Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Back to Squawk list
  • 150

(Video) Plane crash from inside cockpit

"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… (www.youtube.com) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Andrew Stagg 12
WX at the time was: KSNT 301951Z AUTO 19008KT 26/M03 A3011 which would make the density altitude almost 8900ft! With 4 pax and likely close to (or above) max gross, they would likely have had little or no margin for error and failing to lean the mixture or a downdraft may have been the final link in the chain. Thankful to hear everyone made it out safely though.
Robert Larson 1
where was this? I don't find a KSNT. curious what the fld elev is.
Roger Blew 2
It was at Bruce Meadows (U63) near Stanley, Idaho. Elevation 6370 ft. Runway length 5000 ft.
alfadog 1
KSNT is a weather station just south of 2U7 and 22 nm SE of the accident field.
msvmaier 7
I appreciate the objectivity of this forum!

Andrew's numbers are spot on. DA was 8900 ft. Wow!

Student question... even though a high sink rate is technically an incipient stall (see Air France), I've never heard a stall warning with level attitude and high angle of attack (i.e., sink). Something about the aerodynamic environment of stall tab I imagine. Anyone?

Abort? He didn't abort because he didn't plan it. Time gets gets distorted on roll-out. You have to know your time and distance points BEFORE pushing the throttle. I'm just as guilty as anyone.

My take aways...

1) Do what we don't always do... calculate V1 and know in how many feet you need to be there. If you don't get there, pull the throttle.

2) If you don't haul back on the yoke and stall the airplane, you can walk away from a tree-top landing. Despite the planning error, the Stinson pilot kept flying the airplane.
Robert Larson 14
here's a plan: if the wheels leave the surface and then settle back down again, you're doing it wrong. terminate the flight, back to the ramp and figure out what went wrong.

takeoffs are optional. landings are mandatory.
Douglas Yates 13
Keepeth thy airspeed up... Least the earth riseth up and smite thee!
john jorges 1
I saw that on a smashed balsa model at the BLM FBO. Funny.
Douglas Yates 1
My flight instructor back in the 70s passed that one on to me. Helps me remember to first and foremost fly the airplane (and make sure that it can fly). :o)
Dee Lowry 1
My "CFI" said the same thing...among other things. Again, it comes down to fundamentals. And this guy is a "Commercial Pilot"? Don't want to be onboard his aircraft with his inept decision making!

[This poster has been suspended.]

Faster Gun 3
eddyandy 12
The only air pocket I can identify was between the pilot's ears!
Douglas Carter 6
This video should be mandatory for every student pilot.
eagle5719 3
Just adding to your plan: Require every pilot, as part of his BFR, to view the video. There are many that forget or just ignore the basic physical science about what keeps an airplane flying correctly.
Toby Sharp 1
So should 10 hours in a tailwheel
eagle5719 1
Your suggestion is the best one of all the 100 plus in here.
Mark Krawiec 5
Thank goodness everyone survived.
Jim McCurdy 5
Yeah, what they said. However, my butt was puckering 30 seconds in.
Wow!... The plane was telling the pilot emphatically, "I can't do what you're asking of me." Then, after ignoring the reality of the take-off performance ('lack of' to be more precise), miles of clear flat ground were flown over all while the plane continued to offer every indication that it was incapable of climbing to a safe altitude.

