PA32 down out of PDK

bflynn said:
Temperature at time of the accident was 78. Not sure it's relevant other than it was a little warmer than normal.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane410.shtml

RisingUp reports the useful load at 1032 lbs with max fuel 94 gallons. No idea how much fuel they had, but at full there is only 468 lbs left to gross, which is much less than 4 adults and baggage. At half tank, they have 750 lbs to gross.

I can imagine a scenario where the fuel jockey is told to put in x gallons, but nearly tops off the tanks instead. Or full tanks in KAVL and didn't burn off enough on the flight down - it's less than an hour flight, they would have been around 85% if starting full?

What scares me about those scenarios is that I can very easily see myself missing the extra fuel quantity and taking off over weight too. It wouldn't be hard to do.
Click to expand...
Over-fueling certainly can put you over-gross. I recently had an experience with ramp zombies in the Baron. I was flying my family back and we were fully loaded. My fuel order of 20 gallons per tank was entered into the system, but the night shift ramper topped it off. It was a pain to have to delay the departure sit around with impatient kids for an hour and a half waiting for the FBO maintenance folks to defuel, but had I not, we would have departed 200 lbs over-gross.
 
This along with the possibility of a mis fuel really brings home complete observation of the fueling process or even self help fueling.

I can remember heading off to meetings at KTRI while I left the FBO to fuel the Arrow. Don't think I will do that any more.
 
bflynn said:
Temperature at time of the accident was 78. Not sure it's relevant other than it was a little warmer than normal.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane410.shtml

RisingUp reports the useful load at 1032 lbs with max fuel 94 gallons. No idea how much fuel they had, but at full there is only 468 lbs left to gross, which is much less than 4 adults and baggage. At half tank, they have 750 lbs to gross.

I can imagine a scenario where the fuel jockey is told to put in x gallons, but nearly tops off the tanks instead. Or full tanks in KAVL and didn't burn off enough on the flight down - it's less than an hour flight, they would have been around 85% if starting full?

What scares me about those scenarios is that I can very easily see myself missing the extra fuel quantity and taking off over weight too. It wouldn't be hard to do.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the last pax was a "surprise" addition. I can imagine a scenario where the pilot filled it up expecting 3 people, then the fiancee arrives with luggage and a dog. It's easy to see him being 200+ lbs overweight in that situation, but deciding to go anyway based on previous experience with the plane.
 
Like it has already been said, most lances have a useful loads of around 1400 lbs. With 94 gallons of fuel that leaves about 830 lbs to put in the plane. 4 FAA people is 680 lbs, which leaves about 150 lbs for luggage and people not being standard. The plane could have been right around max gross, but it still seems unlikely the plane would have been way over gross.

From what little info we have, fuel or engine problems still seem more likely to me.
 
mikeinbama said:
Being over weight scares me so bad I wont even get close.
Click to expand...

You should be conscious of your weight, not scared of it. Understand how it and the weather around you is going to affect your flying. You can't force an airplane to fly, as I see many people try to do. Listen to what it's telling you.

I took the Saratoga out the other day near max gross off PDK (21R), a 3k runway, and a 2.4k sloped, grass strip. No problems. I adjusted my flying to match my needs.

I was worried about the grass strip departure because we all had a pretty big lunch. :D
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
You should be conscious of your weight, not scared of it. Understand how it and the weather around you is going to affect your flying. You can't force an airplane to fly, as I see many people try to do. Listen to what it's telling you.

I took the Saratoga out the other day near max gross off PDK (21R), a 3k runway, and a 2.4k sloped, grass strip. No problems. I adjusted my flying to match my needs.

I was worried about the grass strip departure because we all had a pretty big lunch. :D
Click to expand...

I suppose its all part of personal minimums, as I get more experience I suppose I will expand that envelope.
 
bflynn said:
Temperature at time of the accident was 78. Not sure it's relevant other than it was a little warmer than normal.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane410.shtml

RisingUp reports the useful load at 1032 lbs with max fuel 94 gallons. No idea how much fuel they had, but at full there is only 468 lbs left to gross, which is much less than 4 adults and baggage. At half tank, they have 750 lbs to gross.

I can imagine a scenario where the fuel jockey is told to put in x gallons, but nearly tops off the tanks instead. Or full tanks in KAVL and didn't burn off enough on the flight down - it's less than an hour flight, they would have been around 85% if starting full?

