210 in flames at PDK

dreyna14 said:
That video is absolutely worthless other than showing that it had a normal takeoff climb and then extreme left bank right before impact with the ground. There are better, sharper images of spacecraft landing on other planets and this is all we have here on Earth?
Click to expand...
Complaints about the video quality of aviation crashes strike me as extremely callous and in poor taste.

Nauga,
who typed this post many times
 
Tantalum said:
I mean, the point was illustrative. You can get a little doorbell camera for your house for under $1,000 that shoots in near 4K..
Click to expand...

At one mile distance with a wide angle lens, each pixel on a 4K camera has a width of greater than 2 feet.
 
Tantalum said:
I mean, the point was illustrative. You can get a little doorbell camera for your house for under $1,000 that shoots in near 4K..
Click to expand...
4K is lousy resolution for a wide angle camera taking a face 50 feet away.
 
haha yeah wanting a clear video to better understand what happened (control surfaces, smoke, any anomalous item etc) is crazy
 
Fearless Tower said:
The key is this is not a standard 210. If you consider the people onboard and the fuel he took on, I don’t think there’s any way he wasn’t over gross with CG way out of aft limits.

Combine that with turboprop power and the video makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...

This right here is probably spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Jack Cabano said:
Mars Camera, procured by a competitive govrnment bid $2.3.Billion.
Click to expand...

I find this amusing just as much as the next guy. But... I mean... The $2.3B wasn't the cost of the camera, that was just the delivery fee. ;)
 
Fearless Tower said:
The key is this is not a standard 210. If you consider the people onboard and the fuel he took on, I don’t think there’s any way he wasn’t over gross with CG way out of aft limits.

Combine that with turboprop power and the video makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
With the high wing, I wonder how much additional pitch up moment you get based on the fact the thrust axis is below the center of lift.
 
Preliminary NTSB Report released today.

"the plane lifted off about 1,000-ft down the runway in a nose-high attitude, where the plane increased its power and angle. The plane then rolled left and dove nose-first beside the runway."
 
Tantalum said:
haha yeah wanting a clear video to better understand what happened (control surfaces, smoke, any anomalous item etc) is crazy
Click to expand...
Nobody is stopping you from donating cameras to every single airport so you'll get your crisp, clear video.
 
Tantalum said:
haha yeah wanting a clear video to better understand what happened (control surfaces, smoke, any anomalous item etc) is crazy
Click to expand...

Ah now you made me put on my engineering hat.

The challenge, as discussed, is angular width at distance, and the effect on resolution. The solution would be some kind of motion tracking camera that optically zooms in on aircraft taking off and landing. As AI tech continues to proliferate, devices like that should become more affordable. I'm thinking a wide angle digital camera to detect and locate the aircraft, with a slaved zoom lens camera to capture details.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The challenge, as discussed, is angular width at distance, and the effect on resolution. The solution would be some kind of motion tracking camera that optically zooms in on aircraft taking off and landing. As AI tech continues to proliferate, devices like that should become more affordable. I'm thinking a wide angle digital camera to detect and locate the aircraft, with a slaved zoom lens camera to capture details.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take AI to make an optical tracker, but remember this side discussion is about a doorbell camera and the "need" for better video because amateurs want to "analyze" crash video captured by happenstance.

Nauga,
and the difference between possible and practical
 
nauga said:
It doesn't take AI to make an optical tracker, but remember this side discussion is about a doorbell camera and the "need" for better video because amateurs want to "analyze" crash video captured by happenstance.

Nauga,
and the difference between possible and practical
Click to expand...

Agreed, but AI is the difference between possible and practical, and by practical I mean affordable in large numbers. AI is the reason our image-detecting doorbell cameras are made by Google instead of Lockheed Martin.

I don't have any problem with pilots wanting to see video to understand accidents for themselves. It harms nobody.
 
donjohnston said:
Nobody is stopping you from donating cameras to every single airport so you'll get your crisp, clear video.
Click to expand...
I think it's a reasonable observation. Most populated areas have some form of surveillance. When accidents occur investigators can use use clues from that surveillance to try and determine what happened and make aviation, etc., safer. Way up thread someone else mentioned surprise at the relative low quality of many such surveillance systems. It was an observation, and I believe a reasonable one, with some obvious hyperbole thrown in

Ed Haywood said:
to understand accidents for themselves
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point! Thanks. VASaviation has ATC recordings up in what seems like minutes after an event, we all jump there to listen and try and learn what may have gone wrong. I was surprised by some of the sarcastic, and out of context/strawman responses. But c'est la vie! Thanks for the informative engineering post



As a side note, given that most who post here are pilots, many of whom are instrument rated, many fly professionally, many have thousands of hours, and all have a genuine interest in aviation I would say PoA has orders of magnitude more expertise than the average "amateur" out there
 
Tantalum said:
I think it's a reasonable observation. Most populated areas have some form of surveillance. When accidents occur investigators can use use clues from that surveillance to try and determine what happened and make aviation, etc., safer. Way up thread someone else mentioned surprise at the relative low quality of many such surveillance systems. It was an observation, and I believe a reasonable one, with some obvious hyperbole thrown in
Click to expand...
I guess you should petition the FAA to require flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders in every airplane. That would probably be way more helpful than surveillance cameras.
 