There's no indication in the video or the commentary that the PIC has a clue of how many chances they had to avoid this.
preacher1 2
That's the sad part. I also noticed there is no voice on there at all from the PIC. I don't know what he was thinking other than maybe "I got in here, we got to get out", and as you say, ignoring the reality. I didn't hear any engine mush, indicating it was just doing all it could do with the weight and a hot day. Why all that flat ground was ignored, we'll never know.
perry holcomb 5
This time I was able to see it. As a former private pilot with my instrument ticket, I see two main causes, both the responsibility of the pilot: weight and balance, and density altitude. The "downdraft" is just an excuse. The aircraft had an extremely long takeoff run and was unable to climb out. It was way behind the power curve as shown by its "mushing," especially towards the end. The aircraft was very possibly overloaded, as well. Give the pilot credit, tho, for not stalling the sucker and probably killing everyone.
preacher1 3
You got to admit though, that "DOWNDRAFT" sounded good.LOL. According to the report that Daniel linked below, it appears the info given to the NTSB was from one of the pax, probably told to him by the pilot, which just kept the pilot's butt out of a crack. They all came away alive and he'll probably fly again if not already doing so.
Jason Rhew 2
The downdraft was a stall.
A. Highsmith 1
I heartily agree with you. I am a retired military pilot and have many hours in small planes such as this one. I will bet the report comes out as density altitude and weight, both of which this pilot probably was not competent to figure out. My question is why he didn't just land when he had the level ground rather than continuing on when he could see he was not gaining altitude.
Gene Nowak 1
Perry - From the way it acted between minutes 2:40 to 2:52, it appears to me to be a vertical stall. He had altitude, then gave it a little more back pressure and settled back down into the trees. PILOT ERROR!
Justin Angers 4
That was crazy.
preacher1 4
An expensive dinner trip. At the very least, if he didn't abort takeoff, I do believe I would have just turned around after not climbing anymore than that. It seems there was ample time to do one of the two. I hate to armchair on this one but I have to agree with Harry here below, seems like pilot error no matter how you want to dress it up.
gmahler 7
I am a loss to understand why he continued the take offs ( there were 2) and not determine there was something wrong. High, hot, over gross, possible engine loss of full power (leaning, or low compression) or whatever reason, that aircraft barely flew out of ground effect, and then not for very long. I Fly into a one way in, one way out 600' grass strip in a valley @1600' , and to see him keep trying to put that plane into the air with all that runway, and virtually no obstacles, blows my mind. We are taught that every accident has a chain of events and in order to prevent an accident, you have to break the chain. Lots of links in this accidents chain, and you can bet there are more we don't know about.
msvmaier 3
Any Stinson pilots who can comment on this video? At standard pressure, the density altitude was about 7,000 feet. I think the Stinson should have been airborne in less than 800 feet. Before the first bounce, the takeoff roll had been 40 seconds, which means they covered at least 1,200 feet, but I think it was more. It seems there was a performance problem other than weight and density altitude. We single engine pilots absolutely must calculate the abort point in advance, then delete wishful thinking and pull the throttle if you don't make it. It seems the throttle should have been pulled long before the first bounce.
Ron Hatfield 3
You guys bring up valid points. Many of them echoing exactly what I was thinking while watching the video. The other was "Climb b**&*, climb!!!"

Out of curiosity, I checked out the weight and balance of a default Stinson 108-3 from http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/ac-0.htm#DocumManual
Using the spreadsheet I found there and changing nothing but the weight of 4 packs (assumed weight of 180 pounds per for 4 males), and a full tank of fuel (45 gallons U.S.) (I gave the benefit of a doubt for 1 gallon burned for taxi) and no baggage puts him at 2404 lbs. Which would be 4 pounds over gross. IMHO, he was at the edge/outside of his envelope on an average day. Please don't flame me, this is just what I found curious, and what I did to see if I was right. I suspect NTSB will do the exact same thing, but in much more detail.

Great vid for weight and balance training.
Glad to see they made it out o.k.
Dave K 3
Perfect demonstration of hazardous attitude (it won't happen to me). They are all very lucky to be alive.
Yazoo 3
It's sad. This was ultimately caused by "get home-itis". That little virus that affects a pilot's ego into thinking that he can do the impossible. It's usually manifested by thinking that you have enough fuel to make it non-stop to your home field. Often it appears by thinking "the weather will break before we arrive" or the often fatal just count "3 potato" before executing the missed approach. Because you just might see the field.
I don't fly small aircraft so I don't know the performance capabilities of this one. But even I saw this coming in the takeoff roll. I'm guessing by the total silence of the passengers and pilot they did as well. Not a single word like... "we're not climbing", "hold on we're going into the tree", etc.
Kevin Brown 5
What I find weird is I didn't hear anyone shouting expletives before, during or after the crash in fact they don't seem to say anything. It's as if they are in some kind of trance.

