The video says it all

designrs · Post by **designrs** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:31 pm

Angle of attack study:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=376_1344456110

langj · Post by **langj** » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:16 am

The major news outlets are now posting and talking about this video. The funny part is they are acting like the pilot is a hero for everyone surviving. They don't mention how he is the one who is likely at fault for getting them in that situation in the first place.

ussyorktown · Post by **ussyorktown** » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:09 am

Plaintiffs' lawyers will have a different story to tell about this incompetence. You would think the FAA would pull his ticket.

designrs · Post by **designrs** » Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:07 pm

Yeah the news media has been kind to pilots recently, which in many cases is really good to see, especially where the pilot was not at fault or was faced with a very difficult and unavoidable emergency. This video however speaks for itself.

Jack Tyler · Post by **Jack Tyler** » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:14 pm

I think we're missing a chance for all of us to learn from this incident. What would we have done when getting ready to depart in that 1940's Stinson?

Well, first is the issue of useful load - was the a/c overloaded, given the fuel onboard? None of us know...but we do know a Stinson was made during an era when a POH wasn't even required. We don't know if the PIC had sufficient documentation to determine if he was over gross, but we DO know that we should make sure we have it and use it.

Then there's the issue of the a/c's current condition vs. an a/c's condition when brand new with a test pilot aboard. For those of us with mid-time engines and perhaps an airframe a little worse for wear, should we really accept without question the POH graphs & numbers? Or should we add a little fudge factor? What would the fudge factor be on a 1940's a/c, do we think?

We also know density altitude must have been w-a-y up there, given it was a summer, a mid-day time and at a high (pressure) altitude. Do we all carry a graph or use an instrument to determine DA when we're ready to look at our T/O numbers? Carrying a laminated card with the DA computation graph on it looks like a pretty good idea after watching the video, yes?

OK, so there you are in that same Stinson, your a/c doc confirms your weight & balance is acceptable, and you will be using an unimproved airstrip which you know adds an unknown factor to the required T/O distance. How will you know if the T/O should be attempted? Is the answer readily apparent to you? (It could be...)

Let's go back to Paul's comment: "Even more important is to pick a decision point halfway down the runway. If not airborne by then, you can safely abort." Yes, that means you might even have to pace off the runway, perhaps even erect a marker or hang a rag on a branch, so you know when the mid-point in the unimproved runway has been reached. Mountain flying courses - and this incident was clearly in that category - have a very simple T/O guideline that would have been helpful here. If you haven't reached 71% of Vr (take off speed for this specific weight and altitude - let's call it 70%) by the mid-point, you should abort the landing. So e.g. at close to gross and at a DA (I'm estimating now...) for this T/O of 8,000', I need almost 3000' of runway for my T/O. If I bothered to put a rock or a rag half way down that strip and I wasn't at 40 kts for my AA5B when at that rock/rag, there would be plenty of airstrip left in which to stop.

One last learning point: At that DA, what can I expect my rate of climb to be? Well, thinking in terms of feet per minute - what we're all familiar with - isn't that helpful...but let's start there. The answer for my a/c after takeoff at near gross and a DA of 8000' is <150 fpm. (Remember: This isn't the same thing as what a POH tells you is the rate of climb when at that same altitude at cruise speed and push in the throttle). Will <150 fpm clear that hill 4 miles ahead that's 600' higher? If you use a Rate of Climb Table (Climb Gradient, Feet per NM), you'd see it's not very likely. Do we carry a Rate of Climb Table?

Do we typically consider all these things when taking off 'hot & high'? Probably not. For me the value of the video is that it refreshed my thinking about what I could have figured out, right there on that airstrip, before I goosed it. The video makes the strip and its surround area look very benign...but flying at higher elevations in smaller, underpowered GA a/c is a specialized skill. Whether he knew it or not - or should have known it - this pilot was in a situation that required using some fairly careful, detailed knowledge. He may simply have lacked that knowledge.

langj · Post by **langj** » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:34 pm

Okay, lets assume everything on paper worked out.nand lets just say his incrediably long take off is normal to him. What i dont understand is after he was airborrn and not gaining altitude you can see lots of fields for a long time before the trees. Why not put it down in the field and not only gurantee a save for you but also the aircraft. He flew for so long so low heading for the higher terain and trees?

ct4me · Post by **ct4me** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:02 am

Gotta agree... Some very bad ADM... What's that section... Resignation?... He stopped being a Pilot, and was just a passenger on his way to a crash.