Flocker said:
Preliminary NTSB Report released today.

"the plane lifted off about 1,000-ft down the runway in a nose-high attitude, where the plane increased its power and angle. The plane then rolled left and dove nose-first beside the runway."
Click to expand...

Lots of horsepower, nose high, full throttle, low to the ground, behind the power curve is not a place you want to be. It is probably one of the most unnatural things to do close to the ground, push that nose down, but if you don't it can kill you.
 
"After impacting the ground, the aircraft was engulfed in flames and incinerated within minutes due to a large amounts of jet fuel from the plane being fully fueled during take off."

:rolleyes2:
 
overdrive148 said:
"After impacting the ground, the aircraft was engulfed in flames and incinerated within minutes due to a large amounts of jet fuel from the plane being fully fueled during take off."

:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

It was a turbine conversion.
 
Why would it be easier to get the 210TP conversion into an aft cg, than the piston powered one? Or is there a design flaw allowing the turbine to not be far enough forward as to present the same moment as the piston engine?
 
bluerooster said:
Why would it be easier to get the 210TP conversion into an aft cg, than the piston powered one? Or is there a design flaw allowing the turbine to not be far enough forward as to present the same moment as the piston engine?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the STC works towards fixing it, but the turbine starts life as a lot lighter than the 6 cylinder recip. They push it as far forward as possible, but there are aerodynamic considerations around how far you can push it without creating pitch or yaw instability. I'm sure the final location of the turbine is a compromise somewhere, but I doubt it gives you the ability to load as many people and as much stuff in the back of the airplane as you could with the big 'ol boat anchor up front.
 
A similar turbine conversion had it's aft fuel tank filled and had CG too far aft and crashed with 3 children and 2 adults.

As tragic as this is, it's probably pilot error in failing to do weight and balance. Or pilot error from inexperience to the conversion. Outside chance the seat slid putting it out of cg.

I don't often side with the plaintiffs in cases like this, but I might here. It certainly looks like it's aft cg. And after a conversion like this I'd be meticulous with weight and balance. But I also wouldn't be taking passengers or my child after just 2 hours. If that statement is to be believed. Which based on the "2.3 hours since overhaul" I tend to believe.
 

Attachments

  • 2013-04 (1).pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 19
Racerx said:
A similar turbine conversion had it's aft fuel tank filled and had CG too far aft and crashed with 3 children and 2 adults.
Click to expand...

Some crash investigations reveal almost unbelievable malfeasance by the pilot, and the incident you linked is one of them. It occured in Europe, and the plane had a US registration.

When it crashed, the P210 turbine conversion aircraft had 347 lbs in the aft baggage compartment, 181 lbs of that a full fuselage fuel tank. The STC limits total weight in the baggage compartment to 181 lbs, the weight of the full tank. The plane was loaded 300 lbs over gross weight, and the CG was far beyond the aft limit.

The aircraft had a long history of inadequate and questionable maintenance, logbook omissions, and a gear up landing that required disassembly of the plane and shipment to the US to repair.

There is more, but the point is made.
 
Last edited:
Another P210 turbine conversion crash in 2005 was likely caused by a CG extremely close to the aft limit, based on witness accounts of the crash after takeoff. These conversions have the fuselage fuel tank added, which makes properly loading the aircraft a critical endeavour.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/44318

When the fuselage tank is full, no other weight such as baggage or tools can be placed in the compartment.

The accident aircraft at PDK had four occupants, and the flight was destined for Houston. This combination of a long distance trip, which required fuel for the thirsty turbine engine, along with the baggage and accouterments for four people, probably explains the sudden pitch up and crash of the airplane.
 
Last edited:
I’d think if it had excessive aft C.G., it could be ascertained from the wreckage, baggage, & fuel loading. One’s gotta know their plane, if that was a factor.
 
You can bet the NTSB will compute this. They've done so in the past. Since there are dead bodies, they're not going to do a sham investigation as typical.
 
bluerooster said:
Why would it be easier to get the 210TP conversion into an aft cg, than the piston powered one? Or is there a design flaw allowing the turbine to not be far enough forward as to present the same moment as the piston engine?
Click to expand...
Some turbine conversions can alter the forward airframe to help with engine weight differences. But a number can't be moved much. Given the excessive engine weight differences and existing arms/moments of the CG envelope the aft CG limit becomes the sacrificial element in these type conversions. It especially becomes an issue when the previous recip version can handle excessive aft CG and this difference is not sufficiently realized by the pilot.

flyingron said:
they're not going to do a sham investigation as typical.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Your cooler temp bulb was safetied and not torqued allowing the oil to leak out. Is that your definition of a sham investigation?
 
Bell206 said:
:rolleyes: Your cooler temp bulb was safetied and not torqued allowing the oil to leak out. Is that your definition of a sham investigation?
Click to expand...
The sham is that they let Continental make that determination without anybody else looking at it. The facts of the incident contradict Continental's "theory."
 
flyingron said:
The sham is that they let Continental make that determination without anybody else looking at it. The facts of the incident contradict Continental's "theory."
Click to expand...
Let’s not derail another thread shall we? The only sham is you do not want to believe the verified facts in the public docket. If you want to continue this why not post in the previous thread so I don’t have to retype all those facts? Here’s a link.;)
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/why-aircraft-engines-quit.131646/page-2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top