Gaston's claims an SR-22 on takeoff with 3 aboard, no injuries

You know, sometimes I get a bit strident about how folks shouldn't have such a tough time operating out of a 3000 foot runway at 400 foot elevation. But I have to admit, after my takeoff from Oshkosh I need to lighten my tone. I thought I was going to have to abort that takeoff, the airplane was just so sluggish. I insisted on no less than 5000 feet of runway of my fuel stop, and boy was I glad I did.

We were at gross weight, but the aircraft should easily be able to function. It was the density altitude, which was quite high on a hot humid summer day. I can only image in what the density altitudes are in Arkansas. With that kind of heat and humidity I can see a 3000 foot turf strip being a real issue for lots of folks.
 
If you look at that first picture, the fuselage top and bottom halves separated at the seam! But no fire, despite being a Cirrus, and despite significant wing damage. Very glad there were no injuries.

If you were in that cabin, how's that for a wakeup call??!
 
steingar said:
You know, sometimes I get a bit strident about how folks shouldn't have such a tough time operating out of a 3000 foot runway at 400 foot elevation. But I have to admit, after my takeoff from Oshkosh I need to lighten my tone. I thought I was going to have to abort that takeoff, the airplane was just so sluggish. I insisted on no less than 5000 feet of runway of my fuel stop, and boy was I glad I did.

We were at gross weight, but the aircraft should easily be able to function. It was the density altitude, which was quite high on a hot humid summer day. I can only image in what the density altitudes are in Arkansas. With that kind of heat and humidity I can see a 3000 foot turf strip being a real issue for lots of folks.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking directional control or wheel malfunction was an issue here, because these cabins shown aren't even the ones down at the far end.... but your point is well taken! That first "oh SH**" takeoff will teach you a lesson you'll never forget.
 
DA is no joke. My home drome is at 3400'. On a 90 degree day it can get real interesting watching the folks from the valley head home from a weekend after loading up and topping off.
 
Yeah. I can see where one could get into the trap. You think, 3000 feet is plenty of room, the airplane has lots of oomph. But then you start taking off and the thing is more sluggish than you've ever seen it. Sure you can take off, you've down it plenty of times. I can see that biting us Northern pilots hard, I myself am not at all used to such conditions. yeah, I can see why the field claims so many aircraft.
 
What I find most interesting is how their final resting point leaves nearly 1,000 ft of runway still remaining in front of them. I can't imagine how that could happen without either some serious pilot error or a rudder that failed. Their loss of directional control had to start hundreds of feet or more before their resting point -- which means that they lost it with half the runway left.

There is a reason I stay hundreds of pounds under gross with at Gastons and leave myself a 50% margin on the takeoff performance charts. It's just not worth it.

Their airplane came to rest 2,200 ft from the start of the runway, 170 ft horizontal of the runway centerline, with 1,000 ft of runway remaining.
 
Last edited:
Graueradler said:
3,600 at KRUE (Russellville -410 MSL) at 5 PM - 42 Celsius ~108F
Click to expand...

That's about what it was at my fuel stop in Indiana, and I'll bet I used 2500 feet of asphalt to get off if not 3000. And we were at least 80 pounds under gross. Something new to think about. Glad I didn't need an incident to drum that into my ugly bald skull.
 
Failure to pull the chute does that every time:rofl:

First action to take when control is lost is to pull the chute:D

After the crash plane failed to ignite and explode:yikes: that is not normal, the NTSB will investigate!

Happy to hear that everyone is fine, an exception when it involves a Cirrus.
Cheers
 
steingar said:
That's about what it was at my fuel stop in Indiana, and I'll bet I used 2500 feet of asphalt to get off if not 3000. And we were at least 80 pounds under gross. Something new to think about. Glad I didn't need an incident to drum that into my ugly bald skull.
Click to expand...

not trying to be a smart*** but you may want to check out your Cherokee or reconsider your technique. That's a whole lot of runway for a cherokee at 3500' DA. like double what you should need. My runway is at 3,610' elev. and I abort if I'm not flying by the 1,600 mark.
 
steingar said:
You know, sometimes I get a bit strident about how folks shouldn't have such a tough time operating out of a 3000 foot runway at 400 foot elevation. But I have to admit, after my takeoff from Oshkosh I need to lighten my tone. I thought I was going to have to abort that takeoff, the airplane was just so sluggish. I insisted on no less than 5000 feet of runway of my fuel stop, and boy was I glad I did.

We were at gross weight, but the aircraft should easily be able to function. It was the density altitude, which was quite high on a hot humid summer day. I can only image in what the density altitudes are in Arkansas. With that kind of heat and humidity I can see a 3000 foot turf strip being a real issue for lots of folks.
Click to expand...

That was reinforced for me at Lamar (LLU) with storms nearby. 2900 feet with wires off the south end. I cleared 'em, but used every bit of the "50 foot obstruction" training I had. Had I been full gross weight, it would have been too close for comfort. Lesson reinforced.
 
