Flight Review question? What would you Pick?

[Pi1otguy]

. My completely speculative speculation is on too hot, too heavy, and failing to maintain Vx until clear of all obstacles. Could be the video, but he seemed slow to me.

Could be me, but it looks like the terrain was rising slightly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Okay. I looked this up. The accident occurred in 2012. The density altitude was 9200, which is 3200' beyond the performance charts.

Get out your whiz wheel and compute the density altitude for a 6000 Pressure altitude and 100 deg F…I think you’ll find that’s well above 9200 feet.

 

[exncsurfer]

Get out your whiz wheel and compute the density altitude for a 6000 Pressure altitude and 100 deg F…I think you’ll find that’s well above 9200 feet.

We weren't given the pressure altitude, someone should calculate what was the pressure altitude if the density altitude was 9200 and the temperature was 80F, then see if that number is on the performance chart, probably still off the chart.

 

[exncsurfer]

Get out your whiz wheel and compute the density altitude for a 6000 Pressure altitude and 100 deg F…I think you’ll find that’s well above 9200 feet.

If we work backwards from a given density altitude of 9200 (someone looked that up? said it was 9200 that day), we could determine the pressure altitude which would be used in the performance chart would have been 6315, which is still off the chart which stops at 6000 ft. But its not as far off as I thought it would've been.

 

[MauleSkinner]

We weren't given the pressure altitude, someone should calculate what was the pressure altitude if the density altitude was 9200 and the temperature was 80F, then see if that number is on the performance chart, probably still off the chart.

well, according to an online calculator, a 6000’ PA at 100 deg F (the highest on the table) is over 10,000 feet density altitude, so a 9200 ft DA appears to me to be within the limits of the table .

 

[exncsurfer]

well, according to an online calculator, a 6000’ PA at 100 deg F (the highest on the table) is over 10,000 feet density altitude, so a 9200 ft DA appears to be within the limits of the table.

See the post above yours, yeah its close, barely off the chart. From what was said about leaning(or lack of it), maybe engine power was his main prob. (well after the decision to go, it was his main problem!)

 

[MauleSkinner]

See the post above yours, yeah its close, barely off the chart. From what was said about leaning(or lack of it), maybe engine power was his main prob.

No, not barely off the chart. The chart goes to over 10000’ DA.

 

[brcase]

The density altitude was 9200, which is 3200' beyond the performance charts

No it is not off the Chart..
6000ft at about 80 degF = a Density altitude of about 9200 feet.
The chart just does the Density altitude calculation for you.

Brian

 

[exncsurfer]

No it is not off the Chart..
6000ft at about 80 degF = a Density altitude of about 9200 feet.
The chart just does the Density altitude calculation for you.

Brian

The field elevation is 6370, I put it in a calculator and I got a pressure altitude of 6315, which is off the chart, but only by 315ft. Not as drastic as some of the assumptions.

correction, as @MauleSkinner and @brcase pointed out, this DA is on the chart, 100F at 6000ft. would be a DA of 10118. So the performance shouldn't have been worse than that(although it seems it was from the vid, maybe due to leaning/WB)

 

[exncsurfer]

No, not barely off the chart. The chart goes to over 10000’ DA.

Okay, I see what you're saying, if you used the 5000Ft. at 100deg.F that would equate to what he had that day, which is on the chart, yep.

The performance for 9200DA 'should' have been between these two values:

 

[chemgeek]

Why is flying at MGW at nearly 10,000 density altitude a good idea?