Even if the passengers were non-pilots you would think that they would have had a sense of their impending doom and expressed concern to the pilot.
David Howells 1
This is most likely to be because a) the predominant sound in a small ac is engine noise and b) the Go Pro cameras have poor sound recording compared to "proper" video cameras; this applies even if the owner has bought the accessory "Skeleton" housing - with the supplied waterproof housing the sound is simply appalling.
Harry Freeman 4
Just from the start the pilot should have abandoned takeoff, if it is taking that long to get airborne and it is obviously because of density altitude and temperature then you should know it is going to be incredibly hard plus with 4 grown men inside. Sorry but this is the pilot's error and he put his passengers in great danger.
MeanMrMustard 2
"Pilot Error" is too simple and shallow of an answer. A proven SMS convention states that in order to properly dissect an accident, you need to ask "Why?" five times. e.g. Why didn't he abort takeoff? - because he felt pressured to go on. Why did he feel pressured to go on?... and so on.

I am glad that everyone was alright and thanks for sharing.
Colin Payette 10
Here's one: Why did he takeoff with full rich mixture at over 6000' IA?
tim mitchell 4
Didn't notice that; that would cause the engine to def. not operate at full performance....all in all he should have known something was wrong; heck it seemed like it took almost 1.5 miles (he ran out of dirt runway) to get airborne and even then it didn't want to climb....I saw somewhere in here where they were talking about rising terrain;those trees were a least three miles away and the mountains probably 5 miles at best.
Harry Freeman 1
Very good question.
DaveLloyd 4
Definately pilot error and incompetance! After lift off, he had plenty of warning that things weren't going well. He ignored that and wound up in the trees instead of putting it down on flat ground when he had the chance.
msvmaier 2
Not a very meaningful comment Dave L. Of course it was pilot error, it usually is. At its root, this was a failure to adequately plan. Something we have all done and gotten away with. Did you ever do something you wouldn't want recorded on video? Every pilot has. "Incompetent?" This is an event to learn from, not crucify.
he had plenty of warning that things weren't going well

He ignored that

Definately pilot error

alfadog 3
I am not going to comment on what we might have gotten away with, myself included. However, this was gross negligence on the part of this pilot. He put himself and his pax in mortal danger. This is on the order of a rusty VFR pilot intentionally flying into IMC. What he did was one of the killers that we, as pilots, have to hold the line against in ourselves and certainly not cut slack for, in others. He should have swallowed his pride and aborted that takeoff. He had a short flight home, it was early in the afternoon, and he could have ferried them out one at a time if he needed to.
If this reminds you, or I, of "Something we have all done and gotten away with" then we need to take some time for sober reflection.
alfadog 2
I posted the NTSB data (preliminary) and my comment on the video page (badgyro1). The Stinson may not have been overloaded but there were some definite errors that, luckily, did not exact as high a price as might have been.
Bryan Milne 2
The YouTube video comments mentioned "air pocket"? Really? How about downdraft. But it appears the aircraft was too heavy, high density altitude conditions and marginal piloting common sense/skills.
eagle5719 2
A student pilot, early in training, would've realized it was a no go and just settled the plane back down in the flat area beyond the runway.
eagle5719 2
On ABC's Good Morning America today, they interviewed the pilot and two of his PX. They got congratulated for surviving and all, but no one asked why the plane went down and the pilot sure didn't volunteer any reason.
Vernon Allamby 2
Looks like the pilot was in a state of denial. When the plane had such a long take off roll he should have settled down and reassessed the weight.
Dee Lowry 2
Man...132 Member Comments! This situation obviously hit a nerve with a lot of people...including me! Let's not beat a dead horse. Everything is good and there was a lot of great input and theories about the mishap. Let's put it to bed.
flightsun 2
Thank God they are all alive.
Dennis Harper 2
Don't forget the prop is biting less air molecules here... just like the wing.
Less air=less flying.
And he (pilot) knew all this...but proceeded anyway.
Density altitude, density altitude, density altitude.....READ SPARKY IMESON'S book!
a lesson to all pilots.
Jason Rhew 2
Dude they flew into rising terrain. Yes DA played a roll but bottom line know where you are co paired to the terrain.
david fisher 2
Sad, hope no one was hurt. David Fisher, Western Aviation, Inc.
WOW......glad everyone was ok!
Dan Sullivan 2
To Mr. Farr's stall warning question - small planes generally use one of two means to detect stall - a vane (tab) or reed opening. I believe the Stinson uses the vane type (Stinson pilots-comment?). Neither actually detect a stall but rather are designed to detect the angle of attack where a stall is expected. Icing is a common condition where there is inadequate lift in spite of appropriate AOA. Being overloaded / relatively overloaded for density altitude is another.