One wonders whether he might have launched a bit early from bouncing on the grass surface; it is an excellent runway, but sometimes folks get a little sideways and exacerbate the problem while trying to fix it, increasing oscillations.

Very fortunate that there was no fire.
 
how heavy is the rudder required on takeoff? the last half of the runway looks a lot shorter than the first half when you're near flying speed. perhaps he pulled power to abort but left his right foot down.
 
Can anybody see in the picture if the flaps were down for TO?
 
SCCutler said:
One wonders whether he might have launched a bit early from bouncing on the grass surface; it is an excellent runway, but sometimes folks get a little sideways and exacerbate the problem while trying to fix it, increasing oscillations.

Very fortunate that there was no fire.
Click to expand...

That's the mental picture I was forming...
 
Threefingeredjack said:
DA is no joke. My home drome is at 3400'. On a 90 degree day it can get real interesting watching the folks from the valley head home from a weekend after loading up and topping off.
Click to expand...
No kidding. The other day I took off on 18 at 57D after topping the tanks off, and was surprised to have to use some of the turf (starting 900' down the rwy) to get off into ground effect. That time I was alone, but with my instructor's 250 lbs in the right seat, we've even had some momentarily scary takeoffs from VLL where the stall horn starts chirping and the ASI struggles to get over 65 KIAS on the climbout, even though the pitch attitude says we should be going faster than that. Even though we're still well under gross, I won't fly with him and full tanks on a day when the DA is over 3000 feet.
 
jesse said:
What I find most interesting is how their final resting point leaves nearly 1,000 ft of runway still remaining in front of them. I can't imagine how that could happen without either some serious pilot error or a rudder that failed. Their loss of directional control had to start hundreds of feet or more before their resting point -- which means that they lost it with half the runway left.

There is a reason I stay hundreds of pounds under gross with at Gastons and leave myself a 50% margin on the takeoff performance charts. It's just not worth it.

Their airplane came to rest 2,200 ft from the start of the runway, 170 ft horizontal of the runway centerline, with 1,000 ft of runway remaining.
Click to expand...

Nice insight. Sounds more like an unexplained loss of control rather than a DA issue with that bit of info. :thumbsup:
 
Several times when I have been at Gastons watching aircraft taking off from 06 as we all do, I have seen a lot of pilots rotate a little to soon. I have seen a few come very close to trees when their planes are short of flying speed. I remember a Mooney that scared the hell out of the trees on the left side of the runway. Getting into the air to early with slow airspeed and if you don't lower the nose can leave a pilot with a control problem. I can't see why anyone should have problems at that elevation and a runway that is that long.
 
Here's my take off from Gaston's in a C150, hot day, with passenger, but only about 1/2 fuel load. At 22 seconds into the video, you can briefly hear what sounds suspiciously like the stall warning horn. On either side of the end of the runway at that time were two tall trees. As I fly between them, my wings are below their level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDyozdzRHo4&feature=plcp
 
Last edited:
Threefingeredjack said:
Nice insight. Sounds more like an unexplained loss of control rather than a DA issue with that bit of info. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Could be a combo...this hot everything suffers 20%...with test pilots. I use 30% for safety because even though I was an FCF pilot, I ain't no test pilot...heat...the enemy of all things mechanical...especially aircraft.:idea:
 
The Cirrus has little tolerance for center-line control on a normal day...get a main to plant into some soft crud and Cya.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
http://www.kctv5.com/story/19149175/small-plane-crashes-at-gastons-no-injuries

http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-small-plane-crashes-in-baxter-county-ar-20120730,0,2043197.story

http://www.baxterbulletin.com/artic...7300040/Plane-crashes-Gaston-s?nclick_check=1
Click to expand...

Wow, tough crowd here.

The good news is that 3 young men will wake up tomorrow. That doesn't always happen, I seem to remember a Saratoga crashing at Gaston's a couple of years ago with a much worse outcome.

The bad news is that all the Monday morning quarterbacks will have to wait 12 to 18 months for the NTSB report to come out and have their pet theories validated or refuted.

Burt M.
 
taters said:
The Cirrus has little tolerance for center-line control on a normal day...get a main to plant into some soft crud and Cya.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I've never flown a Cirrus and probably never will, but is there something unique in their gear design?

I've made lousy landings in a bunch of Cessnas - spring steel gear of different thicknesses and heights, tubular steel gear and so on. But takeoffs have been pretty easy in all of them.

What's the difference?
 
Maybe he wasn't aware of the one way in and one way out and tried to take off in the wrong direction?
 
I've taken off hot, high and moderately heavy with a quartering tailwind once. Once. Thank Odin I had a loooooong runway and a 182.

Personally, I don't do grass fields. Oshkosh was the first time I rolled my wheels on grass since my primary training. My insurance policy says paved only.

No clue what happened here. Glad lives were spared. But if you're going to take pax into grass strips I dare say you should practice soft field techniques with a turf-savvy CFI beforehand. PIC carries some heavy responsibilities.
 
Morne said:
I've taken off hot, high and moderately heavy with a quartering tailwind once. Once. Thank Odin I had a loooooong runway and a 182.

