Apparent plane crash on TPC Scottsdale Golf Course

weilke said:
The 'abrupt turn' is when the flow over the left wing stopped being attached alltogether. The reason it doesn't look 'normal' is because he was much lower than most other light aircraft at this point in the process.
Click to expand...

I will not question your authority. Cheers.
master.jpg
 
PaulS said:
Engine failure below 500 agl, land straight ahead, with a slight turn left or right to avoid obstacles....
Click to expand...
Using a fixed number like that is dangerous. It doesn't take into account distance from the runway, nor the difference between climb angle and glide angle. And wind, density altitude, and length of the runway are factors.
 
mryan75 said:
I think they were trying to make the road not because of a power loss, but out of concern for the performance they were seeing. I can easily see one of he two pilots realizing pretty quick after liftoff that this was a poor idea and quickly deciding that the road was their best option.
Click to expand...
This sound very logical by what is in the video. As somebody pointed out there are mountains about 2 miles straight off of the runway. Seems like they realized they were not going to clear those mountains, so they need to either turn back or get down. With the loss of altitude in the turn, they could not get back into the pattern or back to the runway, so they aimed for the road.

Based on the other speculation on plane performance, these events ( at least in my mind) did not require loss of power to have occurred. An aft CG causing tendency to pitch up, at max weight or over, the turn leading to increased stall speed, DA, etc. are more than enough to lead to this. Remember the tower right at takeoff saw something was not right and radioed them, and the ground observer noted the same thing. The observer quoted was even close enough and possibly knowledgable enough to say the runup sounded normal. The runway was long enough that if there was power loss during the roll or even very shortly after wheels up, they could have gotten down.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Okay guys...let’s make something clear. The McDowell mountains were not a factor in this crash lol. Not sure why everyone things the mountains are 100 feet of the end of the runway. They were not trying to evade the mountains...You have plenty of time to make a slight turn to the left to avoid the McDowells.

Otherwise I agree with most of what has been said.

Thanks,

CC268 PoA NTSB Manager
 
Last edited:
arkvet said:
Wow watching that video from the traffic cam suggests that regardless of the weight / CG I think that plane was flying. It had already reached an altitude of probably a couple hundred feet at what was likely an anemic straight ahead climb... the turn looks to be pretty steep considering the likely AOA and airspeed when it was initiated.

If no obstructions were straight ahead (tall towers / mountains) I think that plane would have made it to Vegas if the turn had been delayed and was made less aggressively.

The video IMHO Suggests the performance was probably enough if it had been flown more delicately.
Click to expand...

We should replicate the loading, takeoff and see if we make it out alive if we fly straight ahead. Should be good.
 
CC268 said:
We should replicate the loading, takeoff and see if we make it out alive if we fly straight ahead. Should be good.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be necessary to replicate the loading. It could be done by calculating the climb angle from the video, as discussed earlier in the thread, and adjusting the power and air speed to achieve the same angle. That way, the test wouldn't have to be carried to the point of destruction. Even better (less expensive) would be to use the climb angle to plot the altitude on a topographical chart to see where it intersects terrain.
 
Palmpilot said:
It wouldn't be necessary to replicate the loading. It could be done by calculating the climb angle from the video, as discussed earlier in the thread, and adjusting the power and air speed to achieve the same angle. That way, the test wouldn't have to be carried to the point of destruction. Even better (less expensive) would be to use the climb angle to plot the altitude on a topographical chart to see where it intersects terrain.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Documented in the Action Item List. “Palmpilot to provide detailed calculations”

When can you have these calculations done?

CC268
PoA NTSB Manager
 
Last edited:
CC268 said:
Thanks. Documented in the Action Item List. “Palmpilot to provide detailed calculations”

When can you have these calculations done?

CC268
PoA NTSB Manager
Click to expand...
I'll have those done within one week of receiving the signed contract from the NTSB for my services. ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
I'll have those done within one week of the date that I am put on the NTSB payroll. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks. Will send charge number over soon. Waiting for government to send money.

CC268
PoA NTSB Manager
 
Palmpilot said:
Using a fixed number like that is dangerous. It doesn't take into account distance from the runway, nor the difference between climb angle and glide angle. And wind, density altitude, and length of the runway are factors.
Click to expand...

I think we agree, I'm not saying above 500 turn back, I'm just saying 500 or below land straight ahead, unless an obstacle is in the way then a gentle turn, maybe up to 20 degrees off your path. If you have a chute, pull it (600 feet for some). As you get higher your options increase, but only slightly, maybe more of a turn. My attempt at the impossible turn, simulated, took 700 feet of altitude to get back reasonable alignment with the imaginary runway. Doesn't seem like a reasonable option in most cases, at least to me.

