Deano, that cat accidentally landed on its feet...an end-to-end that worked out in her favor. That's right, ceiling cat is a woman!

Ceiling Cat is no longer content to just watch...

Ceiling cat knows the "theory of change" is just a theory and a darwinian myth!

I did a little amateur investigation, a bit of reading and some numbers but you can skip to the bottom for a summary.

The plane is a Stinson 108-3, 16500 foot service ceiling, 2400 pound gross weight limit (1300 empty weight), 50 gallon fuel capacity. Thats about 1100 of useful weight (2400-1300), with full fuel that lowers it to 800 (6lbs per gallon*50 gallons=300lbs), I saw 3 men in there the 4th passenger I'm gonna assume male, so lets say 180lbs for each (200 for the pilot) that comes to 740lbs for passenger weight. That leaves 60lbs for cargo. Although I couldn't see the cargo, they were still close to the weight limit but still could have been within normal limits.

The airport Bruce Meadows (U63) has a field elevation of 6370 feet. I couldnt find the airport temperature for that day but I did find nearby Stanley Airport 23 Miles southeast of Bruce Meadows. Their METAR history shows a high of 27 Celsius/81 Fahrenheit for June 30, 2012. Definitely a hot day but was it too hot? The closest I could find on performance data shows a 675 Feet per Minute climb at 75 Fahrenheit at sea level. Thats pretty close to what many small planes of that nature can do, so I took those numbers and transposed them over what a Cessna 172N could do. The 172N has a slighty higher climb performance about 750 for sea level and 75 Fahrenheit, a difference of 75 feet ill subtract out. At 6000 feet at 27C/81F the 172N climbs at 420FPM. Taking out the 75 feet brings it to 345 FPM, now I know this isn't perfect but I'm going with what I have. The plane began its climb out at 1:13 and crashed at 2:55, that leaves 1 minute and 42 seconds in between or 1.7 minutes. 1.7*345 means about 590 feet possible gain. But the plane isn't climbing at its best the entire video, at 2:35 it is apparent something is giving it trouble, that brings it down to about 1.58 minutes climb time which is 545 feet. Theres still another factor to consider and thats how consistent the altitude at the ground was.

The runway at Bruce meadows faces at 05/23 (Northeast/Southwest) but most likely he took runway 23 (Southwest) as immediately to the north east theres a wildlife preserve (Gotta fly at least 2000 feet over it) and he flew straight for quite some time. Although the ground increases in the direction he flew, by how much is difficult using the sectional charts. That means that although he may have been able to climb to about 545 feet higher than his original ground altitude, the ground rose with him and his absolute altitude over the ground would be less than that maximum possible 545. The passenger in the rear reported the plane could only climb to about 60-70 feet above the trees. The trees looked to be around 75-100 but thats still difficult to tell. That would mean according to the passenger they might have only been about 170 feet off the ground. It could still be wildly off as we cant exactly see the altimeter.

Finally theres that disturbance at 2:35 described as a downdraft. It could have been windshear, or a wind effect from the mountains. I don't have too much hands on knowledge of mountain flying so I cant say. If it was windshear he might have suddenly lost a headwind and got a tailwind, screwing up his performance. It could have been a downdraft effect. The actual effect on the aircraft may not have been much (lets say 50 feet) but near obstacles it was definitely enough to have a negative impact.



Summary:

Yes he was flying pretty heavy but he may not have been over the weight limit

The temperature in the area was definitely hotter than standard and the altitude was high, but he still had climbing capabilities within service limits. However he didn't give himself much of a safety threshold.

He might have been able to climb about 545 feet higher than the runway elevation, but the terrain altitude rose in the direction he flew, so his actual altitude over the ground was probably smaller than that.

The disturbance at 2:35 might have been some form of windshear which has the capacity to reduce airplane performance, and with his margins of safety so low already, that could have been the final factor.

Basically he may very well have been flying within the service limits of the aircraft, but the margins of safety he left himself were very low and the decision to fly over obstacles like those trees in that mountain enviroment could be the reason this would be declared pilot error.

Other notes:

The takeoff looks pretty rough but he trying to get off the ground as quickly as he can and ride ground effect until he gets up to speed.

I cant find anything resembling a proper PoH for this aircraft but I did find some data that looks pretty close to it. However this aircraft was a model from the late 40s, so the standards of performance may not be the same as now, and the transcribing I did to the 172N could be thrown off more.

On that note, I do realize that a 172 would have different aerobatic effects with altutude and temperature than a Stinson 108, but its the closest data I could use.

