Way Too Hot and Heavy

OH Flier

OH Flier

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
170
Display Name
Display name:
G^2
From a retired ATC friend of mine.

Critical Importance of Density Altitude and Take Off Weight.


Tragic Loss of Life. Graphic Video.

To all:
Here's a very graphic home movie taken of a recent crash not too far
from here. The field isn't high, but the weather has been HOT. The
airplane, a Bonanza, was taking off (without flaps) for a long flight,
full of fuel, baggage and with four souls aboard. Watch and remember it
every time you look at a marginal runway, consider your cabin and fuel
load, and say, "I think it'll be all right."
That said, the guy would likely be alive if he'd used takeoff flaps,
left some fuel behind, or, of course, been flying an airplane with
better short-field capabilities: like a Navion.
Here's the URL, and be warned: it's not nice.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a06_1188732892


Gary Gembala
 
Much to know before we can possibly offer judgment. Even on a hot day, 4,000' of pavement should be adequate, and one has to wonder whether something went terribly wrong inside the cowling.

How hot; how heavy? And why not, gear up?

One notes that current Beech 36 manuals do not discuss takeoff flaps, something I have been counseled about by a Bo pilot who knows a great deal more than I.
 
I know little about flying those, and yes, we don't know exactly what happened, but to me it sure looked like it was a no-go about halfway down the runway... I was watching that thinking "Abort! Abort!!"
Can't say I wouldn't have kept going, but it sure looked bad at that point. :no:

Whatever happened, I'll vouch for the heat: been flying a little in the San Diego area lately, and the last few days have been unusually hot. Saturday I did a crash-and-dash at Gillespie in the Champ with the instructor aboard and in addition to the heat, we got a little downdraft from those hills west of the airport...of course the Champ was airborne long before we ran out of runway, but it looked grim for a minute there, fighting for 200 fpm at 65 mph- I could count the bricks in the chimneys... :eek:
 
Well, I thought it was going to be a normal high DA takeoff (that's what they look like around here, I'll have to go get some video for y'all on a hot day so you can see), but the plane stalled and came down pretty quick.

That sucks.
 
Tragic. I wonder if he would have been better off riding ground effect and gaining some airspeed before trying to clear the trees. Looks like he had lots of ground speed though...Wonder what the DA was.
 
Last edited:
It was the second plane to crash that day. You might think after the first the second guy would have gotten the word it was hot.
 
Questions to be asked.

Did he lean for max RPM on take off?
I see no flaps, what's the POH say?
Why is the gear still down?
 
Does the A36 POH say anything about short field takeoffs? I know the Sundowner POH is silent on that point. It's not a great short field performer, obviously, but I always wondered if the absence was more due to a decision by Raytheon legal dept. I find it hard to believe that first notch of flaps wouldn't help in that situation. I was also wondering about the gear; my guess is the guy was busy and nervous and just plain forgot to pull them up. May be type-specific, too. IIRC, you're supposed to leave the gear down on Cessna 210s because of their goofy retraction sequence.

I never encountered real DA takeoff challenges until I flew out west. One hot day in Wyoming I learned that even a 7000ft runway seems mighty short when the DA is high, if you're not fully prepared.
 
Looked to this untrained eye as tho once he finally DID get off the runway, he tried to climb immediately. It looked to me like you could see him slowing down in the air.

Very sad, especially since it was very avoidable.
 
The engine sounded strong...a lot questions should be addressed. The wing looks like it was stalling for a couple seconds. Was anyone injured in the first crash? As much fun flying is it can also be as dangerous without the proper planning/training.
 
Hard to tell for sure but as it was hitting the ground the bushes in the foreground appeared to show a pretty significant tailwind.
 
Looks like an engine problem to me, not "hot and heavy". I've taken off in a loaded Bo at over 8000' DA without problem, admittedly with a longer runway. Point is, the Bo will climb at higher altitudes, even heavy.

The A36 POH says nothing about short field takeoffs and nothing about using flaps for takeoff. Takeoff is with flaps up. You will get off the ground quicker with some flaps, but ROC will be lower, so there is a tradeoff. In this case, maybe 10° of flaps would have helped, but probably not dramatically. In that case, we could said he wouldn't have crashed if he'd followed the POH!

Normal short field procedure in the Bo (not covered in the POH), is to leave the gear down until obstacles are cleared, as the retracting gear produces more drag than down.

It looked to me like the accident plane faltered after liftoff. We all like to think we would have avoided whatever accident we're discussing, but in this case I think critique of the pilot's actions should await more information.
 
"Way Too Hot and Heavy" and the last post "DoubleD"

Just had to check it out :rofl:
 
I watched the video from the Sacramento Fox affiliate (channel 40), and a "slight tailwind" was explicitly mentioned. Heading for Ensanada, from Sacto area, four adults, likely baggage, bet the tanks were topped off. Add into the chain the gut desire to drag the plane, kicking and screaming, into the air, whether it wants to or not: The chain could have been broken; it was not. Sigh. Requiem aeternam.

This saddens me. Then there was the 17-y.o. CAP cadet yesterday in NW MO who (apparently) decided to fly solo low over a friend's house. Got too low, too slow, too dead.