On an 8,000 foot runway, if by halfway you are not significantly above the runway, it is probably time to give it up and put it back down on the runway.
 
CC268 said:
Thanks. Will send charge number over soon. Waiting for government to send money.

CC268
PoA NTSB Manager
Click to expand...
Actually, I revised my terms. (See above.)
 
Palmpilot said:
Actually, I revised my terms. (See above.)
Click to expand...

You contribution will no longer be needed. Thanks.

Action Item List updated. Denverpilot will provide said calculations.
 
PaulS said:
On an 8,000 foot runway, if by halfway you are not significantly above the runway, it is probably time to give it up and put it back down on the runway.
Click to expand...

On an 8000’ runway if you’re only 100’ AGL by a quarter mile off the end of it, you were in serious trouble long before you got there.

What are we talking about here in rough numbers you can actually read on a VSI? Don’t need detailed ones. 100 ft/min?

Even if he had slowed to Vx fearing the fence and the berm, to get down from that to the stall in a 20 degree bank doesn’t mathematically work. His stall indicator was on as soon as he started the turn.

You’ve got no choice but to level it out and wait in that case.
 
What would your sight picture be on a dark night once you clear the road? Are there enough lights to provide a good visual reference? I'm wondering if spatial disorientation could have contributed?
 
kyleb said:
What would your sight picture be on a dark night once you clear the road? Are there enough lights to provide a good visual reference? I'm wondering if spatial disorientation could have contributed?
Click to expand...

Yes. PLENTY of lights. Grey hawk, DC Ranch, etc...
 
CC268 said:
You contribution will no longer be needed. Thanks.

Action Item List updated. Denverpilot will provide said calculations.
Click to expand...
No problem. And just to show you what a great and public-spirited guy I am, I hereby waive any financial interest or other rights I may have had in my contribution to creating the algorithm.
 
CC268 said:
Yes. PLENTY of lights. Grey hawk, DC Ranch, etc...
Click to expand...

Those lights are above the plane?

I was doing night currency two days ago and there were about 15 miles of city lights in front of me when departing 26L, and when my nose went up in my Comanche, I couldn't see ANY of them. Student pilot flying the plane, instructor chatting it up with the ladies and not paying attention. Be super easy to roll it like that. Keep in mind it was his second flight in that plane.
 
EdFred said:
Those lights are above the plane?
Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your interest in my comment. Could you clarify what you mean?

Thanks,

CC268
PoA NTSB Manager
 
denverpilot said:
On an 8000’ runway if you’re only 100’ AGL by a quarter mile off the end of it, you were in serious trouble long before you got there.

What are we talking about here in rough numbers you can actually read on a VSI? Don’t need detailed ones. 100 ft/min?

Even if he had slowed to Vx fearing the fence and the berm, to get down from that to the stall in a 20 degree bank doesn’t mathematically work. His stall indicator was on as soon as he started the turn.

You’ve got no choice but to level it out and wait in that case.
Click to expand...

I think disbelief there is a problem factor was probably huge here. The plane probably got into ground effect, flew for a while eating up much of the runway, then slowly climbed. In that video it looked like it was at least 100 feet up, maybe 200 feet. If the engine didn't die he should have been able to nurse it around, very shallow turns and landed.

There is a flashing light that seems stationary in the video, is that an obstacle or was it another aircraft.
 
CC268 said:
Hi Ed,

Thanks for your interest in my comment. Could you clarify what you mean?

Thanks,

CC268
PoA NTSB Manager
Click to expand...

See my edit. I know whenever I take off in my Comanche, even on a shallow climb out, there are 0 visual forward references. There may be lights on the ground ahead of me, but I can't see any of them.

My money on this crash is fixated student pilot and distracted instructor and nothing to do with loading or mechanical trouble. I've done 4000ft DA takeoff at full gross (possibly over if the pax lied about their weight) with aft CG (not out of CG, but 200lbs in the baggage area and two full size adults in the back seat) and was still getting 1000fpm with 18 degrees of flaps.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
I think disbelief there is a problem factor was probably huge here. The plane probably got into ground effect, flew for a while eating up much of the runway, then slowly climbed. In that video it looked like it was at least 100 feet up, maybe 200 feet. If the engine didn't die he should have been able to nurse it around, very shallow turns and landed.

There is a flashing light that seems stationary in the video, is that an obstacle or was it another aircraft.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, its a star. I looked at the street view from the exact same location, and there is nothing anywhere near that flashing light.
 
EdFred said:
See my edit. I know whenever I take off in my Comanche, even on a shallow climb out, there are 0 visual forward references. There may be lights on the ground ahead of me, but I can't see any of them.
Click to expand...

