Plane Crash at Gaston's

Very sad and very glad it wasn't one of ours. Still trying to figure out how he barrel rolled down the hill and the vertical stab is still intact.
 
AdamZ said:
Very sad and very glad it wasn't one of ours. Still trying to figure out how he barrel rolled down the hill and the vertical stab is still intact.
Click to expand...

I think hitting that tree and ripping a wing off had something to do with it...
 
Very, very sad. Gaston's has definitely claimed its share of victims. However, a competent pilot in ANY plane that's not overloaded should be able to navigate in and out of Gaston's in all but the most extreme conditions.

As long as you can get your bird off the ground in the length of the runway you can fly down the river to New Orleans if you want to. Not that I'd recommend it, but, like Jesse said, it's better than punching it into a bluff.

I've gone in and out of Gaston's with my '57 C172A & a 145hp contintental 0-300 numerous times with 3 adults and had no problems, even on some pretty hot summer days.

Now that I have a 182 I don't even think twice. But, admittedly, I've also never had three people in my 182. I don't even keep the back seat in it.

I always fly the "slot in the bluff" departure myself with the "duck down the river" departure in my back pocket.

Edit: I'm probably not the one to be objectively evaluating the risks Gaston's poses for the typical pilot. I learned how to fly at HRO and logged almost two dozen landings at Gaston's while I was still a student pilot. My primary instructor was an retired army aviator and he was over the top with his conservative approach to training. He knew I'd be going to Gaston's with passengers for Sunday brunch as soon as I got my license (since it was only 29nm from HRO) so he made certain that I was completely comfortable with it. One caveat...every time we went there I had to buy his meal! :rolleyes:

But, it was well worth it.
 
Last edited:
Geeze this just gets more depressing. The Stlouis Today site posted photos of the boys it makes it so much more real :frown3: Then to read that the Ritz boy lost an older brother to Cancer some years ago, well I can't imagine what living hell his parents are going through.

I think the second link Diana posted mentioned the guy taxied through "thick fog" to the runway. That is obviously concerning as is the fact that the boys allegedly held packs on their laps.

I wasn't at gastons 2 but I did see the videos and I am wondering if the wobbling and Wing dips that are mentions could be from that dip that gave Michael Driggs that premature launch in his mooney back then, I think it was in 2005 but not sure. Sounds a lot like what happened to him except thank G-d he got fully airborne.

If this teaches anything at all lets all remember that we have a huge responsibility to our pax.
 
Adam:

Of course, I don't know what happened, but a fisherman and spectator both said the engine didn't sound right. The plane pulled up; then dipped.

There is plenty of room to accelerate in ground effect after the runway ends, or to put the plane back down in a pasture past the runway or even the river if one gets that far.

This really sounds as if he tried to climb before the plane was ready and stalled it.

Guess we'll see, but this stuff the FAA teaches about pulling the plane off the ground and climbing at Vx at 1.20 over stall isn't good stuff. If one keeps the nose down and accelerates longer in this situation, there is much more room to either put the plane back down or get up to a better speed before climing.

See John Deakins Savy Aviator column. Look at departing from a soft field and notice John recommends accelerating in ground effect before climing.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182089-1.htmlhttp://www.avweb.com/news/pel
ican/182089-1.html


Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Guess we'll see, but this stuff the FAA teaches about pulling the plane off the ground and climbing at Vx at 1.20 over stall isn't good stuff. If one keeps the nose down and accelerates longer in this situation, there is much more room to either put the plane back down or get up to a better speed before climing.
Click to expand...
It's impractical in many planes anyways because climbing out at that speed can raise CHTs well into the 400s. The 5 seconds spent accelerating in ground effect drastically reduce CHTs for the rest of the climb IME.
 
Maybe a case of too rich on takeoff? With it being that hot and humid, the DAs can get up there, and the mindset of always slamming it to full rich on takeoff isn't always the best thing. Mixture for best power on takeoff, just a brainless full rich can help sometimes too.
 
Doesn't matter, Ed. Too much pig on a too hot day. FIVE people holding backpack on their LAPS, for heaven's sake. They may have been legal (weight) but I wonder if the FSDO can even determine that. But judgement might have been better.

FOUR pax in the van to PBK, One pilot up the hill to PBK in the PA32, thence load up for home is how I'd do it.
 
Bruce is, of course, correct as far as the go/no go decision.

Once he went, then the other factors I mentioned would have been good to use.

