Airplane crunched in South Dakota

Just watched again on a bigger screen and can see more detail. It does appear that there is a defined runway. You can see a pretty clear line of tall grass sticking through the snow that looks like the edge of the mowed runway.

That moment when he swerves left that made the cameraman nervous is when it started to go badly. It gets him towards the left edge of the runway and he doesn't get lined up parallel to the centerline after that, so he's drifting towards the edge. Just past the windsock, his left wheel gets into that tall grass and the plane pitches down slightly. I think he's trying to abort by then, probably pulling the power and getting on the brakes, but a second later he's all the way off the side and loses it altogether.

It looks like the ditch he winds up in is off to the left side of the runway.
 
denverpilot said:
Hmmm I haven’t seen any say 20 but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out there.

Mine says 20 but that’s the STOL addendum change.

He’s definitely not fast enough and not accelerating enough throughout the whole thing.

Agree on the elevator, I was surprised he left the nosegear on the ground at all.

It also sounds to me like that engine isn’t producing full power but mics on video cameras or phones aren’t all that great so it’s hard to tell.

In the end I think you have a good old boy who’s flown off that strip a bunch, probably often by himself, when it’s dry grass, who was surprised by the performance difference with two more dudes on board and the grass/snow drag.

The airplane having larger fires and the upgraded nose fork says he probably does more off pavement stuff than most of us.

If you’re not halfway or more to flying speed by halfway down whatever you’ve got for a runway, you’re in trouble. Better shut it down and get it stopped.

Dude loses the 0-60 thread too. LOL.
Click to expand...

VGs and STOL fences, so maybe he’s supposed to use 20* flaps?
 
BrianNC said:
On another unrelated note, that guy's camera sure has good image stabilization. Running with it and the video hardly moves.
Click to expand...

That was the first thing I noticed.... and then the 2nd thing I noticed is the camera man did not drop the camera right as the accident started to happen...
 
Lachlan said:
VGs and STOL fences, so maybe he’s supposed to use 20* flaps?
Click to expand...

Ah now that I’m looking on a big monitor I see those! And there’s a logo on the droopy wingtip that isn’t in focus but I think that one of the other STOL kits out there. Sportsman logo maybe?
 
Zeldman said:
That was the first thing I noticed.... and then the 2nd thing I noticed is the camera man did not drop the camera right as the accident started to happen...
Click to expand...

And he didn’t go down to the plane right away to see if anyone was hurt or needed assistance. Heck no, gotta get the video!
 
SkyDog58 said:
And he didn’t go down to the plane right away to see if anyone was hurt or needed assistance. Heck no, gotta get the video!
Click to expand...

He was busy filming others running towards the crash. C'mon man, let the dude have his 15 minutes! :)
 
A couple of taxi trips up and down the runway would have given him some compacted tracks to decrease the rolling resistance. Would also have told him that it might be just a bit deeper than he thought. Based on the takeoff data in tall grass, should have told him that a safe takeoff was unlikely.
 
BillTIZ said:
A couple of taxi trips up and down the runway would have given him some compacted tracks to decrease the rolling resistance. Would also have told him that it might be just a bit deeper than he thought. Based on the takeoff data in tall grass, should have told him that a safe takeoff was unlikely.
Click to expand...

A couple of full length taxi trips up and down at the power level he needed to move, and he’d have needed to refuel to take off. :) :) :)
 
Let's see. Snow too deep for tires. No ski's. Taking off downwind. Improper soft field procedure. Inability to stay on "runway".

Since they walked away, I'll call it a comedy of errors.
 
I think the direction the almost fully inflated windsock was pointing had a lot to do with what happened.
 
2Airtime2 said:
Let's see. Snow too deep for tires. No ski's.
Click to expand...
As someone who has taken off from snow of varying depths from varying surfaces on varying tire sizes on many numerous occasions... that snow was NOT too deep for the tires. I doubt it had much effect on the takeoff roll at all, except for the loss of lateral traction.

I have not done any ski flying so maybe someone can chime in here, but to me that really doesn't look like deep enough snow for skis at all.
 
denverpilot said:
A couple of full length taxi trips up and down at the power level he needed to move, and he’d have needed to refuel to take off. :) :) :)
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just used to fluffy Colorado snow... but that snow didn't look that deep at all, maybe an inch up the tire, not really something that would significantly affect a takeoff roll.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
Maybe I'm just used to fluffy Colorado snow... but that snow didn't look that deep at all, maybe an inch up the tire, not really something that would significantly effect a takeoff roll.
Click to expand...
Affect
 
Should have stayed home and shoveled snow cause he certainly didn't have his PIC hat on that day...
 
he should have stayed on the bunny slope. those black diamonds'll getcha.
 
Lol. Guy in the right seat just had a 709 ride a couple months ago for another incident.
 
Looks to me like the snow wasn't deep at all, but there was no compensation for crosswind & the pilot was steering with the wheel, instead of the rudder pedals. Maybe a forward CG too?
 
denverpilot said:
Birds of a feather? Please tell me the right seater isn’t a CFI...
Click to expand...

Oh he is. He did not have a stellar 709 either, but eventually did pass. He's still instructing.... for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top