Ed,

Ahh I see what you mean. Well...directly off the departure end of RWY 3 is rising terrain. Directly ahead would be DC Ranch, Troon North, Pinnacle Peak etc. It is 1000'+ higher in elevation than KSDL (excluding the McDowell Mountains directly ahead of course). Whether or not you could see those lights while in a climb...I am not sure. That said, I can't imagine being spatially disoriented taking off RWY 3 with all the residential/commercial areas north. But I suppose it could be a possibility?

CC268
 
EdFred said:
My money on this crash is fixated student pilot and distracted instructor and nothing to do with loading or mechanical trouble. I've done 4000ft DA takeoff at full gross (possibly over if the pax lied about their weight) with aft CG (not out of CG, but 200lbs in the baggage area and two full size adults in the back seat) and was still getting 1000fpm with 18 degrees of flaps.
Click to expand...

Why the sustained, descending left turn though? Was the instructor that distracted that he didn't notice and say "Hey-- level this thing out"?
 
PaulS said:
I think disbelief there is a problem factor was probably huge here. The plane probably got into ground effect, flew for a while eating up much of the runway, then slowly climbed. In that video it looked like it was at least 100 feet up, maybe 200 feet. If the engine didn't die he should have been able to nurse it around, very shallow turns and landed.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. Power loss is possible, but unlikely. More likely: They just screwed up and did a panic turn.
 
took em 1.5 miles to still be in the field of view of a traffic cam on the road north the airport? come on now. this wasnt a power loss, they tried to whip that thing around because they panicked about obstacle clearance going forward and porked the turn while heavy and aft cg. what should have occured is you disregard ground track and keep working the climb. bomber pattern the hell out that turn over cultural lighting until you can put it back on the ground and apologize for the hubris of taking off that heavy. in reality, the answer should have been you realize by the 4k marker on the runway that you had no business taking off and abort the run. but these guys were going to vegas come hell or high water. tragic outcome.
 
F01LA said:
Why the sustained, descending left turn though? Was the instructor that distracted that he didn't notice and say "Hey-- level this thing out"?
Click to expand...

Girls Gone Wild in the back seat might have resulted in temporary lack of reason. Hell, there could have been a bee or hornet in the cockpit, or a scorpion or any number of distractions.
 
hindsight2020 said:
took em 1.5 miles to still be in the field of view of a traffic cam on the road north the airport? come on now. this wasnt a power loss, they tried to whip that thing around because they panicked about obstacle clearance going forward and porked the turn while heavy and aft cg. what should have occured is you disregard ground track and keep working the climb. bomber pattern the hell out that turn over cultural lighting until you can put it back on the ground and apologize for the hubris of taking off that heavy. in reality, the answer should have been you realize by the 4k marker on the runway that you had no business taking off and abort the run. but these guys were going to vegas come hell or high water. tragic outcome.
Click to expand...

The kitty was strong and the melons bountiful. Hell or high water, they was gettin laid.

That was a great movie btw.
 
PaulS said:
Damn, why was he turning? Too bad there isn't sound too.
Click to expand...
He had to turn left to avoid hitting the McDowell mountains or Pinnacle Peak which he wouldn’t have been able to see well since they were departing at night.

And of course you lose lift when you turn which is problematic when you are overgross.....so he keeps increasing the AOA until the stall and spin into the golf course that you see in the video.

I didn’t realize they were doing this at night until I saw the video. I don’t know why I’m surprised they were trying this at night, but I am.
 
CC268 said:
Okay guys...let’s make something clear. The McDowell mountains were not a factor in this crash lol. Not sure why everyone things the mountains are 100 feet of the end of the runway. They were not trying to evade the mountains...You have plenty of time to make a slight turn to the left to avoid the McDowells.

Otherwise I agree with most of what has been said.

Thanks,

CC268 PoA NTSB Manager
Click to expand...
When your climb performance is degraded because you are over gross and you know the mountains are there, but can’t see them as well because you are departing at night, you better believe they are a factor at least from a psychological standpoint to someone who isn’t from the area.

Doesn’t mean the mountains caused the crash any more than the Class B airspace and the Superstition Mountains caused the Aero Commander crash a few years ago.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
My SWAG.

Night time, so hard to make an accurate judgment.

2 words.

Cross and Control

For some unknown reason the plane was in a turn, and tried to shorten the turn. The wing on the outside of the turn speeds up and produces more lift than the inside wing, and the airplane starts to increase its bank. So the ailerons were probably used to try to reduce the bank angle. The down aileron on the inside of the turn helps drag that wing back, slowing it up and decreasing its lift, which the pilot mistakenly adds more aileron application. This further causes the airplane to roll. The roll may be so fast that it is possible the bank will be vertical or past vertical before it can be stopped. All this happened in less time it took you to read this paragraph.