Ed: That sure could have led to there being less than normal power. So, where would one abort in that case?

Best,

Dave
 
Well, I would think that an abort point would probably be somewhere around cabin 55. Even if you don't get it back down to 0 groundspeed by the end of the runway, taxi speed won't kill you going off the ledge. I walked down there saturday morning just to see how un-runway like it was. And other than the drop off it didnt seem that bad.
 
EdFred said:
Maybe a case of too rich on takeoff? With it being that hot and humid, the DAs can get up there, and the mindset of always slamming it to full rich on takeoff isn't always the best thing. Mixture for best power on takeoff, just a brainless full rich can help sometimes too.
Click to expand...

Even a 110 degree temp wouln't put the DA much above 4000 ft unless you were in the eye of a hurricane and no engine manufacturer I know of recommends or even allows leaning to regain lost HP below 5000 ft. DA's in the 3000-4000 ft range do reduce engine power noticeably but leaning to best power would only restore a few percent (at the expense of excessive temps).
 
Well, we're making a lot of assumptions here. Lance is correct if the engine was properly set up (fuel flow wise). In my TN-A36, taking off full rich could really reduce power even at sea level.
Had a friend almost lose a 210 on departure because the mixture knob had moved back on the talkoff roll (became too lean).
We don't know if he used flaps to get off the ground and accelerate in ground effect.

Still, many of these are from someone either being too heavy or not developing normal power. At some point, they try to yank the plane off the ground and it won't fly. If he was trying to climb over the trees at the end of the runway, rather than accelerate while going in-between, this certainly could have lead to this accident occurring.

Even an aborted takeoff with a lot of damage to the plane is most often better than losing control after stalling.

Best,

Dave
 
gismo said:
Even a 110 degree temp wouln't put the DA much above 4000 ft unless you were in the eye of a hurricane and no engine manufacturer I know of recommends or even allows leaning to regain lost HP below 5000 ft. DA's in the 3000-4000 ft range do reduce engine power noticeably but leaning to best power would only restore a few percent (at the expense of excessive temps).
Click to expand...
It really depends on the airplane. The not-very-powerful Cherokee 180 I fly is *WAY* too ******** rich. A full rich takeoff in it at Gastons would have been an eye opener. There is a dramatic increase in power after leaning some.

The owner says to lean it for takeoff. The airplane has way more power. I get off the ground way earlier. Works for me.

That said, an improperly set mixture, really isn't an excuse to just lean instead of fixing it. But from my stand-point...I don't care..I just run it like the owner says.
 
gismo said:
Even a 110 degree temp wouln't put the DA much above 4000 ft unless you were in the eye of a hurricane and no engine manufacturer I know of recommends or even allows leaning to regain lost HP below 5000 ft. DA's in the 3000-4000 ft range do reduce engine power noticeably but leaning to best power would only restore a few percent (at the expense of excessive temps).
Click to expand...
This statement confuses me a bit. Do you actually subscribe to this recommendation by the engine manufacturers? It's pretty obviously bogus.

If ROP, lean to target EGT. If your engine is set up correctly at SE standard conditions, this will ensure that the engine is getting exactly the same air/fuel mixture at any altitude. I lean as soon as I suspect that PA/DA is sufficiently high for leaning to make a difference. 4000' would be such a difference.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
This statement confuses me a bit. Do you actually subscribe to this recommendation by the engine manufacturers? It's pretty obviously bogus.

If ROP, lean to target EGT. If your engine is set up correctly at SE standard conditions, this will ensure that the engine is getting exactly the same air/fuel mixture at any altitude. I lean as soon as I suspect that PA/DA is sufficiently high for leaning to make a difference. 4000' would be such a difference.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Felix, if the engine is set up per the manufacturer's specs WRT full power mixture, the power lost by leaving it full rich at a 4000 DA is very small (compared to leaning it to the same EGT seen on takeoff at a "normal" DA). If you examine a typical power vs mixture curve, you'll see that it's pretty flat from about 50 ROP to about 350 ROP and doesn't get a lot steeper until the mixture gets rich enough to make black smoke.

You can develop noticeably more power by leaning to the "best power" mixture but that will generally make the cylinders overheat quickly. Once you're airborne and climbing it's OK to lean to that "normal" takeoff EGT but as I said earlier, I don't know of a single manufacturer of aircraft engines that recommends doing that on takeoff below 5000 DA. That said, I don't see any reason not to lean to the "target EGT" at 4000 DA, just that there's not much benefit in terms of additional power, certainly not enough that I'd want to make a takeoff where that tiny bit of power was critical.

