 seconds from application of full power to wheels off, though that was in unusually favourable conditions. I would be very happy with 20 to 30 seconds in anything I fly, longer than that, I'm thinking about aborting.
I aborted a takeoff off a small lake in the amphibian last weekend. I was airborne, but it had taken too long due to a variable crosswind, and downdrafts off the shoreline hills. Could I have made it? Probably, but I don't want you lot speculating about my poor decision making! One more downdraft would have made the difference. I can control the abort, I cannot control the downdrafts.
So I took off the other direction with lots of room to spare.
The pilot in the video displayed poor judgement in my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT to my "Which clue to hang the abort decision on?" question, IMHO the inputs by Genghis, the 500man, and DAR give good clues (poor pun intended): however flat and benign the surroundings look, if the airplane clearly does not want to leave the ground within reasonable time/distance limits (or settles back), disregard the vast and flat space in front of you and abort.
For me that's a useful and applicable take-away lesson: whenever altitude and temperature suggest that performance will be a critical factor, don't rely on the seemingly flat and forgiving environment to push you towards a safe decision; at the very least make a deliberate internal t/o briefing before pouring on the coal: "If at point x I am are not airborne and climbing, I'll cancel the attempt, no matter how much flat terrain in front of me which might lure me into continuing."
For me that's a useful and applicable take-away lesson: whenever altitude and temperature suggest that performance will be a critical factor, don't rely on the seemingly flat and forgiving environment to push you towards a safe decision; at the very least make a deliberate internal t/o briefing before pouring on the coal: "If at point x I am are not airborne and climbing, I'll cancel the attempt, no matter how much flat terrain in front of me which might lure me into continuing."
Last edited by Armchairflyer; 9th Aug 2012 at 16:14.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a good general rule: half take-off speed by halfway down the runway...
Pilot DAR's suggestion of timing sounds good in such a situation though here in Britain we're usually more constrained by strip length than anything.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: somewhere near a Sea
Age: 43
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 1:20 into the video I would have made the decision to put it back on the ground. assuming the pilot is familiar with the strip thus knowing that he has about a mile of clear area left before the forrest starts he should have put it back on the ground.
after his first airborn attempt at about 00:50 he bounces back on the ground after loosing ground effect.. and gets airborn the second time. at about 1:20 you can see he pıtches the nose down probably because of loosing speed and when he does he looses altitude in the proces.. he is diving for speed @ maybe 50 to 70 feet of the ground... if you have to do that after already a long take-off roll.. something should click into place that you probably are not going to make it.
over the forrest itīs so clear the moment he starts his bank he is loosing altitude.
after his first airborn attempt at about 00:50 he bounces back on the ground after loosing ground effect.. and gets airborn the second time. at about 1:20 you can see he pıtches the nose down probably because of loosing speed and when he does he looses altitude in the proces.. he is diving for speed @ maybe 50 to 70 feet of the ground... if you have to do that after already a long take-off roll.. something should click into place that you probably are not going to make it.
over the forrest itīs so clear the moment he starts his bank he is loosing altitude.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another website I found out some more information. To make it short, the Density Altitude that day of the accident was 8,300 feet. The engine on the aircraft, a Fairchild, was 165 horse power, normally aspirated, in other words, no super-charger or turbocharger. That couple with the fact that he was about three passengers over MGTOW for that day. It is quite surprising they got airborne at all.
Also, they took off in the direction of raising terrain, so coupled with minimal climb rate and the raising ground, well...
Also, they took off in the direction of raising terrain, so coupled with minimal climb rate and the raising ground, well...
Re looking at the video he made every error of judgement available
Pace
It is always better to be wishing you were in the air after deciding not to takeoff then it is to be in the air wishing you were after the ground after not thinking about the factors that are going to effect the takeoff and subsequent flight........
Even if the pilot was so foolish as to not take into account the many adverse factors effecting his takeoff, during the takeoff roll the aircraft was screaming at him "I can't fly in these conditions". Like an earlier poster said when the aircraft settled back on the ground after refusing to accelerate he still had room to abort the takeoff...but he kept on going
This is past just bad decision making, it is actively choosing to be stupid......
Even if the pilot was so foolish as to not take into account the many adverse factors effecting his takeoff, during the takeoff roll the aircraft was screaming at him "I can't fly in these conditions". Like an earlier poster said when the aircraft settled back on the ground after refusing to accelerate he still had room to abort the takeoff...but he kept on going
This is past just bad decision making, it is actively choosing to be stupid......
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 9th Aug 2012 at 22:20.
I'd say that isn't enough. 70% speed at the halfway mark more like, but one of the problems with what we saw in the clip is, where is the halfway mark? The terrain seemed so endlessly flat.
Pilot DAR's suggestion of timing sounds good in such a situation though here in Britain we're usually more constrained by strip length than anything.
Pilot DAR's suggestion of timing sounds good in such a situation though here in Britain we're usually more constrained by strip length than anything.
What I meant to say was half flying speed by 1/3 down the runway, airborne by 2/3.
My error.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The moment the pilot woke up was the time the flight should have been aborted. The silence in the aircraft is proof all were willing it to take off in their heads rather than listen to the alarm bell and speaking out. I have sat in the back of a AA5A during a flight in 'iffy weather watching the LH seat fly straight towards very grey/black cloud p*ssing rain; frankly had I not said anything the LH seat would have continued. As it was we only just escaped being engulfed by the front. The RH seat was not a pilot (I am) and despite my protest to the contrary the LH seat insisted it would be a treat for none pilot to sit up front during a flight we knew has enroute border line weather. I have never flown with that pilot since. Perhaps I should have stood my ground or stayed on the ground with the old saying ringing in my head. If I hadn't accepted the back would those two people still be alive? It isn't often I chip into "debates" on pprune but on occassion I thought some straight forward comment was necessary.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
despite my protest to the contrary the LH seat insisted it would be a treat for none pilot to sit up front
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: huj
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quote a friend of his on another website. He's apparently an experienced mountain pilot and intends to fly again as soon as he's able.
That ole gust of wind done it!
He told me the air just disappeared out from under them...no lift suddenly. He almost aborted because of the lengthy take-off...not uncommon at 6,000 ft, when a gust of wind lifted them up.