This is why your instructor emphasized the importance of using coordinated control pressures whenever making turns, especially in the traffic pattern.

Queue tail wheel pilots that think only tail wheel pilots know how to use a rudder.
 
Fearless Tower said:
When your climb performance is degraded because you are over gross and you know the mountains are there, but can’t see them as well because you are departing at night, you better believe they are a factor at least from a psychological standpoint to someone who isn’t from the area.

Doesn’t mean the mountains caused the crash any more than the Class B airspace and the Superstition Mountains caused the Aero Commander crash a few years ago.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Speaker of the truth. I never once doubted your wisdom. Infinite in measure. Glad to have you on the team.
 
CC268 said:
We should replicate the loading, takeoff and see if we make it out alive if we fly straight ahead. Should be good.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong... the above post you quoted does not remove my prior opinion that weight and C/G played a huge role in this accident. Whether technically over gross or aft C/G we may never know and honestly it doesn't matter. Even within max gross and within C/G the fight becomes more challenging and added to the sum total of issues to overcome. The CFI having to look over to the far left at the ASI makes me think of dropping the pen in the floor during IFR training.

In the end this accident still likely lies on the sum of multiple factors rather than one item. It’s unfortunate. The video proves that plane got well out of ground effect and was flying before things went bad in a hurry.
 
Zeldman said:
For some unknown reason the plane was in a turn, and tried to shorten the turn. The wing on the outside of the turn speeds up and produces more lift than the inside wing, and the airplane starts to increase its bank. So the ailerons were probably used to try to reduce the bank angle. The down aileron on the inside of the turn helps drag that wing back, slowing it up and decreasing its lift, which the pilot mistakenly adds more aileron application. This further causes the airplane to roll. The roll may be so fast that it is possible the bank will be vertical or past vertical before it can be stopped. All this happened in less time it took you to read this paragraph.
Click to expand...

My opinion after watching the video. The guy was hotdogging it by trying to make an immediate turn to head to Vegas right after departing the runway and wasn't watching his airspeed. Naturally with the weight he was carrying and by not having enough airspeed to carry him through the turn, he fell out of the sky like a ton of bricks. How many times have we seen this happen? Another mile to gain airspeed and altitude and the dude would have easily made it with plenty of room to spare.
 
arkvet said:
Don't get me wrong... the above post you quoted does not remove my prior opinion that weight and C/G played a huge role in this accident. Whether technically over gross or aft C/G we may never know and honestly it doesn't matter. Even within max gross and within C/G the fight becomes more challenging and added to the sum total of issues to overcome. The CFI having to look over to the far left at the ASI makes me think of dropping the pen in the floor during IFR training.

In the end this accident still likely lies on the sum of multiple factors rather than one item. It’s unfortunate. The video proves that plane got well out of ground effect and was flying before things went bad in a hurry.
Click to expand...

As a Comanche owner that has taken off at full gross multiple times in high D A (or at least higher than the conditions they experienced) conditions I completely disagree with your assessment about CG and GW
 
I'll throw my thought in. Overloaded, relatively high DA, full of friends to show off too, not to mention the pumped up atmosphere pre-flight.... Vegas (Dest) to the NW. That is the direction of the turn we see them make. If they were planning on going direct, which I assume they were, could it be that they rotated and then were turning on course in a very early turn while pulling up to climb? Taking off with the early, tight, low turn, may have been an attempt to impress with an aggravated stall resulting due to DA, overloading/out of CG. Just a thought.
 
azblackbird said:
My opinion after watching the video. The guy was hotdogging it by trying to make an immediate turn to head to Vegas right after departing the runway and wasn't watching his airspeed. Naturally with the weight he was carrying and by not having enough airspeed to carry him through the turn, he fell out of the sky like a ton of bricks. How many times have we seen this happen? Another mile to gain airspeed and altitude and the dude would have easily made it with plenty of room to spare.
Click to expand...
You hit reply faster! My thoughts exactly
 
EdFred said:
My money on this crash is fixated student pilot and distracted instructor and nothing to do with loading or mechanical trouble. I've done 4000ft DA takeoff at full gross (possibly over if the pax lied about their weight) with aft CG (not out of CG, but 200lbs in the baggage area and two full size adults in the back seat) and was still getting 1000fpm with 18 degrees of flaps.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good possibility. The power to weight ratio of the 180 HP Comanche is 1 hp:14 pounds. Extrapolate the weight for a 250 horse Comanche and you'd have to depart at 3600 lbs to reduce the P/W ratio to 1:14. That would be a 700 lb overgross condition and I don't believe the accident aircraft was anywhere near that weight. Obviously, more goes into it than a simple P/W ratio, but I believe a healthy Comanche would have flown out of there in those conditions unless there was a way out of bounds CG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top