Finally, I as hot as Gaston's seems to get, I really doubt that the temp was anywhere near 110 that morning. 85 is probably more like it and assuming the atmospheric pressure was near standard, the DA was actually only 2250.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
Finally, I as hot as Gaston's seems to get, I really doubt that the temp was anywhere near 110 that morning. 85 is probably more like it and assuming the atmospheric pressure was near standard, the DA was actually only 2250.
Click to expand...
Sigh. A fully loaded Lance/toga is a hog even with all its horsepower.
 
bbchien said:
Sigh. A fully loaded Lance/toga is a hog even with all its horsepower.
Click to expand...

I found the same to be true of the Cherokee Six. And because the takeoff performance is so good with just one or two on board some pilots foolishly believe that it performs nearly as well at MGW. I can still clearly remember trying to will the airplane off the ground when I was flying with a friend in his fully loaded Six off the 4000 ft N-S runway at Warsaw IN on a hot afternoon. We made it but I think we used all but a few hundred feet of that runway and just kinda oozed up in the initial climb. At least he was smart enough to fly the right airspeed and didn't attempt to "make" it fly before it was ready.
 
gismo said:
I found the same to be true of the Cherokee Six. And because the takeoff performance is so good with just one or two on board some pilots foolishly believe that it performs nearly as well at MGW. I can still clearly remember trying to will the airplane off the ground when I was flying with a friend in his fully loaded Six off the 4000 ft N-S runway at Warsaw IN on a hot afternoon. We made it but I think we used all but a few hundred feet of that runway and just kinda oozed up in the initial climb. At least he was smart enough to fly the right airspeed and didn't attempt to "make" it fly before it was ready.
Click to expand...
....same airplane. And, Gaston's is 3300 and it's grass.
 
gismo said:
Felix, if the engine is set up per the manufacturer's specs WRT full power mixture, the power lost by leaving it full rich at a 4000 DA is very small (compared to leaning it to the same EGT seen on takeoff at a "normal" DA). If you examine a typical power vs mixture curve, you'll see that it's pretty flat from about 50 ROP to about 350 ROP and doesn't get a lot steeper until the mixture gets rich enough to make black smoke.
Click to expand...
Makes thanks Lance, thanks. I was just thinking that many engines are set up to be quite a bit richer than what the manufacturer might recommend. I know that on my Bonanza, for example, we increased the take off fuel flow to 27 gph, which is quite rich and a lot richer than the original fuel flow of that engine.

gismo said:
You can develop noticeably more power by leaning to the "best power" mixture but that will generally make the cylinders overheat quickly. Once you're airborne and climbing it's OK to lean to that "normal" takeoff EGT but as I said earlier, I don't know of a single manufacturer of aircraft engines that recommends doing that on takeoff below 5000 DA. That said, I don't see any reason not to lean to the "target EGT" at 4000 DA, just that there's not much benefit in terms of additional power, certainly not enough that I'd want to make a takeoff where that tiny bit of power was critical.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't even think to lean most IO520/550s to best power on takeoff. Talk about 440s CHTs :O I see your point about the added power you get by leaning at those lower altitudes potentially being insignificant.

-Felix
 
I won't belabor it, but I often leaned for takeoff in my A36TN. As soon as I cleared any obstacles, I immediately began to enrichen again. The CHTs didn't begin to really climb for a couple minutes, but when they did, you better had already been cooling them because they really lag. Once climbing, they continue. In the TN model, I had enough extra fuel flow to cool them very quickly.

I have done the same thing in the 58P. One can also lower the nose after obstacle clearance. Leaning can make quite a difference in takeoff performance. Of course, this is a turboed plane. My takeoff fuel flow is over 30 gallons per side. The NA versions don't have as much excess fuel flow.

The A-36 had to be able to sit on the ramp for one hour on a 90 degree day with full fuel; then, to depart and climb straight to FL180 without exceeding CHT limits to be certified. A sustained climb to the higher altitudes was challenging CHT management. One didn't want to get behind temperature rises. So, if one had the luxury of a shallowed out the climb for a bit or flew level for a couple minutes, CHTs would become manageable quickly. Leaning on departure really isn't an issue for me if just departing and leveling out fairly low if I stay ahead of things.

