Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reason For This Crash  
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4478 times:

If you're flying anytime soon don't watch this video. Anyways I was wondering about the cause of this crash. Maybe the woman says it so can someone translate? Some are saying overloading but others are saying control lock problems because if you look at the ailerons and elevators they're all neutral, except for the rudder which is not controlled by the control lock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3621 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

I'd bet on overloading or improper takeoff procedures.

It seems it's wobbling back and forth- not an indication of control lock. If it were locked it would have just turned to one side and kept going.

Also, in my experience flying Cessna aircraft it would be near impossible not to notice a control lock in place.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

I'd tend to go with overloading. Four people on a 172 (which is what it looks like - RG model) is really iffy unless you're light on fuel. It's Colombia, so heat and high altitude may have made that problem a lot worse. I saw an oxygen bottle in the first part of the video - did they try to take that along as well?

I don't think somebody forgot to take the control lock out - it has a metal flag attached that sits right in front of the magneto switch. You'd never be able to start the engine with it installed. That assumes, of course, that they were using the standard control lock. If they weren't, they'd still get a big warning when they tested the flight controls before takeoff (assuming they did). It's also possible that there was some sort of cable malfunction behind the panel, but I'd find that unlikely.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4461 times:

Seems like a lot of weight for a 182 to be handling...looks like they were doing a medical transport? Perhaps being "hot 'n high" made matters worse. Also, the pilot's directional control, well, was very poor (not that that seemed to contribute to this accident). It looks like they had trouble climbing out of ground effect.

It looks like he had ~10 degrees of flaps set, which in most Cessnas would be what you'd set for a short and/or short and soft field takeoff (a standard takeoff would be no flaps in most Cessna singles). I don't have much experience with the 182, but I seem to recall from the 210 (which I haven't flown since 1999) that a standard departure was done with 10 degrees of flaps?



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4461 times:

I don't really agree with overloading because the plane took off normally, if it was over loaded it would have never gained the altitude that it did. What is really puzzling is that all the control surfaces are neutral, except for the rudder. Why would the pilot add that much rudder and not correct with ailerons? It's not a 182.

[Edited 2006-10-29 07:18:53]

User currently offlineFrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

Nothing about that takeoff looked normal.

User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

The actual takeoff looked normal it's just that something happened after they were airborne. The path of the aircraft is what's puzzling, that attitude would look normal if there was a strong crosswind or if the pilot was trying to slip the plane but that would require a lot of aileron and why would he slip the plane?

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

From what I recall from previous discussions on this, the cause was the girls mother, who was sat in one of the front seats. She got panicky and turned round to try and comfort her child, jamming the controls as she did so.

User currently offlineBuzz From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 697 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4348 times:

Hi KELPKid, Buzz here. I don't know what a C-182 uses for flaps for a minimum-roll takeoff, but most Cessnas you want to retract 'em so you clean up the wing and can accelerate.

Looks like he took off in ground effect... needed some left rudder because he was yawing. I wouldn't be surprised if the front seat passenger leaned on one of those funny foot-rests to turn around and comfort the back seat passenger.

Taking off with that much yaw, just out of ground effect... want to guess that a wing stalled? I've been taught that slips are OK, skids are not. If you stall in a slip, the high wing comes down. We slip a lot in Champs and Cubs to lose altitude. But in a skid (yaw) if you stall in a skid, one wing has more lift than the other and over the top you go... that's how we spin for fun.

Sad story.
g'day


User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

The further back the centre of gravity is the more unstable the aircraft. My guess is that they had to much weight towards the back of the cabin. The oxygen talk (and that was big) that man and a stretcher?!

My opinions is that there was not enough weight towards the front of the aircraft.

My guess. I may indeed be wrong.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
Anyways I was wondering about the cause of this crash.

It's been on several times before and there are several threads on this one. The aircraft was overloaded with passengers, plus all the added medical supplies. I think in the one thread I read there were 5 people on-board plus a bunch of medical supplies. They were flying out a sick child, the parents, a pilot plus a medical aid.

[Edited 2006-10-30 21:47:17]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3930 times:

Overloaded, short-field take off, left ground effect too soon, stalled.

I'll look for the other threads... but... the search engine.. sooooo bad.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Very obvious, the center of gravity (CG) was too far aft. So the actual cause was "PILOT ERROR".

User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
Very obvious, the center of gravity (CG) was too far aft. So the actual cause was "PILOT ERROR".

As I stated above


User currently offlineSB From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Accidents are almost never caused by a single factor  Wink

My untrained eye picks up the following:

- Rapid rotation when the aircraft was apparently going too slow to take off -> Aft C. of G. combined with an overweight aircraft.
- Left wing lifted up in quite a hurry -> Strong crosswind. (The trajectory once airborne supports this)

Then there's always the passenger input theory, plausible but unconfirmed?

I'd be interested to see the accident report if/when it's published.

S.



"Confirm leave the hold and maintain 320kts?!"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

That guy was heavy and definately loaded aft.

Those medivac kits aren't light.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Quoting Buzz (Reply 8):
Taking off with that much yaw, just out of ground effect... want to guess that a wing stalled? I've been taught that slips are OK, skids are not. If you stall in a slip, the high wing comes down. We slip a lot in Champs and Cubs to lose altitude. But in a skid (yaw) if you stall in a skid, one wing has more lift than the other and over the top you go... that's how we spin for fun.

Slip and skid are really the same thing. They both involve yaw (sideslip). The difference is the direction, skid is outwards from the centre of turn, slip is inwards to the centre of turn. In either case, stalling with sideslip on can cause a spin.

The safer kind of slip, as used when landing Cubs, etc. is a steady sideslip (i.e. cross control). No turning is involved either. It's a very different thing, but the name is the same.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Reason For This Crash
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is There A Reason For This Headgear? posted Tue May 17 2005 20:36:16 by Drinkstrolley
At LGB, What Was The Reason For This? posted Mon Sep 1 2003 19:31:44 by Wilax
Reason For Iran A.F C130 Crash? posted Fri Dec 9 2005 00:59:32 by Hamad130
Explanation For This Video? posted Fri Apr 2 2004 05:32:39 by Fly2hmo
Any Technical Explanation For This A319 Take-off? posted Thu Feb 5 2004 18:39:39 by TAP1972
Reason For A Long Push-back? posted Tue Mar 25 2003 14:34:26 by Srilankan_340
World Airways..routes For This Month? posted Wed Aug 22 2001 06:15:08 by N737MC
This May Seem Easy For A Lot Of You posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:45:47 by Runway777
Gonna Get Hell For Asking This....Plane Maintenance posted Tue Nov 1 2005 10:37:12 by Ilovenz
Is This A Test For The Engines?... posted Fri Sep 2 2005 16:51:08 by Bio15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format