I live in San Diego, and this is not time-lapsed...they really come in this frequently. No, I kid...however San Diego is one of the hairiest landings in the US. The winds combined with the buildings that line up with the runway make it a difficult approach. There's this parking structure that if you're on top of, you can practically touch the belly of the airplane as it goes over.

>> ^CrushBug:

"The video shows the couple driving into the plane." I don't think so. I am pretty sure during driver training at no time was I told that I had to watch out for and yield to airplanes. Right where both of those vehicles were, I doubt they could see each other. That is just poor design, no matter what is painted on the road. You could be from out of town and have no idea what is possible there.


Exactly right. It would never occur to me - not even if I knew there was an airport nearby - that a stop sign on the road would mean I was crossing a flight path. If there was a situation where I'd be driving across the flight path of landing aircraft I would fully expect more information. You get a warning sign a railway crossings, even though these are reasonably common and people know what they are. This road isn't crossing the runway, it's just close to one end. To a driver it looks just like a piece of road, nothing special about it at all. I'm fairly tall and drive a small car, so I wouldn't be able to see the plane without leaning right down to see the sky out of the far window of the car. It's not like driving out into traffic that you could be reasonably expected to know was there. Why are the people at the airport being so stupid about this?

>> ^Quboid:

I think it was a joke.
Is it that unreasonable anyway? People seem to be assuming that if it's not a joke, that he means windows that passengers can wind down like a car but obviously they'd be locked except when in an emergency and the plane is less than 10,000 feet up. If the plane is on the runway and it fills with smoke, being able to open the windows might help. Or it might bring in more oxygen and make the fire much worse...


I agree. He was joking, and I actually don't think it's that stupid an idea, either. Sure, as he articulated it, it sounds like a stupid idea. You don't want a hand crank on every window (although I've been in commercial airliner cockpits that DO have such a thing).

But maybe it IS a problem that airliners don't have a way to rapidly vent the cabin and cockpit with fresh (yes, low pressure and cold) air. It won't be comfortable at 15,000 ft, but it could save lives. Smoke in an airplane is a serious issue.

I think it was a joke.

Is it that unreasonable anyway? People seem to be assuming that if it's not a joke, that he means windows that passengers can wind down like a car but obviously they'd be locked except when in an emergency and the plane is less than 10,000 feet up. If the plane is on the runway and it fills with smoke, being able to open the windows might help. Or it might bring in more oxygen and make the fire much worse...

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)

I can see landing on the wrong runway from the one the tower cleared you for, but landing at entirely the wrong airport... *wtf?

>> ^visionep:

There was no problem taking off on the short runway. Not much room for recovery if there was a problem, but it seemed to go off without a hitch.

Here's the link


Wow, that's an impressively short take off distance. I'm sure it was empty with a tiny fuel load, but still.

There was no problem taking off on the short runway. Not much room for recovery if there was a problem, but it seemed to go off without a hitch.



Here's the link

>> ^legacy0100:

looks painful... me no laugh


Is it wrong that I did? [laugh] =oP

this is how I always land my planes. You can just get out onto the wing and use it as a runway to your car so you don't get your shoes all muddy

http://www.cristiangriggio.com/brother-lb-6800prw-project-runway-computerized-sewing-embroidery-machine.htm

Don't usually get to see this angle at St. Maarten, wind usually going the other way. Normal approach is over the water, and take off in the same direction, towards the center of the island. In fact, you have to juke on takeoff to avoid the mountains (see in the backdrop of this video), which is rather troublesome in a large jetliner. Made more so by the fact the runway at St. Maarten is only 7,150 ft. Of note, the recommended take off length for the fully laden 747 is around 10k feet (it is less, but that is what they recommend), so you can bet those aren't fully loaded. And if you have an engine failure, even just a single, your boned...can't abort, can't fly.

"This is your captain, please return your trays and seats to the upright position. Fasten your safety belts, and be advised we are expecting some minor turbulence as we taxi to runway 3 South."

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I found Hanna completely bizarre. The "facility" she escapes from that looks more like a Prada runway with convenient hidey-holes that aren't even air-ducts, yet somehow lead to all the important rooms. The whole "never-heard-music" thing. What? Her dad can't sing her a fucking song? "Mary had a little lamb?" He didn't bring a cassette tape? She interacts socially with one person her entire life and then functions completely normally in society?
And I realize that the violence in movies is never realistic, but Hanna was just ridiculous. And not even in a good Matrixy-kind-of-way or a brutal Old Boy style. The whole thing played out like a teenage super-model's revenge fantasy. Like if Paris Hilton were to make a movie about her worst enemy.
Not that I think less of anyone for liking it. I was really excited to see it and it was certainly better than the latest "Pirates" turd.


Yeah, but that movie is supposed to play out like a stylized fantasy. All the fairy tale references aren't there by chance.

I found Hanna completely bizarre. The "facility" she escapes from that looks more like a Prada runway with convenient hidey-holes that aren't even air-ducts, yet somehow lead to all the important rooms. The whole "never-heard-music" thing. What? Her dad can't sing her a fucking song? "Mary had a little lamb?" He didn't bring a cassette tape? She interacts socially with one person her entire life and then functions completely normally in society?

And I realize that the violence in movies is never realistic, but Hanna was just ridiculous. And not even in a good Matrixy-kind-of-way or a brutal Old Boy style. The whole thing played out like a teenage super-model's revenge fantasy. Like if Paris Hilton were to make a movie about her worst enemy.

Not that I think less of anyone for liking it. I was really excited to see it and it was certainly better than the latest "Pirates" turd.