PDA

View Full Version : Light plane crash captured on Gopro cam



Discomark
9th August 2012, 08:03 AM
LiveLeak.com - (Must Watch!!) Plane crash video from inside cockpit

Ouch....Lucky they don't have Gum tree's as it would have been a different story.

d3syd
9th August 2012, 09:06 AM
Ouch....Lucky they don't have Gum tree's as it would have been a different story.

Wonder what happened? Engine sounded ok. Overloaded maybe?

MEANZ06
9th August 2012, 09:49 AM
Wonder what happened? Engine sounded ok. Overloaded maybe?

from the link...



This is unprecedented footage of a small airplane crash from inside the cockpit from two different views. Miraculously, everyone survived.
The pilot will make a full recovery and the rest of us escaped with
superficial injuries and feel very lucky to be alive . This trip was
much anticipated and due to our excitement we had our Gopro cameras
filming at various times. After flying up into the mountains for a hike
in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness we were planning on
flying to a small mountain town for dinner. Due to warming
temperatures we had a hard time gaining altitude. After taking off we
hit an air pocket that made us rapidly loose altitude, pushing us down
into the trees.


any plane wreck you can walk away from... :o

incisor
9th August 2012, 09:58 AM
that is why the big fella gave us terrafirma!

i was in a 5 seater many years ago flying from rocky to blackwater when it hit (fell into?) an air pocket..

one hell of a feeling.. luckily we had the altitude to get thru it fine

was fun in the back seat tho i can tell you but no where near the drama involved in this one thank God...

87County
9th August 2012, 10:09 AM
Looks like it could have been an Aeronca Sedan (125hp?)....

Looked like it was overloaded with 4 full size blokes and that long takeoff run and then had trouble maintaining altitude and flying speed


plenty of camera footage... shame to destroy an old aeroplane

stallie
9th August 2012, 12:23 PM
I think 87 county hit the nail on the head.

Long takeoff roll and no climb performance usually means there is not enough power to make the lift the aircraft needs.

DeanoH
9th August 2012, 02:54 PM
Know how they feel.
Fully loaded Beechcraft Musketeer. Pilot,three passengers and luggage, no one injured just scared.
Fortunately there were no trees, only a couple of 'blackboys'.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/129.jpg

'Not enough Di-lithium crystals captain'.

Flinders Island, early 1970's, Kilecrankie Airstrip. A memorable holiday.

Deano :)

stallie
9th August 2012, 08:03 PM
Lucky man Deano.

Your post proves that there aren't many new ways to crash an aircraft.:o

JDNSW
9th August 2012, 08:32 PM
Almost certainly failed to (correctly) use the performance charts. Absolutely essential for hot and high.

It would seem that the takeoff was conducted in the portion of the takeoff chart that is fenced off by inadequate available climb performance.

We had a similar cause of accident in Burma - with a professionally piloted (by an Australian) helicopter. Like this one, failed to lift out of ground effect. The accident investigation concluded that the pilot attempted an operation beyond the capability of the aircraft. From memory there were no deaths, but about eight seriously injured, including the pilot. Also saw a 'near miss' at Mt Hagen, where a pilot in a Helio Courier, unfamiliar with flying at that altitude, failed to lean the mixture for takeoff, and was unable to get out of ground effect - but he dodged trees and successfully made a circuit and landed safely.

John

stallie
9th August 2012, 10:23 PM
NTSB report here WPR12LA283 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1)

A quick snoop shows the airport elevation 6370 feet. OAT on the day at the time of takeoff 26°C.

That's ISA +25... :o

Davo
9th August 2012, 11:46 PM
I've only got a few hours in a 150 but even I know better than to press on with a takeoff run that long, silly boy.

JDNSW
10th August 2012, 06:00 AM
NTSB report here WPR12LA283 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1)

A quick snoop shows the airport elevation 6370 feet. OAT on the day at the time of takeoff 26°C.

That's ISA +25... :o

The highest takeoff I have done was at Margarima in PNG - 7800ft, temperature was about 25C. That was in a C185*, and I was quite happy that it only had four on board!

John

*Cessna 185 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

stallie
10th August 2012, 08:24 AM
That'd certainly get your attention. Always wanted to fly the 185. Lovely machine.

My highest takeoff was 10600 feet, but it was minus 39C so climb performance wasn't too bad. And there was no obstacle for a few thousand miles...

DeanoH
10th August 2012, 09:26 AM
..............................My highest takeoff was 10600 feet, but it was minus 39C so climb performance wasn't too bad. And there was no obstacle for a few thousand miles...

Something like this ? ;)

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/08/1287.jpg

(XF9C-1 hooking onto USS Akron May 1932 - courtesy Wikipedia.)