If one doesn't stay ahead of the temp rises, they will become frequent clients of cylinder manufacturers <g>. If you like getting cards and gifts from the cylinder guys, leaning and not enrichening quickly after departure will get you on their list. One can also over lean and ruin things pretty quickly.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
flyer said:
This is the reason I wont take my underpowered 172 in there. The little O320 engine just needs a few more ponys to drag a 172 size airframe out of there, especially on a hot day.
Click to expand...

Go out light and early and you'll do fine. We did it safely in our 150 HP Warrior. Of course I came home and immediately ordered an O-360 180 hp engine for the plane. :smilewinkgrin:
 
May not have been over MGW but sure as heck could have been to heavy for conditions. I still get back to my thoughts of Michael Driggs and his premature launch in the M20C
 
I spend many pleasant hours each year just sitting under the wing at Cedar Mills, just watching the comings and goings on the grass strip and gabbing with whomever happens to be there that day.

It's interesting to see the percentage of takeoffs where the pilot starts yanking well before rotation speed, then mushes into the air and staggers towards the tree at the end. Fortunately, there's a big enough gap (kinda like Gaston's) to provide clearance, but some of the departures are downright ug's.

AdamZ said:
May not have been over MGW but sure as heck could have been to heavy for conditions. I still get back to my thoughts of Michael Driggs and his premature launch in the M20C
Click to expand...
 
The crash was 3/4 mile from the end of runway 6 & down an embankment of an approximately 30 degree slope. There are several flat hay fields between the end of runway 6 & the crash location.

The fence impacted is approx. 6 ft above the base of the tree impacted & approx. 40ft. away. The fence impacted is at the Northeast end of a very large hay field.

The top 3 wires of the 5 wire fence were cut & two of the T post tops were impacted.

{My estimation from tree damage on the left side of the tree & the lack of damage on the right side of the trees low hanging limbs.} The left wing appears to have been 15 to 20 ft off the ground & the right wing appears to have been 2 to 6 ft off the ground upon impacting the tree.

It appears to me that the tree was impacted by the left wing & the left side of the plane cabin. With the fishing lures & tackle only 4 ft. from the tree trunk the cabin & or windows, I believe, had to be compromised very early in the crash. Also the tree is bare of its bark on the impact side from approx. 2ft to approx. 7ft. up the tree trunk.

P.S. ?
Not over legal weight, 83 to 85 degree temps in the area, & no engine trouble. "A crash may not have been avoidable once airborne, but the deaths were likely avoidable & unfortunate!"
P.S.S. !
"If its not going to fly put it down, don't worry about damaging your plane or it may cost you your life, others lives, & the least of which the plane!"

DK
 
DK:

Well-stated.

Welcome to PoA.
 
...there's a video of it... according to that story. Would be useful to see that.

Do we know whether this was a T-tail or straight-tail Lance? Should that matter?

In any event, taking off heavy (over-gross or not), is never a good idea there.

Thanks again to all my Gaston's Fly-In friends for supporting and assisting in the BPK shuttle runs to avoid just this issue. This is what friends do. I wish any one of us had been there when they were loading up that Lance.
 
Wes Crook was wrong again!
I hope Bill (bobcatsndogs) gets it, now. I still get short of breathing think it could'a been him.
When I weighed all that stuff at BPK for departure, it was amazing how much was on board (I did accept Missa and Adam's stated weights, though....).
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Wes Crook was wrong again!
I hope Bill (bobcatsndogs) gets it, now. I still get short of breathing think it could'a been him.
When I weighed all that stuff at BPK for departure, it was amazing how much was on board (I did accept Missa and Adam's stated weights, though....).
Click to expand...


Im pretty sure Bill "got it" about the time he went between the goal posts.
 
tonycondon said:
Ive only got a little Lance time. Ken Ibold used to own one, maybe he'll pipe in. The heaviest i ever flew it was probably about 4 FAA adults. I wouldn't think that getting in the air in 3200 feet would be an issue. I could envision the pilot getting a bit antsy and pulling off too slow and not gaining enough speed in a foiled attempt to climb. The ridge looks a lot closer than it really is, as you know. But who knows what really happened...
Click to expand...

Sorry, a little late to this party. A Lance will handle the strip easily when it's hot and heavy, BUT you have to use 2 notches of flaps and be very careful not to get too slow. I once had a scary departure off of 4000 feet at gross and 95 degrees because I was about 5-7 knots slow.

