I'm glad you posted that information from FlightGlobal about the high angle of attack and unusual approach and takeoff angles for Afghanistan. I remember hearing similar things about airports in Iraq. I was thinking that this may prove to be a contributing factor in this terrible crash.

*eia not snuff , not any more snuff than watching a video of little kids boarding a plane which the last you saw on the video was the engine sucking in a giant goose and flaming out on takeoff.

This one killed 14
http://videosift.com/video/Soviets-First-Supersonic-Airliner-Crashes-At-Paris-Air-Show

I can find 50 more videos on the sift where things ended tragically.

Lay down some solid guidelines and I would be happy to follow them. "Videos where things go bad (even after the video ends) and it makes most people feel really uneasy to watch." ?

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Impressive-takeoff-over-water-by-a-Blue-Angels-F-A-18

Impressive takeoff over water by a Blue Angels F/A-18 has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Looks like both are at fault here. The SUV didn't stop, and the plane is coming in way too low. Look at this satellite image of the airport, those yellow arrows pointing to the white line indicates a displaced threshold. Planes can takeoff from the displaced threshold, but they are not supposed to land on it.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^kulpims:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/A380-Takeoff-And-Landing-From-The-Nose-Wheel-Perspective ?


But it's dead.

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)

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
FAA is going to freak if they find this video and incident has not been reported. o.0

I'm right there with you, that may in fact be one hell of a major no-no and I hope they were over empty lands.
I wonder under normal regulations if they are actually even supposed to continue operating in an event like that, considering all the regulations put on flying (there are a lot). I know it looks like some guy's dumpy car just lost a side door, no biggy, but in flying they breath fire down your neck for missing certain bolts or those said bolts even being remotely loose... I'll have to look and see if a pilot can make a judgment call concerning no mandatory operation machinery attached to the craft coming off (that may be part of the main fuselage!)
I did look and see that the national statistic on flights that should have remained grounded getting fixed (some problems not so big, some big enough that when the plane landed emergency crews were needed to put out fires, not including MANY of the emergency landings at the wrong airport before the plane truly does CRASH) that number comes in at around 65000 flights over six years... This is from the FAA, so we're talking about mostly small business's up to large airlines like Delta. BUT, it must always be remembered that they do a better job than your average driver and their car by far; they just have much more "flashier" endings I guess you could say. Which makes the media frenzy about it like a feeding pool that CNN & FOX News ALIKE, engorge until nothing is left but the tasteless morsels that just reiterate everything we have been told by them before this...it is unfortunate that not only we are exposed to this media circus, but also that 'flying' is being dragged through the toxin-filled-sludge created by our media-hype-elite...
I'd figure the ONE group of people that might actually take great care of their machinery is the smaller business and solo-flyer's. I know one of my grandfather's brother spent hours on end with his plane making sure it was in tip-top shape and making sure his flight plans were exacting (he was kinda a bush-pilot, so that was important to him, if you know what I mean). A small off-topic element to this: I remember going through his flight plans and maps that went up through the Western U.S., into Western Canada, then into lower Alaska...it was amazing to see what detail he went into to get the job done; I would feel very safe flying with him if I ever did, because of the extreme measures he went to to get everything right...
I wonder if the pilot had to worry about anything when they landed, it's impossible to see from the clip, but you don't see if it goes up at all and hits the plane--but, I'd assume since everyone is acting basically happy and fine (no panic at all) I assume that the rest of that flight went normally, except for that and the large amounts of paperwork that wold follow it... (Assuming they weren't idiotic and DID report it...)


Found a little blurp about it here.

Quote
Nah it wasn't our fault. There were ten 'other' jumpers before us. Some were new and didn't know how to operate it. On takeoff they failed to close it properly and then in the back from held it down with there feet till 2500 where two of them stood up to close it properly. When they stood on it it was pushed below the stops on either side (the angle iron shaped things) and then turned the handle. I am assuming the locking pin went below the frame of the door. At height they stood to open the door - stepping on the door and turning the handle. The door didn't rise. They then stood on it harder with no change to the result. They then stood on it harder and pushed it down into the wind and it caught air and took off. One of the coolest things I have ever seen. The door landed in the quarry and has been recovered - it needs about $100 in repairs and will be back in action this weekend (or so i have been told).

Was looking for more on it but so far zip.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^charliem:
Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.

Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.

Was this the company that got several tries for the contest were Armadillo Aerospace only got one?


Armadillo Aerospace's vehicle could of made another attempt, but they decided against it because of a burned through engine nozzle, and rolled the vehicle at takeoff that caused other damage. Rockets ain't easy!

>> ^PHJF:

Lunar!?!?
Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?


If you want to go to mars, having a base on the moon is a good first step. And while a direct trip to the mars is still physically a possibility, a useful staging ground could be the moon. Water is heavy, and the discovery of polar water on the moon means you could drastically reduce takeoff weight by supplying water from the moon. Also, this is a very advanced rocket that could see use elsewhere. Most rockets don't burn in a controllable way; once you start them, they go until they run out of fuel. More over, most don't allow for thrust throttling, wide open throttle until the fuel depletes. And on top of all that, it is able to vector its thrust that is being dynamically altered to keep a relatively clean trajectory.

Another way to look at it is the moon is a good place to practice ferrying people. Might as well use your own back yard (the moon: 384,400 km away) than a distance planet (Mars: 56 million km away at the closet point) for a technology test bed.

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.