Apparent plane crash on TPC Scottsdale Golf Course

Lachlan said:
Some things don’t add up. He was 26? Just got his CFI and ATP in mid March? Yet he was Chief Pilot at Elite when he was 18? Adjunct Faculty at 19? Seems much too intelligent to stuff 6 people into that airplane...
Click to expand...

Grum.Man said:
That's where my mind was going..
Click to expand...

That's why i think this one will get interesting. Maybe there was some mechanical failure on the aircraft, or maybe he just stuffed too many people into the plane. Just don't know. In any event the reports will be interesting.
 
Lachlan said:
Seems much too intelligent to stuff 6 people into that airplane...
Click to expand...

It does seem very weird. Perhaps that is not actually his training - or he just didn’t think carefully about it that one time?

Also interesting that the tower had noticed something was off as well and called them.
 
My take on the tower question was along the lines of “I cleared you to takeoff, why are you still sitting there?” The crash site is literally across the street from the end of the runway. I don’t think there was enough time for them to see anything in flight, ask the question and have him respond as he did. Seems more likely he was still sitting at the south end of the runway, and explained the delay as “training”.
 
Very interesting, FAA Airman Database lists James as a Student pilot issued 12/2008 with no medical info. Has he soloed?

Erik listed as ATP AMEL with a A/CE-500 Cessna 500 Citation type rating and Commercial ASEL issued 03/15/2018. CFI issued 03/15/2018. First Class Medical issued 02/2018. I wonder if he ever had time to receive the plastic certificates.
 
Blatham489 said:
My take on the tower question was along the lines of “I cleared you to takeoff, why are you still sitting there?” The crash site is literally across the street from the end of the runway. I don’t think there was enough time for them to see anything in flight, ask the question and have him respond as he did. Seems more likely he was still sitting at the south end of the runway, and explained the delay as “training”.
Click to expand...
could be. I'm just thinking about a possibly of an over weight aircraft out of CG departing on the incline runway into rising terrain. That's my guess about a cause. As a pilot there are times when we have to make what seem to be easy decisions about pax and weight loading. Sometimes it's too hard to say someone has to stay behind when everyone else goes to Vegas.
 
Lachlan said:
Some things don’t add up. He was 26? Just got his CFI and ATP in mid March? Yet he was Chief Pilot at Elite when he was 18? Adjunct Faculty at 19? Seems much too intelligent to stuff 6 people into that airplane...
Click to expand...
32
 
The news article reported him being 26, not that they have never been wrong just curious where you got 32.
 
I am betting the CFI knew the plane was stuffed too much and likely knew this was not going to be an easy flight. However, just look at the video... Can you imagine the pressure to make that flight happen? As a young yet very experienced pilot this CFI likely just convinced himself he was good enough to do it. Just look at the handful of people on here that mentioned flying their Comanche well over gross... Maybe he was privy to that. Most of us can easily look at weight and see a very objective factor. "We are X lbs overweight". The CG isn't as black and white, and may have been the bigger factor making the flight impossible. I am betting he didn't pull out the POH and do a CG calculation.
 
Well, you know... Russians fought a good chunk of WWII with an airplane that was wildly out of balance to the rear. It was a handful, yet they cranked out something like 35,000 of them. Of course if someone pulled just a little too hard in it, the stall was unrecoverable. Pitch stability was not ideal either. But it carried more load than a properly balanced airplane would. {the safety record was so appalling that in 1943 they modded the outer wing panels to be swept like on DC-3, which improved the % MAC}
 
dans2992 said:
I own a 260B. I’ve used seats 5/6 quite a lot. In fact, it was a primary selling point with my wife. The most common occupants of those seats are either my wife, my mother in law, or 8-year old daughter.

You need the smallest/lightest people in those seats, and you need to really analyze the W/B calcs. But, for smaller people, you can certainly put 5 (or six) with no bags and less than full fuel.
Click to expand...

I have a 260B as well. Only used the rear most seats (5 & 6) once for a 7 y/o child. The seats cushions sit directly on the floor because of the taper of the fuselage. The seats are easily removable, and I usually don't even have them installed. I use that area for baggage. Can't imagine sticking an adult back there unless they are very small in stature. They do have to crawl through the baggage door. Weight limit is 250 lbs. for that area. Not easy to get a Comanche out of CG if you're half-way paying attention. Very sad situation.
 