What scares me about those scenarios is that I can very easily see myself missing the extra fuel quantity and taking off over weight too. It wouldn't be hard to do.
Click to expand...

Useful load on a Lance is more around 1400#.
 
Sounds like this is trending to be simply overweight for conditions present. He reportedly filled up all 4 tanks, then the 4 adults, luggage, medium/larger dog, and THREE golf bags.
 
sourdough44 said:
Sounds like this is trending to be simply overweight for conditions present. He reportedly filled up all 4 tanks, then the 4 adults, luggage, medium/larger dog, and THREE golf bags.
Click to expand...

1400 lbs is a lot when you break it down, 550 for fuel leaves 850 for people and stuff. 4 people @ 170 average is 680 that leaves 170 for luggage and the dog. Dog looked to be 70 lbs or so, leaving 100 for luggage. 3 golf bags are 20-25 each, let's call it 70, leaving 30 for luggage, probably more like 100. So if my numbers are right, that puts them 70-100 lbs over gross. Not enough to cause an issue if within CG and everything else is functioning correctly. I'm pretty sure lots of airplanes have flown successfully 100 lbs over gross, not that it's a good idea, but I'm sure it's happened, or so I've been told. :rolleyes:
I can't see why he would have full fuel for a trip that should have been less than 2 hours, especially leaving PDK, it's not the cheapest place to buy gas! :rolleyes:
 
sourdough44 said:
Sounds like this is trending to be simply overweight for conditions present. He reportedly filled up all 4 tanks, then the 4 adults, luggage, medium/larger dog, and THREE golf bags.
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible, but I don't think, even if they were overweight, it could have been that overweight. Not sure how much golf bags weigh though.

For everyone's edification and general play, here is a link to a weight and balance calculator for my Lance. I can't imagine that his was much different.

http://www.weightandbalancecalculator.com/plane/290

I did my own figuring at a 75# dog, 200# for men, 150# for lady, and 50# for baggage, and full fuel. That puts us 60# overweight.
 
Nice weight and balance calculator you have Echo.

It isn't that a plane can't fly 20 lbs overweight, or slightly out of CG limits. It was reportedly 78 degrees about the time they took off, near 1000' field elevation.

Planes have crashed when they were under max weight for conditions. Most any heavily weighted plane may very well call for the pilot being gentle on the controls, accepting the lower pitch attitude with a corresponding low rate of climb. That may also mean no turns after takeoff, wings level straight ahead.

There was an accident a handful of years ago, the NTSB determined they were just under the max weight for conditions, but the pilot stalled it with an aggressive turn after takeoff. You can search the database, his relatives saw them all perish from the runway edge.

Often these accidents come down to simple causes, seemingly simple anyway. Yes, why fill up with expensive fuel for a relatively short flight? Or why not stop for a break and coffee 1.5 hours out, if not there yet?
 
ahkahn said:
It actually handles much better at gross.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Then why do the insurance companies/FBOs require an hour of training at or near gross weight?
 
Last edited:
FlyingTiger said:
Then why do the insurance companies/FBOs require an hour of training at or near gross weight?
Click to expand...

What insurance companies/FBOs?

I used to rent a PA32 regularly in San Diego . Never had such a requirement (one hour checkout with me and CFI), nor have I had such a demand/restriction from insurance in dad's PA32RT.
 
sourdough44 said:
Nice weight and balance calculator you have Echo.



It isn't that a plane can't fly 20 lbs overweight, or slightly out of CG limits. It was reportedly 78 degrees about the time they took off, near 1000' field elevation.



Planes have crashed when they were under max weight for conditions. Most any heavily weighted plane may very well call for the pilot being gentle on the controls, accepting the lower pitch attitude with a corresponding low rate of climb. That may also mean no turns after takeoff, wings level straight ahead.



There was an accident a handful of years ago, the NTSB determined they were just under the max weight for conditions, but the pilot stalled it with an aggressive turn after takeoff. You can search the database, his relatives saw them all perish from the runway edge.



Often these accidents come down to simple causes, seemingly simple anyway. Yes, why fill up with expensive fuel for a relatively short flight? Or why not stop for a break and coffee 1.5 hours out, if not there yet?
Click to expand...