Without flaps, into the trees. Too slow, into the trees. Gotta do it right when hauling 3600 pounds with 300 hp in hot weather.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Sorry, a little late to this party. A Lance will handle the strip easily when it's hot and heavy, BUT you have to use 2 notches of flaps and be very careful not to get too slow. I once had a scary departure off of 4000 feet at gross and 95 degrees because I was about 5-7 knots slow.

Without flaps, into the trees. Too slow, into the trees. Gotta do it right when hauling 3600 pounds with 300 hp in hot weather.
Click to expand...

Ken: Good to see your smiling face (muzzle?).


When I watch planes taking off on hot days (something we get to do a lot of here), it often seems that pilots will be in too big a hurry to go to a high angle of attack, when they would have been better served by allowing a little acceleration in ground effect, then climbing. Assuming the accident plane was running properly, I wonder whether this strategy would have helped them; actually, I believe pretty strongly it would have.
 
Spike: As usual, we are in agreement. If one could just stay low and let the plane accelerate, there was plenty of runway overflight area. That's what I did in the P-Baron when I departed and in the TN A-36 before I got the Baron.

It seems some folks are just too anxious to get altitude; I flew with a flight instructor like that recently. He just wanted altitude. "Course, us former rotary wing guys didn't think much 'bout being low as long as we had airspeed.

Best,

Dave
 
SCCutler said:
Ken: Good to see your smiling face (muzzle?).


When I watch planes taking off on hot days (something we get to do a lot of here), it often seems that pilots will be in too big a hurry to go to a high angle of attack, when they would have been better served by allowing a little acceleration in ground effect, then climbing. Assuming the accident plane was running properly, I wonder whether this strategy would have helped them; actually, I believe pretty strongly it would have.
Click to expand...
Well said -- you also want to avoid getting into ground effect too early as well. If you are so heavy you can't climb out of ground effect you are probably flying a very high AoA to stay in ground effect. It is possible that you may never accelerate further at that AoA...which means you have to reduce it which will probably smack you back into the runway again. Remaining on the ground longer would have permitted a by-far-less-draggy climb.
 
Last edited:
Here's the NTSB probable cause.

NTSB Identification: CEN09FA393
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, June 26, 2009 in Lakeview, AR
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/22/2010
Aircraft: PIPER PA-32R-300, registration: N38171
Injuries: 3 Fatal, 1 Serious, 1 Minor.
An employee who helped load the airplane thought it was “overloaded” and that the passengers seemed “tense" and “in a hurry to leave.” The pilot made a flaps-up takeoff. It was calculated that at takeoff, the airplane was 188 pounds over maximum certificated gross weight, and the aft c.g. limit was exceeded by 0.15 inches. It was calculated that the flaps up takeoff ground roll would be approximately 1,970 feet, and the flaps up takeoff distance over a 50-foot barrier would be approximately 3,190 feet. The grass runway was 3,200 feet long. Prior to takeoff, the pilot told a surviving passenger that they were going to need all of the runway for takeoff. The passenger said the airplane lifted off at the end of the runway, dropped down into a shallow valley, touched the ground, and lifted off again. It touched down a second time, hit a barbed wire fence and tree, and “rolled” several times. Witnesses said the airplane lifted off in a nose high attitude, disappeared into a shallow valley, then reappeared in a slight climb. The wings were "wig-wagging" and the airplane was "porpoising." GPS data indicates the airplane lifted off between 74 and 78 mph and climbed no more than 29 feet. A videotape of the takeoff corroborated witness' observations. Post-accident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's poor judgment/decision making in attempting the no-flap takeoff, his failure to comply with weight and balance limitations, and his failure to calculate the airplane's performance under exiting conditions.
 
COFlyBoy said:
It was calculated that the flaps up takeoff ground roll would be approximately 1,970 feet, and the flaps up takeoff distance over a 50-foot barrier would be approximately 3,190 feet. The grass runway was 3,200 feet long.
Click to expand...

Wow, that guy was an optimist. I guess there's not a way to stop some pilots from stacking risks like that. Too bad passengers had to die for his sins...
 
COFlyBoy said:
Here's the NTSB probable cause.

The pilot's poor judgment/decision making in attempting the no-flap takeoff, his failure to comply with weight and balance limitations, and his failure to calculate the airplane's performance under exiting conditions.
Click to expand...

So sad, so preventible, :mad2: lessons for the rest of us...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top