Lachlan said:
Seems much too intelligent to stuff 6 people into that airplane...
Click to expand...

Intelligent pilots can become complacent and screw up. I've seen it occur. Or think they can handle what they know is wrong, like over weight and/or out of CG.
 
mscard88 said:
Intelligent pilots can become complacent and screw up. I've seen it occur. Or think they can handle what they know is wrong, like over weight and/or out of CG.
Click to expand...

Sure, but a 32 year old should be past the testosterone stage of impressing his friends, and a guy with over 4500 hours should know better than to put that many people in that particular airplane. It makes the crash seem more likely to have been something other than a cg issue, though, or straight up pilot error, as his experience should have more than covered piloting and pre-flight. The possibility of being out of annual and suffering a catastrophic airframe or power failure seems more likely, given the ratings and experience of the ATP/CFI on board. We may never really know. Or, maybe we already do...
 
If the problem was an aft CG, how did they get a mile north of the airport? The aft CG means can put you in a situation where the elevator cannot provide enough force to keep the nose down. Right? I'm thinking of the 747 crash in Afghanistan. That plane barely made it off the runway.
 
Blatham489 said:
I don’t think there was enough time for them to see anything in flight, ask the question and have him respond as he did. Seems more likely he was still sitting at the south end of the runway, and explained the delay as “training”.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I think this raises the likelihood that it was some type of failure, at least somewhat.
 
azpilot said:
If the problem was an aft CG, how did they get a mile north of the airport? The aft CG means can put you in a situation where the elevator cannot provide enough force to keep the nose down. Right? I'm thinking of the 747 crash in Afghanistan. That plane barely made it off the runway.
Click to expand...

I believe the 747 had a load shift at or right after rotation did it not? I actually have that on the DVR, might check it out later.
 
azpilot said:
If the problem was an aft CG, how did they get a mile north of the airport? The aft CG means can put you in a situation where the elevator cannot provide enough force to keep the nose down. Right? I'm thinking of the 747 crash in Afghanistan. That plane barely made it off the runway.
Click to expand...

A plane can fly with an aft CG but may not recover from a stall.
 
azpilot said:
If the problem was an aft CG, how did they get a mile north of the airport? The aft CG means can put you in a situation where the elevator cannot provide enough force to keep the nose down. Right? I'm thinking of the 747 crash in Afghanistan. That plane barely made it off the runway.
Click to expand...
Aft CG makes a plane less stable in pitch. While it may be able to fly, it may not tolerate less than perfect technique. With six adults, it was probably close to, if not over its MGTOW. A great set up for a stall at low altitude. Even if it doesn't spin, it would probably be difficult to recover before hitting the ground.
 
azpilot said:
If the problem was an aft CG, how did they get a mile north of the airport? The aft CG means can put you in a situation where the elevator cannot provide enough force to keep the nose down. Right? I'm thinking of the 747 crash in Afghanistan. That plane barely made it off the runway.
Click to expand...

There is always the possibility of a complicating event (engine out). Also, you have the possibility that you're flying something that doesn't go where you point it, and you lose control and crash, or maybe you lose situational awareness in the darkness and drama and hit the ground unintentionally.

Lots of possibilities
 
azpilot said:
If the problem was an aft CG, how did they get a mile north of the airport? The aft CG means can put you in a situation where the elevator cannot provide enough force to keep the nose down. Right? I'm thinking of the 747 crash in Afghanistan. That plane barely made it off the runway.
Click to expand...

The Bagram 747 had a load shift of the aft-most MRAP vehicle cargo that damaged the hydraulic systems and the horizontal stabilizer drive which resulted in the aircraft becoming uncontrollable.

As for the Comanche, an aft CG doesn't necessarily mean it won't fly; it means it may not be as controllable compared to being flown within the design flight envelope. As I understand the Comanche C can have 15 deg of flap on take off. If that was the case here, perhaps the act of retracting the flaps might have been enough to make the airplane less controllable after it was airborne.

One thing that has not been noted (unless I missed it) is that as the airplane approaches gross weight the spread between the forward and aft CG limits narrows quite significantly. A lot easier to be outside the limits when heavier. Once an airplane is over gross there isn't any published information as to the CG limits.
 