Deano :)

DeanoH
10th August 2012, 10:44 AM
............................... failed to lean the mixture for takeoff, and was unable to get out of ground effect - but he dodged trees and successfully made a circuit and landed safely.

John

Haha....................reminds me of my SECOND light plane experience.

Cessna 172 (VH-AJF). A mishap plagued and now (as the terror fades with the years :o) humorous story of four blokes who set out on an 'Around Australia Jaunt', again in the 1970's.

After a/. getting lost on a bright clear day between Kerang and Mildura (landing at Swan Hill to re-fuel) and b/. Landing the wrong way round at Broken Hill (ie on 180 instead of 360, I kid you not). It's very much a 'sphincter shrinking' life experience landing with another plane taking off over you and c/. getting lost (again) between Broken Hill and Leigh Creek and not knowing whether to turn left or right when you hit the main North/South railway line. :o

The whole sorry saga ended in Leigh Creek with the pilot having difficulty with the landing. Again a bright clear day, pilot lines up the runway (don't know the correct technical terms here), loses speed/altitude and instead of gently kissing the ground drops the plane onto the runway. Very bouncy things Cessnas. We proceeded to kangaroo hop our way the full length of the runway, down to the bit with the white stripes at the end. It was a very long runway, or seemed that way, a Bristol Freighter landed OK (without bouncing) on it the next day if that gives some idea of length. More than enough to land a Cessna 172 I would have thought.

The pilot (rightly) decided that we would become one with the perimeter fence if he didn't take off so poured on the power. The Cessna was now, engine flat out, sitting about 6' above the ground heading straight for the 12' perimeter fence. (Sphincter still very tight).

The similarity with Johns story is that the pilot 'forgot' to raise the flaps. Fortunately the front seat passenger was a 'trainee pilot'. He twigged what the problem was and twirled the knob and up we went like an elevator. Don't know what we missed the fence by but it can't have been much.

At this stage the tower, quiet till now, comes on with.......... "Alpha Juliet Foxtrot, we think your left wing tip may have struck the ground, please circle the airport whilst we get the emergency vehicles out".............well, its amazing how tight an already tight sphincter can get as you gaze out of the window looking to see if the LHS wingtip is shredding itself to bits (it wasn't).

The pilot, fairly rattled by this stage, (weren't we all) took the towers instructions literally and circled the airport without straying outside its perimeter. Remember those kids toys you used to get at the show with a little aeroplane on the end of a stick that you whizzed around ?, it felt just like that.

The second landing attempt was worse than the first. As we approached the fence for the second time and the pilot noted that we were about to go around for a third go (which quite seriously I doubt we would have survived), the trainee pilot took control and safely landed the plane.

We were very, very lucky. We had taken turns sitting up front and it was just good luck, fate, karma whatever that when needed we had our 'trainee pilot' in the front when it really counted.
The pilot had his license immediately suspended then cancelled (within the hour). The plane was in one piece but the wheel 'struts?' had a bit more 'camber' than they started out with so the plane was grounded also.

There was hell to pay with DCA at the time as the pilot blamed the 'trainee' for the whole sorry saga and initially were not prepared to accept the statements of the 'non qualified' survivors.

Come fly with me.............................:D

Deano :)

PS. Stall buzzers have frightened the **** out of me ever since.:eek:

superquag
10th August 2012, 11:25 AM
Is this the one ?

"... This 172 was owned by (censored) of Narromine when this hangar shot was taken by Bob Neate
in 1963. It had been imported in June of 1959, ex N6380E. When sold in October 1967 it was
re-registered VH-COW.

DeanoH
10th August 2012, 12:30 PM
No it was newer than that.

Perhaps my memory is fading :(, rego was certainly AJF, which shows as a Cessna 182, first registered in 1967, which would be about right as 'our' plane was reasonably new at the time. Without looking it up I don't really know the difference between the two, Cessna 172 and Cessna 182.
I don't have any photos. The plane was 'hired' for our trip and was probably sourced in Melbourne. Only had it for three days :(.

The only specifics I can remember regarding the plane was that the 'flap' control was a knurled wheel low in the centre 'console' between the seats and the plane had a car radio type device in the centre of the dash for homing in on radio beacons.

There would have been some sort of incident report as a fair **** fight ensued afterward re the pilot blaming the 'trainee'.

DCA really wasn't interested in believing anyone else but the pilot, gave them a nice simple outcome I suppose.
It also avoided DCA having to examine it's processes for re accrediting the pilot after a serious road accident (involving head injuries), which was clearly a contributing factor in the 'incident'. He was regarded as a well qualified and competent pilot previously.

