Fresno Small Plane Crash Kills Mother and 2 Children, 9/7/26

davela said:
One other possibility, unlikely, but still another possible error is if the pilot was not used to flying planes using an airspeed indicator calibrated in mph rather than knots. During the transition years, I believe many US made aircraft were calibrated on both scales. However, I know that on my 1976 Cherokee, for instance, it's really a mph airplane. Despite having dual airspeed scales, the mph readings are more prominent (everything in the POH is also in mph). For the Traveler Vx is 68 KIAS, but if she flew at 68 mph out of ground effect instead, the plane would have been significantly pitched up, probably on the back side of the power curve, and struggling.
Click to expand...
^^^^^ This. I am having a heck of a time converting to MPH. I'm going back and forth between a Cherokee and a 172, and the blasted MPH is discombobulating me!
 
jeanathon said:
^^^^^ This. I am having a heck of a time converting to MPH. I'm going back and forth between a Cherokee and a 172, and the blasted MPH is discombobulating me!
Click to expand...
The POH says 70 MPH, Knots, KPH, whatever for a certain performance metric - say Vx. All I have to do is put the airspeed needle on that number if I'm trying to fly at Vx. I don't need to worry about what unit the number is calibrated in.

The unit matters, but why would the unit of measure be discombobulating?
 
It's really about having a solid sight picture in my mind. On short final I don't want to be constantly looking at the airspeed indicator. I want to be looking out the windscreen, and know by what I see that I'm at a given speed. Flopping back and forth between 68 knots in the 172, and 85 MPH in the Cherokee has me double checking the airspeed indicator too much. Approaching at 85 MPH takes some getting used to because my brain says it is a lot faster than 68 Knots although it's not.
 
jeanathon said:
It's really about having a solid sight picture in my mind. On short final I don't want to be constantly looking at the airspeed indicator. I want to be looking out the windscreen, and know by what I see that I'm at a given speed. Flopping back and forth between 68 knots in the 172, and 85 MPH in the Cherokee has me double checking the airspeed indicator too much. Approaching at 85 MPH takes some getting used to because my brain says it is a lot faster than 68 Knots although it's not.
Click to expand...
I could make a case for what you're saying if the only difference between two C-172's was if one's ASI was in Knots, one was in MPH, but you're talking about two different airplanes. Of course they need different speeds, whether MPH or Knots. And if you're looking out the window and depending on sight picture, the ASI isn't a factor.
 
Lindberg said:
A 2000' DA is not "high." And if it was over gross with two adults and small kids, it couldn't have been by a lot. I don't think either of those factors sufficiently explains why this aircraft could not climb out of ground effect before the end of a 3,000-ft long runway.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a 3,000-foot runway.
 
The numbers Juan was using didn’t really seem to take into account the fine print notes under the table, which is to add 7% distance for each 20°F above standard temp. On that day, this would have been at least 10-12%, so the distance to 50’ would be an additional 200-250’ farther than the straight book value (which, as he said, is always subject to other variables and conditions, anyway). Thin margin.
 
I've flown Cherokee's w/ mph gauges and with knots. And I can't see how that would cause enough difference for a CFI to have an accident. First, because the difference in those numbers is only about 10 at those speeds, and second, because it's a clear day and they could see outside. To me that's a separate thing from either being behind the power curve because they rotated too much too early - why would a CFI do that, or from being heavy and climbing slowly. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Albany Tom said:
I've flown Cherokee's w/ mph gauges and with knots. And I can't see how that would cause enough difference for a CFI to have an accident. First, because the difference in those numbers is only about 10 at those speeds, and second, because it's a clear day and they could see outside. To me that's a separate thing from either being behind the power curve because they rotated too much too early - why would a CFI do that, or from being heavy and climbing slowly. Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
Doubt the mph vs knots IAS had anything to do with it. Either a weak performing engine, gross weight, lack of aborting T.O. when there was still runway to shut it down. Should have been obvious something was wrong after the first half of T.O. distance.
 