So was it overweight or poor pilot technique? Come on man, you're widely speculating at the point.
 
Saratoga flies happily 400lbs overweight at 90F sea level. Needs around 1,2km of runway.
"or so I've heard"...
 
There was talk initially about a misfuel situation. For those close to PDK, has that been ruled out? Fuel slips were validated?
 
FBO at XLL has this requirement for renting their Lance II:

** - 25 hours complex, 10 hours make & model, flight near gross takeoff weight, 1 hr. aircraft checkout

I know I read something to this effect in an article about the aircraft line, but have yet to find it. However, I did find the following thread right here in POA. Ironically, 92Echo appears to agree with this statement made by a fellow Lance owner:

"When doing your transition training, definitely do a few trips around the pattern at max gross. She flies a bit differently at gross than at "standard training weight."

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81612&highlight=saratoga
 
FlyingTiger said:
FBO at XLL has this requirement for renting their Lance II:

** - 25 hours complex, 10 hours make & model, flight near gross takeoff weight, 1 hr. aircraft checkout

I know I read something to this effect in an article about the aircraft line, but have yet to find it. However, I did find the following thread right here in POA. Ironically, 92Echo appears to agree with this statement made by a fellow Lance owner:

When doing your transition training, definitely do a few trips around the pattern at max gross. She flies a bit differently at gross than at "standard training weight."

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81612&highlight=saratoga
Click to expand...

There is no doubt airplanes fly differently at different weights. BUT, this pilot made a straight out departure and at best only climbed to a few hundred feet. It isn't like he was maneuvering. The airplane just wouldn't climb. The point is, pilot training isn't going to fix a situation where the airplane doesn't have sufficient excess power to climb.
 
GLMS_NC said:
There was talk initially about a misfuel situation. For those close to PDK, has that been ruled out? Fuel slips were validated?
Click to expand...

Supposedly, but I've seen nothing "official" and I'd wait to hear that before completely eliminating it as a possibility.
 
It is a very different plane at different weights. It is very jumpy and jackrabbity at low weight and very docile and solid at gross. It was designed to be a hauler. The main reason to cross train at gross is because of those handling differences. Personally, I find it to fly much better closer to gross... Unlike the Cessna's I've flown which seem sluggish near gross.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Density altitude can be a *****. I learned it and thought I had experienced some of it but never really got it until an 80+ degree day, 160lbs under max gross, with an uphill takeoff. Low and slow
 
From what I've heard, misfuel has been ruled out.

I also heard from people at the field that there was a tremendous amount of baggage on board and that they topped off the tanks. Beyond that, we just don't know.

Maybe the pilot accidentally took off on one mag, and that, combined with the weight, just wasn't enough. Pure speculation...who knows
 
Unless you load it with lead, a Saratoga/Lance is pretty much impossible to load so badly overweight that it won't climb with only 4 adults on board. With the amount of runway they had available, they should have been able to take off with probably close to 4500lbs TOW.
 
dwalt said:
From what I've heard, misfuel has been ruled out.

I also heard from people at the field that there was a tremendous amount of baggage on board and that they topped off the tanks. Beyond that, we just don't know.

Maybe the pilot accidentally took off on one mag, and that, combined with the weight, just wasn't enough. Pure speculation...who knows
Click to expand...

1 mag sounds like the most plausible explanation. Hadn't even thought about that.
 
dwalt said:
From what I've heard, misfuel has been ruled out.

I also heard from people at the field that there was a tremendous amount of baggage on board and that they topped off the tanks. Beyond that, we just don't know.
Click to expand...

Spoke to a line guy yesterday - he confirmed the same thing. 100LL, topped off, and lots of bags.
 
I pulled this from an article about the Piper PA32s:

"Heavily loaded, it takes the same precise touch that big, old, transport category airplanes require, particularly with a loading biased towards aft cg. In such cases, it points its enormous nose towards the sky even on the ground. It looks as though it is out of the loading envelope even when it is not.

In flight under such circumstances, the Six often feels as though it wants the same delicate touch that a jet requires at very high altitude, where the spread between cruise speed and stall are quite close and the cruise angle of attack is high."