I started watching this without sound - immediately thought "overloaded" but was confused so I started listening, expecting to hear comments regarding "tree top flying" to get some good camera shots (noting the video equipment on board). Started listening - bothersome silence in the cabin. Looks like things got ugly during the turn - shows you how close to the margin of lift they were at, only took a little loss of lift of the inside wing to seal their fate. Not that (as pretty much everyone saw right away) it wasn't clear from the beginning that the plane could hardly get out of the ground effect. I think Mr. Stagg got it just right - it is unusual (?unheard of) that an accident happens because of only one factor / error / failure. It is usually a series of events that leads to a failure (and maybe the turn was the nail in the ...)
Andrew Nichols 2
Agreed. The pilot made a series of horrible decisions which could have been avoided. It's downright pathetic that the pilot would put his passengers in harms way. What's worse is he had the chance to stop it all before it began.
Douglas Carter 2
If you watch the video, it is clear that the pilot had several chances, and should have, aborted the takeoff. Why didn't he?
Robert Larson 2
I agree. Unless I'm misunderstanding it looks like he lifted off and then settled back to the runway. For me, that's the end of a flight, back to the hanger to figure out what's wrong. Not, well let me try to take off one more time. ???!!
lot we can learn here, I think.

1). get current weather, calculate density altitude, runway needed to takeoff, and Weight and Balance BEFORE you load the plane!

2). set a RTO point visually down the runway, plane not off the ground by then, stop the takeoff!

3). set 10 degrees of flaps

4). plane not climbing, put it back down STRAIGHT ahead.

really looks like he shouldn't have gotten past number 1
5. Make sure to lean the mixture appropriately.
msvmaier 2
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Video of Crash Into the Trees - Idaho Wilderness

Any Stinson pilots who can comment on this video? At standard pressure, the density altitude was about 7,000 feet. I think the Stinson should have been airborne in less than 800 feet. Before the first bounce, the takeoff roll had been 40 seconds, which means they covered at least 1,200 feet, but I think it was more. It seems there was a performance problem other than weight and density altitude. We single engine pilots absolutely must calculate the abort point in advance, then delete wishful thinking and pull the throttle if you don't make it. It seems the throttle should have been pulled long before the first bounce.

Jason Rhew 3
High and hot will equaled a longer then normal takeoff run- I honestly didn't see anything wrong with the takeoff. He was flyng into rising terrain. 1. 10 degrees of flaps would've helped. 2. A performance evaluation prior to takeoff should've been done.
3. KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, those trees were above his climb gradient. He should've turned around and flown downhill, till establishing enough ALT
linbb 5
Gee you mean that the two takeoffs he made during the film was ok??????????
Notice that as he approached the rising terrain and trees, he was forced to begin a low bank turn to the right. That slight turn was the 'last straw' that started the final loss of airspeed and resulting sinking into the tree tops.

The takeoff run was far too long. The settling back onto the runway was another obvious indication of trouble. Inability to climb following the takeoff was yet another obvious sign of trouble.