Attachments

  • Comanche 260C WB.pdf
    485.5 KB · Views: 4
GRG55 said:
The Bagram 747 had a load shift of the aft-most MRAP vehicle cargo that damaged the hydraulic systems and the horizontal stabilizer drive which resulted in the aircraft becoming uncontrollable.
.
Click to expand...

Watched what I had recorded on DVR. Took out the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, in addition to what you mentioned.
 
mscard88 said:
Watched what I had recorded on DVR. Took out the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, in addition to what you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yes. There were pieces of the aircraft skin, a piece of hydraulic tubing, an antenna from one of the MRAP vehicles and other debris on the runway near the reported point of rotation, and more debris along the remaining portion of the departure runway. It also took out the shelf that housed the CVR and the FDR, which stopped working 9 seconds after rotation (about 30 seconds before impact). The plane hit the ground almost 600 ft to the side of the runway end. They never had a chance.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
The Bagram 747 had a load shift of the aft-most MRAP vehicle cargo that damaged the hydraulic systems and the horizontal stabilizer drive which resulted in the aircraft becoming uncontrollable.

As for the Comanche, an aft CG doesn't necessarily mean it won't fly; it means it may not be as controllable compared to being flown within the design flight envelope. As I understand the Comanche C can have 15 deg of flap on take off. If that was the case here, perhaps the act of retracting the flaps might have been enough to make the airplane less controllable after it was airborne.

One thing that has not been noted (unless I missed it) is that as the airplane approaches gross weight the spread between the forward and aft CG limits narrows quite significantly. A lot easier to be outside the limits when heavier. Once an airplane is over gross there isn't any published information as to the CG limits.
Click to expand...

One other item to note. On the Comanche the moment arm moves slightly further aft as the gear is retracted.
 
I was also wondering why someone certified as a CFI would be flying a plane in the first place that was out of annual and possibly had a suspended airworthiness certificate.

I mean I was instructed from day one, and it is even on most check lists....... Check that registration and airworthy certificate are available and visible. That is also what the ARROW acronym is for.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
So it does sound like the inquiry from tower regarding “everything ok” did come after the plane had rotated and was off the ground.

Sad deal. Sounds like the pilot(s) were just a little over their head given the whole scenario.

And I like the above comments re the new pilot’s enthusiasm for GA. Sure we all see some mistakes and we (myself included) may not share these folk’s “speak” but they did share something that we all love. Very unfortunate.
 
I sympathize with the passengers who probably made the common assumption that 6 seats mean you can have 6 passenger. These 4 passengers were truly innocent and put too much faith in their Pilot and want to be pilot buddies, who essentially killed them all.
 
OkieAviator said:
I sympathize with the passengers who probably made the common assumption that 6 seats mean you can have 6 passenger. These 4 passengers were truly innocent and put too much faith in their Pilot and want to be pilot buddies, who essentially killed them all.
Click to expand...

That's why when someone wants to go for a ride I ask: "Would you ride on the back of my motorcycle down the interstate during rush hour?"

No - Sorry, GA flying is probably not for you
Yes - Ok, let's go!
 
Bill Jennings said:
That's why when someone wants to go for a ride I ask: "Would you ride on the back of my motorcycle down the interstate during rush hour?"

No - Sorry, GA flying is probably not for you
Yes - Ok, let's go!
Click to expand...

My answer would be no frickin way.
I put about 40,000 miles on my motorcycle when I had it.
Now I own a plane.
I need to be the one in control.
 
It was a Comanche. Not as dramatic as an air horn - “there would be a light on in the cockpit”. The Comanche has no audible stall warning.
 
Bill Jennings said:
That's why when someone wants to go for a ride I ask: "Would you ride on the back of my motorcycle down the interstate during rush hour?"

No - Sorry, GA flying is probably not for you
Yes - Ok, let's go!
Click to expand...

Only if you pop a wheelie while riding through rush hour traffic
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
"In the final moments, the plane would have been shaking as it went into stall, with the air horn sounding that the plane did not have sufficient airspeed."

The air horn? Really? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hahahaha I laughed out loud at that one...what a bunch of yankees
 
Yea this one is really sad...especially since I live down the street from it. Drove past there today. Those poor souls...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top