Double sigh. I'm not by any stretch anything more than an amateur, having just received my plastic portrait of Orville and Wilbur; but I am confident both of these were chains that could have been broken.

C'mon, guys: Let's break the chain. Let's keep the chain broken.

Jim
 
IDK some things just dont make sence to me in this video....

Someone on here said it was a 4000 ft runway...thats a fairly high performance airplane..they said there was only 2 adults aboard prob full fuel and some bags...I still think this airplane should have gotten into the air and stayed there...it looks like he is struggling to stay in the air so i could beleive that he didnt lean for best power and didnt have enough power to keep climbing....
Another thing is the video really doesnt say the people died...the guy says the people were hanging by thier seatbelts and asking for help to get out of the plane...then it shows them doing CPR for a short time and thats it...

And idk if its just me, but i didnt think this video was graphic or disturbing in any way...if it showed a bloody mess or closeup of the pilot in 6 peices thats a different story...i see more disturbing things on TV everyday then this video...
 
I have a bonanza and a 4000ft runway would not be a problem at all, even at full gross on a very hot day. Either he was way, way over gross (hard to do in a Bonanza) or there was something very wrong mechanically.

The POH makes no mention of using flaps for take-off. Also, gear is not retracted until after clearing obstacles due to the drag of the doors.

I have flown near max gross from 10,000+ ft DA airports in the Bonanza with no issues. It is a VERY capable plane,... when working properly.
 
Just looking at the video, my analysis shows...

1. He took off with a tail wind.
2. He had plenty of runway to accelerate the extra 5-10 knots that would have made the difference and allowed him to successfully climb out of ground effect.
3. When he did get into trouble he continued to pull the nose up, making a bad situation even worse.
4. When he finally realized that he was going to crash, he did a good job of keeping the wings level.


As others have said, there was a chain. Break one link and he goes off happily into the wild blue yonder.
 
Commercial Pilot. You would think the situation would be obvious to someone with that much training. No idea about hours though. This just about explains the whole thing:

"Cameron Air Park is located in a slight geographical bowl, with rising terrain at both ends of the runway. Field elevation is 1,293 feet msl. The single runway is marked 31 and 13, and is 4,051 feet long. The Cameron Park Fire Department reported that the temperature at the scene of the accident around 1300 was 107 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition to the 4 adults on board, the airplane was loaded with 271 pounds of additional baggage/cargo, and at least 60 gallons of fuel." From the preliminary report.
 
If that load info DBZ quoted is correct, that would be a total load (including fuel) of 1300 to 1400 lb (or more if it was fully fueled -- note the "at least 60 gallons of fuel"), and the cg possibly at or beyond the aft limit (36 'Bo's are usually not really 6-passenger airplanes). Typical useful load on a 36 'Bo is around 1100-1200 lb, often down around 1050 on newer ones.

Overloading, hot day (1300 MSL at 107F/42C means a DA around 4500 feet -- wonder if the pilot leaned to placard fuel flow for t/o IAW with the BE36 POH), rising terrain off the departure end, and a tailwind each eat away at performance. Put 'em all together, and they can easily be a lethal combination even if the engine is operating properly.
 
So I wonder if the pilot actually did performance data instead of the T-LAR method, would the outcome have been different?
 
AWACSEng said:
So I wonder if the pilot actually did performance data instead of the T-LAR method, would the outcome have been different?
Click to expand...
It's awfully hard to "what-if" the decision-making process of a dead pilot. All we can do is learn from the accident and make sure we do good load analyses, check our performance data, and try to make better decisions.
 
Agreed, but it's too bad it takes an event like this for some people to start doing what they should have been doing all along. Unfortunately this pilot did not get to learn from his mistake but hopefully others who think, "we can make it" will learn.
 
Generaly speaking, I have next to no sympathy for those who call themselves aviators who blatantly disregard the safety of themselves, their passengers, and inocent bystanders on the ground by failing to properly plan for a flight. Everything from checking wx and NOTAMS, to just piling in pax, bags, and gas till the craft is busting at the gills and proceding to barrel down the runway, to failing to follow the operating procedures written in black, white, and blood in the POH. Then they are suprised when they are sitting off the end of the runway or in a field somewhere as a monument to human stupidity. It only takes one link in the chain to be broken to prevent an event like this from occuring. When that DPE hands us that hard earned certificate, we are now entrusted to do the right thing no matter the circumstance. If one does not have the integrity to do this, then they should not be afforded the luxury of enjoying this thing we love and know as aviation. I appologize for the rant, but It tears me up seeing things like this that could have been prevented by simply doing what we are entrusted to do.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's awfully hard to "what-if" the decision-making process of a dead pilot. All we can do is learn from the accident and make sure we do good load analyses, check our performance data, and try to make better decisions.
Click to expand...
Did the pilot die? This is in the report: "The pilot and one passenger were seriously injured; two passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed."
 
Dwight B. Van Zanen said:
Did the pilot die? This is in the report: "The pilot and one passenger were seriously injured; two passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed."
Click to expand...
If he's still alive, the NTSB and FAA will be asking him just the questions we discussed -- if his lawyer lets them. Oftimes the interests of aviation safety and personal legal protection work against each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top