I'm curious how many times the PIC thought something like 'I shouldn't do this... but I'll look bad if I don't...')
preacher1 -5
I'm kinda like you; Other than a little long, the takeoff looked decent with nothing abnormal, but in failing to gain the altitude, he should have turned around and came back down. As far as turning around and flying downhill, that would have been OK too but the video doesn't show what was behind him. Either way, he should not have proceeded onward.
linbb 8
If he had turned back then it would have crashed sooner due to the fact he didnt have enough airspeed to keep it up in a turn.
eagle5719 1
He had time and space to do a very long, slightly banked turn so as to not increase stall speed much. I don't think he wanted to admit that he shouldn't have taken off with the excessive load and the high density altitude.
sharon bias 1
I think it started as they took off from that goat trail, masquerading as a runway. Runway was so bumpy that he couldn't get speed up to take off. When you can see the end of the runway, and you're still on the ground, it's time to abort.
steve parker 1
This adventure ran out of "skill and knowledge" with a lucky outcome......Let us all learm from this.
GeekforChrist 1
Amazing footage!
Bill Winslow 1
"This video is private.
Sorry about that."
preacher1 1
Bill Winslow 1
That's what it told me. It wouldn't let me watch it.
preacher1 0
Well, it wasn't earlier. Now it's requiring a YOU TUBE Sign in. I wonder if it's the video post or something that YOU TUBE has started?
Bill Winslow 1
I am signed in. I guess whoever uploaded it didn't like other people seeing it.
preacher1 1
Basically, it was a long takeoff out of a Wilderness dirt strip, long because it was hot. Tall pines about a mile off and rising terrain a little further out. He never gained enough altitude and went into the trees. Plenty of room to turn around and go back and land or as Jason says here, fly downhill til he gained some altitude. They lay it off on an air pocket pulling them down but it looked like flatly pilot error. From what I could see, he had plenty of time to act.
Bill Winslow 1
That's probably why he pulled it down :P
GeekforChrist 1
Yep, 45 minutes ago I could watch it.
Kira Andreola 1
I just watched it. Worked fine for me.
perry holcomb 1
I'd like to see it, but I get the same thing quoted by Bill Winslow, below
Andriy Tsyupka 1
poor piloting.....thank GOD they all survived
Amazing that everyone survived. I'm not a pilot, but it looked like the plane was having trouble gaining altitude the whole time.
perry holcomb 1
I believe its an old Cessna 170, old enough to have a venturi tube on the side of the cowl to run the gyro instruments. It's a tail dragger, so it's not a 152. Also, it holds 4 SOBs, so it's not the Cub. The control yoke looks like what's in the Cessna.
perry holcomb 1
Nope, not a Cessna. It's a Stinson 108-3, according to preacher's comment from Daniel's link.
Jonathan Cain 1
could've been really tragic..poor decisions. live ya learn
He hit an "air pocket". Now I understand!
linbb 0
What air pocket???? It wouldnt fly with that horse power and with that load on that hot a day.
peter wiens 1
Looks like a tiny hint of tailwind too ... from wx history. Moist air over trees sometimes more humid, less lift. Pilot info recommends 230 tkoff, 5 for landing here. Maybe also the fuel grade. It's very hard to watch ... esp due to a very close call (in a 172), the first-time fullgross on the hot day on which I got my PPL
Jonathan Farr 1
Student question: Why didn't the stall warning sound? I guess the wings never entered a stall but the power wasn't enough to climb into the rising terrain? The turn before the crash reminds me a bit of the fatal crash video from 1984 in Colorado. I knew when I saw it here that it would be bad.
Robert Larson 1
Stall warning can be heard starting at 2:42 through to impact. ??
John Danish 1
agree with everyone else,as a flight instructor,that flight was overafter the first time it settled back to the runway!
I am not a pilot, but a well travelled passenger. I would have been nervous as hell during that so called take off run and probably said something- but grew up with a pilot in the family who believed you did not question the pilot and i guess that's how you end up in the trees.
Dee Lowry 1
No lift...No Takeoff. Just comes down to fundamentals and "Flying 101". He had they opportunatey to abort but chose not to. Definately the guy has a common sense issue...or the lack of. All of the drama could have been avoided.
The Pilot ignored all the (Density Altitude) performance clues... High, Hot, and Humid. High density altitude corresponds to reduced air density and thus to reduced aircraft performance.
There are three important factors that contribute to high density altitude:
1. Altitude. The higher the altitude, the less dense the air. At airports in higher elevations, such as those in the western United States, high temperatures sometimes have such an effect on density altitude that safe operations
are impossible. In such conditions, operations between midmorning and midafternoon can become extremely hazardous. Even at lower elevations, aircraft performance can become marginal and it may be necessary to reduce aircraft gross weight for safe operations.
like I said,,,,everyone should read Sparky's Mountain Flying Bible wether you are are flatlander or not. PERIOD. (your comments on the three H's are right on)
Anthony Wight 1
The air was real hot so coupled by this and the runway altitude, they had little air for lift!
john jorges 1
And the son said how the pilot was responsible for no one getting hurt badly or killed. I was just as responsible for rolling snake eyes on the AC crap table. Only problem was I was trying to get a seven.
Craig Lewis 1
Seems to like he was struggling to gain altitude during the entire flight, which maybe a weight and balance issue.
The accident was 100% due to poor aeronautical decision making.