Personally, I don't do grass fields. Oshkosh was the first time I rolled my wheels on grass since my primary training. My insurance policy says paved only.

No clue what happened here. Glad lives were spared. But if you're going to take pax into grass strips I dare say you should practice soft field techniques with a turf-savvy CFI beforehand. PIC carries some heavy responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Your insurance policy on a 182 says "paved only", seriously? Or does it say no "unimproved airports"..big difference.
 
jesse said:
Your insurance policy on a 182 says "paved only", seriously? Or does it say no "unimproved airports"..big difference.
Click to expand...

I dunno about how the wording goes, but there are people around here that are part of good clubs that aren't allowed to operate on grass.

Why that is, I don't know, to me it would be harder to tear up a plane on pavement than a turf runway but I don't work for Avemco, et al.
 
BurtM said:
That's interesting. I've never flown a Cirrus and probably never will, but is there something unique in their gear design?

I've made lousy landings in a bunch of Cessnas - spring steel gear of different thicknesses and heights, tubular steel gear and so on. But takeoffs have been pretty easy in all of them.

What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Lots of p factor on a light frame and a catering nose wheel make it different....takes really tight rudder control. I never landed on grass with one but I have had a hell of a time maintaining control in wintry conditions where other planes I fly don't even blink.
 
bartmc said:
not trying to be a smart*** but you may want to check out your Cherokee or reconsider your technique. That's a whole lot of runway for a cherokee at 3500' DA. like double what you should need. My runway is at 3,610' elev. and I abort if I'm not flying by the 1,600 mark.
Click to expand...

Load it up to gross and then tell me about it.
 
BurtM said:
Wow, tough crowd here.

The good news is that 3 young men will wake up tomorrow. That doesn't always happen, I seem to remember a Saratoga crashing at Gaston's a couple of years ago with a much worse outcome.

The bad news is that all the Monday morning quarterbacks will have to wait 12 to 18 months for the NTSB report to come out and have their pet theories validated or refuted.

Burt M.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought this was a pilots forum where we could share some ideas. The good thing is no one was hurt. If the situation had been different the Monday morning QBs might have been a little more sensitive.
 
The tendency for premature rotation seems to be common at grass strips, especially those with any obstruction (real or perceived) at the end. It's an every-day occurrence on weekends at Cedar Mills Marina at Lake Texoma. Based on observations of pilot technique, I have concluded that precise directional control is more difficult in a nose-high mush down the runway. Height of grass and field conditions (puddles bordering on small lakes) can also be a factor at Gastons and other grass fields.



Bob Bement said:
Several times when I have been at Gastons watching aircraft taking off from 06 as we all do, I have seen a lot of pilots rotate a little to soon. I have seen a few come very close to trees when their planes are short of flying speed. I remember a Mooney that scared the hell out of the trees on the left side of the runway. Getting into the air to early with slow airspeed and if you don't lower the nose can leave a pilot with a control problem. I can't see why anyone should have problems at that elevation and a runway that is that long.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The tendency for premature rotation seems to be common at grass strips, especially those with any obstruction (real or perceived) at the end. It's an every-day occurrence on weekends at Cedar Mills Marina at Lake Texoma. Based on observations of pilot technique, I have concluded that precise directional control is more difficult in a nose-high mush down the runway. Height of grass and field conditions (puddles bordering on small lakes) can also be a factor at Gastons and other grass fields.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The control that's the wimpiest during true "STOL" takeoffs in our 182 with the Robertson kit is rudder. It's the limiting factor more than if the airplane will launch itself. The POH addendum calls for full right rudder trim. (I've found that to be a bit too much but understand why they put it in there for the weak-legged...)
 
tinerj said:
Here's my take off from Gaston's in a C150, hot day, with passenger, but only about 1/2 fuel load. At 22 seconds into the video, you can briefly hear what sounds suspiciously like the stall warning horn. On either side of the end of the runway at that time were two tall trees. As I fly between them, my wings are below their level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDyozdzRHo4&feature=plcp
Click to expand...

Looks about like my departure when I was last there in a Sundowner. Wasn't a big deal as I make it a point to track the centerline after takeoff regardless of the field, but pretty cool to zip between 2 big trees at 85 mph. Those trees sure look a lot bigger from the left seat than from the ground!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
 
wabower said:
The tendency for premature rotation seems to be common at grass strips
Click to expand...

Whatever happened to the 'soft field' technique of pulling the nosewheel off the ground ASAP, remaining in ground effect until Vx and then climbing and maintaining Vx. I consider 'rotate' to be lifting the nosewheel..

Seems like with a castering nosewheel, you have the same amount of directional control in a cirrus regardless if the nosewheel is on the ground or not.

The cirrus has lots of HP, with the throttle wide open he should have had plenty of rudder authority to control the plane, if the field was in at least halfway decent shape and barring a mechanical failure. Possibly one of his wheels locked up from grass or debris... or simply the pilot had a too little too late reaction to a swerve caused by hitting a puddle or something..
 
Last edited:
that would apply if you were taking off from a soft field
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top