It took several sworn statements and legal representation before DCA be grudgingly accepted what had really happened.
This was necessary as DCA were going to take action against the 'trainee' including scrubbing his training quals and ongoing pilot accreditation.

The pilot was again, re accredited, several months later. :o

Deano :)

JDNSW
10th August 2012, 04:05 PM
.......Without looking it up I don't really know the difference between the two, Cessna 172 and Cessna 182.
.........
Deano :)

The 172 is a four seater, 145 (later 150hp) fixed pitch propeller. The 182 looks very similar, but is actually a bit roomier and larger, although the wing plan (and section, but not structure) is identical, and has a 225hp engine with constant speed prop. Both load carrying and performance are markedly better than the 172, but is a lot more expensive to both buy and run. (I have flown both quite a lot)

I also visited Leigh Ck somewhere about that time - we flew from Melbourne, half a dozen of us in a rented C210 to have a look at Lake Eyre with water in it for the first time for years - first time I have ever flown below sea level! Stayed overnight at Copley.

John

vnx205
12th August 2012, 08:58 AM
Do people agree with the explanation offered here?

LiveLeak.com - Here's the problem...

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/08/83.jpg



This image illustrates the problem the pilot had flying in high density altitude conditions. It appears that the pitch attitude is about 17 degrees, while the aircraft is not gaining altitude. Even if the measurement here is off by a degree or two, it's obvious that the aircraft was flying just short of stall.

Note to self: if ever in a situation like this, land on the remaining runway; or land in the field before the trees; and try to crash as well as these guys did.

C00P
29th August 2012, 10:22 PM
Another issue is that he was flying towards steadily rising terrain. The "horizon" ahead would have been a little higher than level, and the resulting illusion could cause the pilot to raise the nose a little more- leading to the stall as suggested. Stall angles for different airfoils vary, but something around 12-15 degrees is pretty typical of most light aircraft, so the measurement in that image is probably close to the truth. In fact, he may already have been stalled when that image was taken.
A good mate almost got caught this way- I was with him. We'd flown to a paddock in the middle of Tasmania being used as a gliding field. After a pleasant afternoon three of us got back into the C172 to fly back to Launceston. My mate wanted to turn around after we'd taxiied back a fair way but my instructor (bless him!) always insisted I use all the available length. So my mate accepted my suggestion that we go the rest of the way- about another 200 metres.
It was just as well, because we were about 200 metres from the fence when we lifted off! There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, but the surrounding hills (false horizon) had disguised the fact that there was a slope to the paddock and we were taking off uphill...
I used all the runway at Albany one day coming back from the west. You feel a bit silly taxiing for 1000 metres down a 1,400m runway. Where the taxiway joined the runway I had 400 metres in the direction of takeoff and my Auster rarely requires more than that.

But when one of your maggies dies at about 50' and the engine begins to run a bit rough, you are thankful for the remaining 800 metres of runway still in front of you...

Coop

JDNSW
30th August 2012, 06:16 AM
Do people agree with the explanation offered here?

LiveLeak.com - Here's the problem... (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=376_1344456110)

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/19/media19/2012/Aug/8/LiveLeak-dot-com-32a86a961230-drawing1.jpg.resized.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f62 49e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bad3924a47dbdf808d&ec_rate=300

Problem was that the takeoff should never have been attempted in those conditions with that load. So no, I don't agree. Yes, it was near the stall - but that was because the pilot was attempting to climb, and yes, the terrain was rising - but if there had been any climb available there would have been no issues.

John

BigBlackDog
31st August 2012, 08:32 PM
Which is a good simple example of an error chain as well as bad decision making. Poor decision (not doing the numbers for take off) leads to error (assuming overweight take off), then handling error(stall) and accident. Sad that in this day and age people still make the same accidents as always:(

JDNSW
1st September 2012, 05:41 AM
Which is a good simple example of an error chain as well as bad decision making. Poor decision (not doing the numbers for take off) leads to error (assuming overweight take off), then handling error(stall) and accident. Sad that in this day and age people still make the same accidents as always:(

Yes, and although I have not seen any recent statistics, I would be prepared to bet that 90% of engine failures in light aircraft are due to either fuel exhaustion or attempting run on an empty tank.

The same of course applies to accidents on the road - almost always very similar to previous ones.

John

BigBlackDog
1st September 2012, 10:22 AM
Sounds about right, I think the top 3 are along the lines of fuel starvation through bad planning or getting lost, visual flight into instrument conditions and loss of control. That's from memory though. The leading cause of large aircraft accidents in the western world is loss of control recently, too many computers not enough 'stick'