Jack Tyler · Post by **Jack Tyler** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:45 am

IME instructors tend to be pretty realistic and absolute about dealing with a power loss after T/O. As one put it recently, "The hardest thing you will ever have to do as a pilot is push the nose over [to maintain airspeed] if you lose power right after T/O." Apply that to this incident: No matter how rational the choice to land might seem to us in hindsight, it is very (very) unlikely to be a logical choice a pilot of a flying a/c will make. Shoulda, coulda - sure. But most likely not an easily reached decision for any of us while we're concentrating instead on what else we can do to levitate the VSI a bit more.

We're going to be flying out West next month...and for pilots who fly off a runway with an 85' MSL altitude, the elevations out West look fairly challenging. This is why this incident has got me thinking proactively about how to avoid such a scenario. So here's another way I'm using the incident to inoculate me from such circumstances: If I'm not sure if I'm going to be digging a hole for myself by landing, in a hot & heavy condition, on a high DA airstrip, I can overfly the strip at a low, acceptably safe altitude (let's assume 500' AGL) and at about the same (indicated) airspeed I use on short final. I'll then goose the throttle when over the strip and begin a climb. If I'm not seeing ~300 fpm on climbout, when I've entered the climb at an even higher airspeed than I'd have on T/O, I have demonstrated to myself that the airstrip below is in fact a hole and not a launching pad for those conditions.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:51 am

That's an excellent strategy, Jack. Add to it that if you do decide to land, it should be with the expectation of waiting until evening, when it's cooled off, before departing (or maybe even staying overnight and launching in early morning).

roger lee · Post by **roger lee** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:39 am

Hi Jack,

Don't you have a CT? I have 6 here in Tucson and another 8 or so in Phoenix. There are more all over the state. We all fly out of higher DA's in the summer months. I have flown out of many high DA airports and the CT will takeoff without issue (slow yes) at 10K DA. It will do it at 1450lbs too. That said when you know you are going to do that type of flying it helps to have the prop pitch set accordingly so you can also develop better takeoff rpm. This will help verses a pitch a little courser.

Even if someone doesn't have a CT then prop pitch setup for the higher DA's for your plane will definitely help.

At the Page, AZ Fly-In that's coming up in Oct. we all (30-40 aircraft) fly out of Bryce Canyon airport that is about 7100+ in elevation, but at 9200-9500 DA even in October. We all get in and out of there. A plane last year could only get 5200 rpm WOT in the lower elevations and when he got there it was a little touch and go on takeoff. Prop pitch can make all the difference.

If you have any questions about out west here or prop pitch for the 912 give me a call.

ka7eej · Post by **ka7eej** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:54 pm

Took off yesterday from Taylor Az at 5:30 pm 450 lbs of pilot and passenger. 95 degrees 5800 MSL 10,300 DA . Climbed out at 700-900 fpm.. Gotta love the power / weight ratio of my Allegro 2000 !! Sight seeing with my local Sheriff Deputy over the area he patrols.. He loved the visability and the quite slow and low ride the the Allegro.. Says the department should get one!!!! A New Job for me????? I wish..

We should learn from others mistakes but a 1947 4 seat Stinson is not an LSA!!

ussyorktown · Post by **ussyorktown** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:23 pm

How to shut up a politician in 4 ez steps.

ussyorktown · Post by **ussyorktown** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:09 pm

Yah, did you calculate the density altitude, weights and balance, crosswind factor, fuel on board, or did you just forget all that to get out of this stupid desert? (and the fuel is so rich it would choke a Russian gangster)

Jack Tyler · Post by **Jack Tyler** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:07 am

Interesting discovery. Whatever else this video accomplishes, it seems to be a poster boy for why you shouldn't post things on the web...

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:10 am

Certainly will give the NTSB plenty of information for probable cause.

Sport Pilot Talk

The video says it all

Land after take-off? How about evaluting T/O before landing

DA in the west