I also couldnt not find balance information to get a rough idea of how the plane was balanced. The type of balance on a plane does have effects on performance.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N773C.html (The aircraft)

http://www.aopa.org/airports/U63 (The airport)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1 (The NTSB link posted earlier)

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/avtext/stn-108.txt (Closest thing I could find to performance data, the actual numbers are at the bottom)

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/cgi-bin/gen_statlog-u.cgi?ident=KSNT&pl=none2&yy=12&mm=06&dd=30 (Weather data at nearby Stanley)

http://skyvector.com (sectional chart data, type U63 into the search at the upper left, then make sure that "Salt Lake City" is selected in the upper right for the sectional chart)

The Stonehenge skit in Spinal Tap is partly originated by that background rainbow prop. It was too large for some venues, back in those days ceiling heights were low on many venues since they often were not designed for this use. It was a lesson for the whole industry to scout the locations forehand not during load-in.

And the Metal midget is reaching his prime right around those years, wonderful voice.

Yep, have those all over in Germany. I have ridden on least 3 of those. They do go sideways at the top and bottom like wraith said. The ones I know have a big warning sign on the inside wall thats going past you when you reach the last floor at the top or bottom. They usually say that it is safe to continue through the turnaround tough.

And on safety: Cabin ceilings are built in an angle and are on a hinge. In the unlikely event that you get stuck between the ground and ceiling, it folds up and stops the elevator.

>> ^EMPIRE:
isn't this.... i dunno.. extremely dangerous? how hard is it to get crushed between the ground and the elevator ceiling?


I agree. Definitely a fail.

isn't this.... i dunno.. extremely dangerous? how hard is it to get crushed between the ground and the elevator ceiling?

fake. she's clearly standing on the ceiling.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Kitty did better than I expected.

Agreed, this is a bigger fail on the part of the fan than on the kitty.

I guess he took the sign on the ceiling literally.
"Junior wash $2.95"

Here's another example of a use of the word "boy" in a powerful way...

The Old Boys Club.

You don't hear that phrase much anymore, what with women breaking through the glass ceiling and all men's clubs on the wane. It is a phrase I grew up with, though. The most powerful men gathering together, helping each other get more powerful and wealthy. And they call themselves "boys."

And women call themselves girls in order to feel younger? I mean, talk about undercutting yourself.

I'll say the same thing to you, longde. Just pay attention in the next little while. Try only using the word "woman" instead of "girl." When you hear the word "man" substitute "boy" and see how that feels.

Next time a white man references a black man, substitute the word "boy" and see how that sits with you.

Then we'll talk irony. And how language can be used in subtle and not-subtle ways to create 'isms.

This isn't intentional. It is unconscious. And these hipster boys are clueless as they sit and criticize two young women for being unconsciously racist.


>> ^longde:

When I was in college, I would hang out with "my boys". A close buddy would be called "my boy". A popular song in my younger days was "The boys are back in town".
The women I know refer to themselves as girls do so not because they see themselves in a subservient position, but because they simply want to feel younger. I don't see anything sexist about that.
Even if it was sexist, it isn't ironic. There have been many feminists who were/are racists, and many people who fight racism who are/have been sexist. They are two completely different concepts, and one does not imply or exclude the other.

Here's another opinion....

When I first heard about this case, I thought -- racism and sexism. A woman shoots a gun in the air and is faced with 20 years in prison? Damn.

Then I found out that there were children present. And she pulls out a gun instead of just leaving? Whoa. That isn't cool, I don't care about the stupid Stand Your Ground law.

Third thought -- TWENTY YEARS for shooting a gun into the ceiling? When Zimmerman -- and others like him -- aren't even arrested?

I'm back to racism and sexism. Even if she was wrong to pull out that gun. Twenty years wrong? No way. And even if that jury was 100% black from her neighborhood, that doesn't mean it wasn't racist and sexist and that weird triple standard that women are supposed to be some kind of saintly mother figure that never loses their temper. BS on that.

She is lucky that no one was hurt. She needs anger management classes and some deep counseling. But putting her in jail for TWENTY YEARS?

Racist and sexist.

Go listen at 1:25 through 1:35.. It references that she was shooting at the children.

We don't know what happened just what the news reported.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Get bent.
Unless the children were standing (or dancing) on the ceiling, it sounds what she did was harmless and effective.
Color bias nerfherder.
>> ^bobknight33:
Maybe she is in jail for shooting at the children.
Where is Al Sharpton and the media?

Get bent.

Unless the children were standing (or dancing) on the ceiling, it sounds what she did was harmless and effective.

Color bias nerfherder.

>> ^bobknight33:

Maybe she is in jail for shooting at the children.
Where is Al Sharpton and the media?