With a density altitude of 9200, and loaded near or over MGW, N773C should not have attempted take-off from U63 on 2012-06-30 at 14:05 MDT.

Further, when it couldn't get out of ground effect by the end of the 5000' runway, the take-off should have been aborted in the field past the runway, rather than in the trees in ascending terrain.
USAFcptnShades 1
I'm @ a loss of words for this one. It's sad to see what I believe to be a rational human being make such poor decisions and for what? Maybe ego, maybe not bottom line is that this should have never happened.
Dee Lowry 1
The "air" was as dense as this guys brain...not to mention weight...and he didn't have the "brain matter" to Pull the Plug on the throttle after he hit the runway again after rotating! "Full Stop"! He had a lot of room to recover! Obviously, it didn't register. Flying into the trees? It's a given, you go nose up and cushion the impact with the belly but he was too low, too slow and too heavy to accomplish that maneuver. Forgive me but I don't have compassion for stupity.
Douglas Yates 1
I'm pretty sure that I heard the stall warning as I posted previously. Pretty faint but I think it is there.
Dee Lowry 1
Eagle, the pilot didn't volunteer information because he knew he wasn't being responsible and he almost killed his pax..."friends", onboard! He is trying to protect his "&*%" to compensate for the several mistakes that he made.
Dee Lowry 1
No eagle. He didn't have the power or the altitude to do that. Just put "her" down...after the first bounce with the gear and everything would have been "peachy". Where's "Curiosity" when you need him?
Ted Mills 1
Beautiful scenery...kind of an unusual way to become one with it.
Jeff Lawson 1
AOPA has an article that includes some additional details from an interview with the pilot -- http://www.aopa.org/training/articles/2012/120814youtube-crash-pilot-was-going-to-abort.html
Peter Russell 1
The aircraft was making it pretty clear to the pilot that it didn't want to climb for some time before the crash. Would 10-15 deg. flap have made any difference?
Douglas Yates 1
I'm not sure that flaps would have made much of a difference. The plane was probably well over it's gross weight with 4 good sized guys in it. Too many bad things going against it.
Jim Quinn 1
Flying in high temperatures/terrain/mountains, with obstructions, etc.: If, at takeoff, you don't immediately climb at 300'/min (a good safety margin), abort the takeoff if possible.... Density altitude miscalculations or ignorance can kill you, sometimes seriously!
David Lee 1
Thank God they are lived. This video should be required viewing for every student pilot, and even for high time pilots.
Douglas Yates 1
If I'm not mistaken, the so called downdraft was the stall. I thought I heard the warning horn. If I'm wrong about this ignore my comment. However, turning around would have been worse. Too low... Too slow. Straight ahead landing (crash) best decision. My opinion is an overloaded plane. I mean if the plane settles to the ground and he continued takeoff then this is definitely pilot error. Anyway you cut this NTSB will attribute the crash to pilot error. I smell lawsuit also.
chalet 0
Extremely poor piloting, he had all indications that he did not have enough power right from the beginning but he chose to continue.
Jason Rhew 3
Not true at all. Take off from APA in a jet with a lot of fuel and you'll use 7,000 ft of runway. HE FLEW INTO RISING TERRAIN. the "downdraft" they encountered was a stall due to his lack of airspeed as he tried to out climb the terrain.