Full Article: http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Piper-Turbo-Saratoga
 
Last edited:
FlyingTiger said:
I pulled this from an article about the Piper PA32s:

"Heavily loaded, it takes the same precise touch that big, old, transport category airplanes require, particularly with a loading biased towards aft cg. In such cases, it points its enormous nose towards the sky even on the ground. It looks as though it is out of the loading envelope even when it is not.

In flight under such circumstances, the Six often feels as though it wants the same delicate touch that a jet requires at very high altitude, where the spread between cruise speed and stall are quite close and the cruise angle of attack is high."

Full Article: http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Piper-Turbo-Saratoga
Click to expand...


Agreed....

It takes finesse.

If he horsed into the air and kept it nose up and struggling for the entire 3 miles, then he was asking for the end result....

If he did (and it looks like he did take off from the shorter runway) he still had a mile or so to keep it real low, in ground effect, to be able to accelerate , get his airspeed to a workable number and slowly climb to a cruising altitude.

Still a very sad deal for sure.
 
^^^^^
Currently transitioning to a PA32R. I have been told by my CFI on takeoff to expect the plane to be mushy just after the mains get off the ground. Let the plane accelerate in ground effect for a second or two, then you can pull back into a more typical climb.
 
drotto said:
^^^^^
Currently transitioning to a PA32R. I have been told by my CFI on takeoff to expect the plane to be mushy just after the mains get off the ground. Let the plane accelerate in ground effect for a second or two, then you can pull back into a more typical climb.
Click to expand...

yes....it's not a big deal, but it does fly differently loaded.

You certainly won't have the same climb performance loaded or at high DA.:no:
 
drotto said:
^^^^^
Currently transitioning to a PA32R. I have been told by my CFI on takeoff to expect the plane to be mushy just after the mains get off the ground. Let the plane accelerate in ground effect for a second or two, then you can pull back into a more typical climb.
Click to expand...

I would think the owner pilot would know that he can't ham fist it into the air.

Has anyone done any stats on departure stall occurrences in the NTSB database? If memory serves correct (and I'm on an iPhone right now) the occasion is rare, yet we are still tested on it ala PTS.
 
ahkahn said:
1 mag sounds like the most plausible explanation. Hadn't even thought about that.
Click to expand...

I took off with another pilot who was practicing approaches with only 1 mag on. A 182 with two of us on board felt like my 150 loaded up on a hot day. Luckily we were taking off out of a 12,000 ft runway, not a short runway with obstacles. We ran through the checklist and figured out the issue and normal climb out resumed. I can see how that would cause a big issue loaded up if the pilot was determined to climb out.
 
I shelled a mag at 200' right after takeoff in a 207 once at gross - thing didn't climb another foot. I thought I had lost a cylinder.
 
Thankfully never having lost a mag on takeoff, if you reduce your climb to minimal or at least just go to maintaining alt, will you stay in the air?
 
drotto said:
Thankfully never having lost a mag on takeoff, if you reduce your climb to minimal or at least just go to maintaining alt, will you stay in the air?
Click to expand...

I think it would depend if excess performance was available. A cool day, lightly loaded would be much different than a warm day, heavily loaded.

One of my worst is when I lost one cylinder just after T/O. I was able to stay in the air, but I had no further climb.
 
Mike5250 said:
I took off with another pilot who was practicing approaches with only 1 mag on. A 182 with two of us on board felt like my 150 loaded up on a hot day. Luckily we were taking off out of a 12,000 ft runway, not a short runway with obstacles. We ran through the checklist and figured out the issue and normal climb out resumed. I can see how that would cause a big issue loaded up if the pilot was determined to climb out.
Click to expand...

That's good information. I've never done it, and pray I never do it, but it sounds very plausible to me that that may be the case for this accident.

I find it highly unlikely (nearly impossible) that the plane was overloaded to the point of failure, but you add a mag turned off to the mix and that is the chain of events right there. This plane also has a Bendix dual mag, so it is more plausible to me that the mag wasn't turned back on after the run up rather than a failure.
 
Wouldn't the lack of power be noticed on the takeoff roll with a Mag grounded?
 
tmyers said:
Wouldn't the lack of power be noticed on the takeoff roll with a Mag grounded?
Click to expand...

You would think..... I always look down at the tach for proper RPM's while early in the take off roll..
 
Even if it is s mag (pure speculation), why is everyone blaming the pilot? Can't a mag fail just after takeoff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top