Air taxi crash video.

durandal01

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=835_1344412426
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church%E2%80%94River_of_No_Return_Wilderness
The aircraft isn't quite climbing like a bat out of hell.
Hot and high? Overloaded?
Lucky people. If one wing stalled first they were screwed.

GiBBYAir

Same video in HD

http://youtu.be/yDu0jYiz-v8

Pretty shocking footage - they were very lucky to survive that!

BeardySi

My money's on overloaded, seemed he was having difficulty climbing right from the start....

Immelman

Treadhead wrote: »

My money's on overloaded, seemed he was having difficulty climbing right from the start....

at over 6000ft starting out with 4 on board etc etc he was pushing his luck you could tell it wasn't happening when we he pulled it off and it sat back down again. Good clip to learn a lesson from thks....

bluecode

Good lesson to learn, sure we don't have a 6000 ft altitude to deal with here in Ireland. But imagine a 600 metre strip with a 90 degree crosswind (effective zero wind) and an overloaded aircraft on a hot day (which does happen occasionally here, like the next two days). Now imagine a soft runway with recent rain and longish grass. Plenty of runways like that here in Ireland.

Now imagine trees or hills or powerlines at the end of the runway and a less than optimum engine and propellor combination.

You don't need all of the above to feature as the lead item on the six o'clock news.

One of the problems with flights like that is that quite often they get away with it............just. We have just watched one where they didn't.

Su Campu

Here's the NTSB's preliminary report on the accident. Stanley U63 is 6,400 ft amsl. The temperature at Stanley weather station on that day got to a high of 82 F (28 °C), and the QNH was 30.00 (1016 hPa) at McCall Airport (its destination 50 miles away), yielding a density altitude of around 9,300 ft. That was surely out of the limits of that plane with 4 adults on board, and why that didn't twig with the pilot is beyond me.

happy_head

That pilot is an absolute gob****e!! He had plenty of opportunities to put the plane back down before heading over the wooded area. It was obvious he wasnt climbing from the get go!

nightfoxnigh

It also looks like he had not deployed any flaps, which would have made it near impossible to climb. The pilot was dumb, and for one who has a commercial pilots license, I am surprised. I thought he would have aired on the side of caution, and just rejected the takeoff when he didn't get off the ground the first time, and said to some of the pax, to get off and wait.

Storm 10

The one thing that amazes me is the lack of voice on the clip, even when they are going down no one is saying anything or when they are out no one is asking how are you etc.

Tenger

Storm 10 wrote: »

The one thing that amazes me is the lack of voice on the clip, even when they are going down no one is saying anything or when they are out no one is asking how are you etc.

Shock?

Storm 10

Am I seeing things, shortly after take off at around 1.08 did that plane touch down again, if so that pilot is nuts it showed him there that it did not have the power to lift off with the weight and conditions. Crazy should never have happened.

Su Campu

Storm 10 wrote: »

Am I seeing things, shortly after take off at around 1.08 did that plane touch down again, if so that pilot is nuts it showed him there that it did not have the power to lift off with the weight and conditions. Crazy should never have happened.

Yes it did. If he were a bus driver he'd be done for wreckless driving.

LLU

Su Campu wrote: »

Yes it did. If he were a bus driver he'd be done for wreckless driving.

although I don't think that performance could be called wreckless! :cool:

nightfoxnigh

LLU wrote: »

although I don't think that performance could be called wreckless! :cool:

How could it not be wreckless? The pilot knew damn well his plane wouldn't make it, yet he decided to carry on, endangering not only his life, but the lives of his passengers. As a pilot you have a duty to make sure your passengers get to their destination safely, if the plane is not getting off the ground easily, abort the take off. If the plane takes off but fails or struggles to gain altitude, and you have space, land, do not head towards trees, where you are then committed to the flight and only way of landing if anything goes wrong is crashing into the trees. He was a very wreckless pilot.

Su Campu

nightfoxnigh wrote: »

LLU wrote: »

although I don't think that performance could be called wreckless! :cool:

How could it not be wreckless? The pilot knew damn well his plane wouldn't make it, yet he decided to carry on, endangering not only his life, but the lives of his passengers. As a pilot you have a duty to make sure your passengers get to their destination safely, if the plane is not getting off the ground easily, abort the take off. If the plane takes off but fails or struggles to gain altitude, and you have space, land, do not head towards trees, where you are then committed to the flight and only way of landing if anything goes wrong is crashing into the trees. He was a very wreckless pilot.

I think there was a joke on there, as in it wasn't without a wreck (i.e. the plane!).

Mr Benevolent

nightfoxnigh wrote: »

How could it not be wreckless?

It was a pun. He was a reckless pilot, but not a wreckless one.

pclancy

Dear God, who did this guys last flight review? He should have realised it wasnt going to work when the aircraft was telling him FOR OVER A MINUTE that it didnt want to takeoff. The fact it landed again after he tried to rotate should have been the "hmmm somthings a bit wrong here" moment where they might have considered being overloaded.

An instructor once told me that if I was willing my plane to do something that it obviously didnt want to do then I was most probably doing it wrong. That pilot just sat there willing his aircraft to fly.

Su Campu

Confab wrote: »

It was a pun. He was a reckless pilot, but not a wreckless one.

Oh duh, it was because I actually spelt it wrong?!

LLU

Su Campu wrote: »

Oh duh, it was because I actually spelt it wrong?!

I risked getting an infraction for being a grammar/spelling nazi but it's not every day you stumble across such an opportune typo!

robertxxx

Hint! if it didn't take off the first time, STOP! or at least thats what i would be shouting.

keroseneboy

Any guess as to whether or not the pilot geezer gets to keep his licience ? I would imagine this insurer might put a stop to his reckless wreck-producing ways.

Immelman

Another lesson to be learned about arriving at unfamiliar airfields - lucky guys considering pilot 80 yrs
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19260897/video-small-plane-crashes-after-clipping-power-line

Wibbs

You'd think if you're gonna lay out a landing strip you'd bury the powerlines if they're running that close to said strip?

seven_eleven

Wibbs wrote: »

You'd think if you're gonna lay out a landing strip you'd bury the powerlines if they're running that close to said strip?

Look how close he comes to the tree's too.

Mr Benevolent

seven_eleven wrote: »

Look how close he comes to the tree's too.

He should have been approaching from the other direction, regardless of wind. A very low approach.