Rising terrain can be subtle in the mountains and it's a killer if you don't have the ponies to perform.
preacher1 3
In a hurry for dinner. Flat ground. Rising terrain way off in the distance. What me worry?
Douglas Yates 3
Great name for the movie... Flat Ground Rising!
linbb 0
Its amazing how few of the people commenting even know what kind of AC it is, Cessna 180s dont have two struts on the wing only one, also look at the cowl and ventury neither are cessna, the venturi on cessnas is lower and further to the back.Its a Stinson like was finally pointed out. Also at low airspeed one does not turn back as then it will stall and spin in. Another thing most misse it became airborn,listen to the sound of the wheels on the ground, it stops whle still over the dirt and then starts again on the grass finally stops indicating it finally stayed in the air untill it ran out of airspeed and altitude. Some of you should not even comment just look at those who know the kind of AC and what really happned, 10 degrees wouldnt have helped get anything done as it didnt have enough power to make it happen other than the final outcome which ment the dumb pilot killed a good airplane and no a 108 isnt really a four place airplane either, just has four seat.
tim mitchell -1
That little plane was struggle to gain altitude....overweight
Troy Raiteri -1
WHAT THE HELL!! 4 people in the decathlon with max fuel. The pilot was WAY over his weight limit!!
Stinson 108-3
Troy Raiteri 0
Thanks for the correction there but I see little downforce playing effect in this video. And this wasn't his first crash too.

[This poster has been suspended.]

USAFcptnShades 1
Gps has nothing to do with flying safely genius.
Jay Matheson 0
Seems to me that flying it straight into the trees was the only good choice that was made here... Just sayin...
If you are going down in that terain, kissing the trees (looks like 50') is th best option. Given the available factors, this flight was a bit cavalier and I fear the pilot wil get another plane and repeat the take-off with the same factors. Next time he won't be so lucky.
skylloyd 0
I watched it, no problem..try again.
KC Hoover 0
It's back! Wow what a ride. Sure glad everyone survived. Did you happen to notice the extensive pine beetle damage forest they were attempting to fly over.
peter wiens 0
If DA is already 8900 at zero AGL, what's the chance the pilot is also still under some effect of high altitude hypoxia since the DA over the mountains is much higher on his trip in to Bruce Meadows from Boise for pickup.

8900 plus .....
Rob Winslow 0
Dumb Ass
Richard Isbell 0
Field elevation 6300 feet....Temperature 82f...density altitude 8900 feet........mixture full rich...taking off with a tail wind.....overloaded plane.....using the published nonfavored runway......crash....priceless......pilot an idiot.

[This poster has been suspended.]

linbb 0
What I felt sad about he just about killed other people due to his poor pilot skills.

[This poster has been suspended.]

USAFcptnShades 1
Wow. Time to Turn in your wings citizen.
peter wiens 1
The first accident two years earlier in the 150 it was a precautionary landing with a low fuel situation (which you can say is smart rather than run out in a worse place). There was more than enough fuel along this time (catch-22)... never to get into the same type trouble a second time.
phataj2008 0
Owen O'Mahony 0
What sort of explanation is that? How about, aircraft overloaded and dangerous low flying?
Gene Nowak -2
Maybe someone can tell me the type of aircraft. Looks like a 152 or Piper Cub to me.

Did anyone notice there is at the very beginning of the film a another person in the rear seat holding a second camera. My thoughts are OVER WEIGHT!! That may be the reason he could not acquire altitude. I had a PA28 near maximum weight and it takes time to climb to altitude. Put trees in the way and you may have problems being overweight, especially with stalling if you try to climb too fast.
preacher1 1
a Stinson 108-3, N773C - See Daniel's post/link here below. It has the full report. Regarding Overweight, that was probably the problem in the heat of the day and all, but they came in with all they had going out.
Gene Nowak 1
Agreed! Temperature was 82 at 6300 MSL. Then add 4 SOB @ 175# each w/full fuel and you have a disaster ready to happen, especially at that density altitude.
tim mitchell 2
neither the 152 or piper cub are 4 place planes....even the 172 isn't a true four place plane unless you are talking about four really small people
Terry Isom -3
I just watched the video. I had no problems.
Sidney Smith -1
Perfect example, of the failure, of the law of natural selection by nature to weed out the inferior.
GeekforChrist -3
Do you have a YouTube account?


Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!