CENTURION said:
Doubt the mph vs knots IAS had anything to do with it. Either a weak performing engine, gross weight, lack of aborting T.O. when there was still runway to shut it down. Should have been obvious something was wrong after the first half of T.O. distance.
Click to expand...
For Vy or Vx if I am flying any plane, especially one new to me, I'll start with the book numbers on take off, but make as-needed real-time adjustments pretty quickly, going by actual performance using the altimeter, rate of climb indicator, and noting ground references of course. Under normal circumstances, with a comfortable length runway, there is plenty of time to tweak the airspeed for desired performance, and any experienced pilot would. I'm sure she did too, but time was not on her side considering other factors. I'm sure the NTSB will get to the bottom of it. My speculation is just a suggestion because confusion between knots and mph for landing and takeoff numbers is indeed an issue sometimes, although usually one among lower-time pilots transitioning between different aircraft.
 
davela said:
Blancolirio has also pointed out that since the Traveler requires differential breaking to stay on the centerline during the initial part of a takeoff roll (lacking a stearable nose wheel), this will increase the required take off distance over aircraft not requiring this.
Click to expand...
This is an issue in the first few feet of the roll and then rudder is fully adequate. And she got off the ground plenty quickly.
davela said:
The need for differental braking would be exacerbated with a cross wind and with aircraft unfamiliarity (likely even catching many otherwise proficient and experienced pilots unaware).
Click to expand...
Was she unfamiliar?
 
Serious question: how much buffer is built into performance tables for takeoff distance?
 
I don't think she was a good pilot, let alone being a CFI.

Hot and heavy is not a good way to go out, especially with family on board. Boils down to hubris and ignorance.

30 deg nose-up at rotation? C'mon man, she panicked when she realized the plane wasn't climbing and held the attitude because of the trees at the end of the runway, hoping to get altitude. This is like stomping the brakes on your '74 Pinto while going around a corner on black ice.

Aborting the TO because of a radio issue? Not buying it. She knew the aircraft wasn't taking off, but yet, she tried it again.

Finally, supporter's comments that she "valiantly avoided homes while fighting the aircraft" was the icing on the cake. Others stated that the mechanic should be arrested.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Serious question: how much buffer is built into performance tables for takeoff distance?
Click to expand...
I have had almost arguments with folks with way more time than me on this one. I can only speak to PA-28s built in the 70s, and for those, I'd say you can make book numbers if you're perfect and the engine is new and strong. If it's 75% into it's normal life, book numbers, in my opinion, will put you into the obstacle. Basing that on flying those aircraft out of a 2500' field w/ obstacles at the end, where the humidity is always high, but we're not in the mountains. Short version, to me the perf charts from 50 years ago are marketing material to be verified, not a promise.

That said, how does a CFI not give themselves enough margin. That's what I don't get with this one.
 
Lindberg said:
This is an issue in the first few feet of the roll and then rudder is fully adequate. And she got off the ground plenty quickly.
Click to expand...
I've not flown a Traveler, but Browne thinks it was a lot more than a few feet. The plane needs enough speed for the rudder to become effective to take ones feet off the brakes and use rudder. Perhaps a Traveler pilot can inform us.

Lindberg said:
Was she unfamiliar?
Click to expand...
Browne seems to imply she was, but we will know eventually I'm sure. I do know, from AA5 pilots I've talked to, that using the castering nose wheel takes some acclimation, although opinions and experiences vary on this it seems.
 
No offense, but I'm not all that interested in arguing with third-hand opinions from a YouTube influencer. If you're Juan using an alias, then let's out with it.
 
I've flown other airplanes with castering nosewheels. Unless there is something special about Grumman, the premise of his argument is wrong. You do not need differential braking during takeoff.
 
dmspilot said:
I've flown other airplanes with castering nosewheels. Unless there is something special about Grumman, the premise of his argument is wrong. You do not need differential braking during takeoff.
Click to expand...
I've never flown an AA5, but I haven't found that to be a real issue in AA5Bs. If I've used differential braking at all, it's at the very start of the takeoff roll. But again, she got off the runway with plenty of room to spare, so this theory just doesn't really seem to fit the facts. The problem was not the amount of time it took to get off the ground, but the inability to climb out of ground effect.
 
dmspilot said:
I've flown other airplanes with castering nosewheels. Unless there is something special about Grumman, the premise of his argument is wrong. You do not need differential braking during takeoff.
Click to expand...
I flew one with 260 HP yesterday. Unless there is a crosswind, a tap of right brake at the very start of the takeoff roll is all that's needed.
 
davela said:
I've not flown a Traveler, but Browne thinks it was a lot more than a few feet. The plane needs enough speed for the rudder to become effective to take ones feet off the brakes and use rudder. Perhaps a Traveler pilot can inform us.
Click to expand...
I've only flown a Grumman (Tiger) once, but I don't remember needing any brake for the takeoff/landing roll. The castering-nosewheel plane I have the most time in is a DA40, and you can get enough rudder authority to turn from a stop with about 1300 RPM, and the rudder becomes effective almost immediately upon initiating the takeoff roll.

dmspilot said:
I've flown other airplanes with castering nosewheels. Unless there is something special about Grumman, the premise of his argument is wrong. You do not need differential braking during takeoff.
Click to expand...
... assuming you know how to use a rudder, which is not a given among tricycle gear GA pilots.
 
Lindberg said:
No offense, but I'm not all that interested in arguing with third-hand opinions from a YouTube influencer. If you're Juan using an alias, then let's out with it.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in arguing with you either, but if you want to respond to my posts, which you have (fully on your own accord), expect me to comment back. I won't accomodate a one-way dialog - sorry.
 
kyleb said:
I flew one with 260 HP yesterday. Unless there is a crosswind, a tap of right brake at the very start of the takeoff roll is all that's needed.
Click to expand...
There's also the trick of starting with the nose a pointed little bit to the right of centerline and then letting the left turning tendencies straighten you out by the time the rudder becomes effective.
 
dmspilot said:
I've flown other airplanes with castering nosewheels. Unless there is something special about Grumman, the premise of his argument is wrong. You do not need differential braking during takeoff.
Click to expand...
Except according to the POH you do - up to 20 mph. That is with a familiar pilot, probably more for someone new.

(reference page 3-3: http://www.rifc.us/downloads/n7178l_poh.pdf)
 
davela said:
Except according to the POH you do - up to 20 mph. That is with a familiar pilot, probably more for someone new.

(reference page 3-3: http://www.rifc.us/downloads/n7178l_poh.pdf)
Click to expand...
"The brakes provide all steering control while taxiing at speeds up to 15 to 20 MPH."

Taxiing and takeoff are two different things. Propwash is negligible at taxi speeds, but it's not negligible during takeoff.

btw your favorite YouTuber has said a lot of other things that were wrong.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
"The brakes provide all steering control while taxiing at speeds up to 15 to 20 MPH."

Taxiing and takeoff are two different things. Propwash is negligible at taxi speeds, but it's not negligible during takeoff.

btw your favorite YouTuber has said a lot of other things that were wrong.
Click to expand...
Why do you say he's my favorite Youtuber? He's one of many that I follow. I also detect a lot of irrational hostility towards Juan Browne and Youtube here. Something's driving that, hard to say.

That said, you are trying to change the facts. Here's an exact quote, taken directly from the PIH from Section III (Operating Procedures) of the Traveler (1975 model year) PIH under heading Take-Off:

"When full power is applied for take-off, directional control is maintained with light toe pressure on the brakes. At speeds above 15-20 MPH, the rudder becomes fully effective and brake steering is NOT necessary. Continued use of brake steering will only prolong the take-off roll."

Note that this is at full power, prop wash and all, not taxiing. So, in fact, there is an implicit warning in the PIH not to ride the brakes and extend the take-off roll, and the caps in "brake steering is NOT necessary" are a not mine. I'll take information in the PIH (which was derived from test pilots at Grumman American) over hanger banter any day thanks.
 
Last edited:
davela said:
Why do you say he's my favorite Youtuber? He's one of many that I follow. I also detect a lot of irrational hostility towards Juan Browne and Youtube here. Something's driving that, hard to say.
Click to expand...
It was a figure of speech. I don't actually know who your favorite YouTuber is. And I have no irrational hostility toward Juan Browne, let alone "a lot" of hostility. I have no idea where you gleaned that from. You seem to be projecting, as noted by your excessively hostile response accusing me of "trying to change the facts," an accusation that is way out of proportion with the tone of what I wrote and out of line.

However, what I do find objectionable, is using a YouTuber's unsubstantiated opinion as evidence that some fact is correct or incorrect, and defending it as it it were your own opinion. If I wanted to argue with Juan Browne, I would go to his YouTube page and do so. We are all here to discuss things with each other, not third parties.

davela said:
That said, you are trying to change the facts. Here's an exact quote quote, taken directly from the POH from Section III (Operating Procedures) of the Traveler (1975 model year) POH under heading Take-Off:
Click to expand...
I quoted the POH exactly, using copy and paste feature on my computer. I changed nothing. The first appearance of the "15-20mph" number is in the taxi section. Please improve your reading comprehension before making baseless accusations.

davela said:
"When full power is applied for take-off, directional control is maintained with light toe pressure on the brakes. At speeds above 15-20 MPH, the rudder becomes fully effective and brake steering is NOT necessary. Continued use of brake steering will only prolong the take-off roll."
Click to expand...
As I quoted earlier, the POH describes differential braking being required to steer while taxiing under 20mph. Rudder effectiveness under taxi conditions and takeoff conditions is different. Just because the rudder is not effective at taxi speeds below 20mph, does not mean brakes must be used for takeoff. There are many differences between the act of taxiing and the act of taking off. One is propeller wash. Another is that we usually take off in a straight line. You should understand an argument before responding to it, instead of copying and pasting the same thing over and over.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
It was a figure of speech. I don't actually know who your favorite YouTuber is. And I have no irrational hostility toward Juan Browne, let alone "a lot" of hostility. I have no idea where you gleaned that from. You seem to be projecting, as noted by your excessively hostile response accusing me of "trying to change the facts" when all I did was quote the POH.

However, what I do find objectionable, is using a YouTuber's unsubstantiated opinion as evidence that some fact is correct or incorrect, and defending it as it it were your own opinion. If I wanted to argue with Juan Browne, I would go to his YouTube page and do so. We are all here to discuss things with each other, not third parties.


I quoted the POH exactly, using copy and paste feature on my computer. I changed nothing. Please improve your reading comprehension before making baseless accusations.


As I quoted earlier, the POH describes differential braking being required to steer while taxiing under 20mph. Rudder effectiveness under taxi conditions and takeoff conditions is different. Just because the rudder is not effective at taxi speeds below 20mph, does not mean brakes must be used for takeoff. There are many differences between the act of taxiing and the act of taking off. One is propeller wash. Another is that we usually take off in a straight line. You should understand an argument before responding to it, instead of copying and pasting the same thing over and over.
Click to expand...
I think I understand the information in the POH perfectly well and my reading comprehension is excellent. And do you make the rules about what we are here to discuss, who we can or cannot quote, etc? Maybe you do if you are a moderator or something like that, but if not that's fascinating. Also, I am not requoting information, but providing the full quote to make it clear it is explicity referring to take-off, not just taxiing as you seem to have suggested.

Back to the Traveler. Whether you think so or not, there is a clear warning from Grumman that excessive brake usage on takeoff can extend the takeoff roll of a Traveler. Browne's opinion is based on published information about the Traveler as is mine. I've never flown a Traveler, but if I ever do I'll certainly heed Section III of the POH.
 
davela said:
Back to the Traveler. Whether you think so or not, there is a clear warning from Grumman that excessive brake usage on takeoff can extend the takeoff roll of a Traveler.
Click to expand...
Wow. You allege your reading comprehension to be excellent, but you do not even understand what we're arguing about. Considering the way you parrot information from third parties without understanding it, I suspect you aren't a pilot. One does not need a warning from a POH to know that using brakes during takeoff would extend the takeoff roll :rolleyes: and I'm pretty sure that would apply to any airplane not just the Traveler. I'm done.
 
Last edited:
davela said:
Back to the Traveler. Whether you think so or not, there is a clear warning from Grumman that excessive brake usage on takeoff can extend the takeoff roll of a Traveler.
Click to expand...
That is no different than any other airplane. See the 777 (?) incident from a couple of weeks ago.
 
davela said:
I'm not interested in arguing with you either, but if you want to respond to my posts, which you have (fully on your own accord), expect me to comment back. I won't accomodate a one-way dialog - sorry.
Click to expand...
Dialog is great. "Juan says . . . ." Isn't dialog. Or rather it's dialog about Juan, not the accident. I'm not hostile to Juan, I'm indifferent and uninterested in what he says, but if I wanted to know his opinion, I know where to find it. If that's what you want to discuss, I think there actually a forum here for that.
davela said:
Back to the Traveler. Whether you think so or not, there is a clear warning from Grumman that excessive brake usage on takeoff can extend the takeoff roll of a Traveler.
Click to expand...
Fine. The preliminary says she was off the ground in less than 1000'. So can we agree that that didn't happen, or at least not to a relevant degree?
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Fine. The preliminary says she was off the ground in less than 1000'. So can we agree that that didn't happen, or at least not to a relevant degree?
Click to expand...
I haven’t been following very closely. Was there anything to suggest that she didn’t get it off the ground and then mushed it into the trees while in ground effect?
 
asicer said:
I haven’t been following very closely. Was there anything to suggest that she didn’t get it off the ground and then mushed it into the trees while in ground effect?
Click to expand...
I think the point is that if it had the power (i.e. acceleration) to get off the ground in 1,000', it should have had the power to clear the obstacles almost a half mile away. Yet it didn't. Hopefully we'll get an answer in a year or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top