PA-28 crashes on takeoff near Albany NY

Sad, the worst time a mechanical failure can happen. :(
 
Man...sometimes I wonder if it's worth the risk...can't believe how many of these pop up every week
 
really sad. and aggravating.
 
I hated flying in NY. Trees, trees everywhere. Altitudes very low. Around here people rarely die in takeoff failures. Instead they put the airplane down. The brush seems like not enough to flip anyone over even. Well, except that 421 that was misfueled with jet fuel, that was bad.
 
CC268 said:
Man...sometimes I wonder if it's worth the risk...can't believe how many of these pop up every week
Click to expand...

Risk is a part of life. You take a risk in anything you do. It is sad that these folks ended up losing their lives as a consequence of the risk of getting into that particular plane.

Now that the medical reform thing has been signed into law though my guess is the accident rate is probably going to get worse before it gets better.
 
There were 4 people in the plane. 3 dead, 1 survivor. That means 4 people in a PA-28.

Just as likely they were over-weight as engine failure (unless I'm missing where it's been confirmed).
 
Bonchie said:
There were 4 people in the plane. 3 dead, 1 survivor. That means 4 people in a PA-28.

Just as likely they were over-weight as engine failure (unless I'm missing where it's been confirmed).
Click to expand...

I dunno, you can get 4 people into a PA-28. It all depends on how much they all weigh and what fuel amount you put into the plane. Simply seeing the number 4 and a PA-28 doesn't automatically equate to an overweight situation.
 
Caramon13 said:
I dunno, you can get 4 people into a PA-28. It all depends on how much they all weigh and what fuel amount you put into the plane. Simply seeing the number 4 and a PA-28 doesn't automatically equate to an overweight situation.
Click to expand...

Neither does going down 1000 feet from the runway automatically mean engine failure.

4 people and full tanks in a Warrior/Archer is going to put you right at the line if not over it, and that's assuming the women were 110 pounders.

But it could of been engine failure. I'm just throwing out ideas.
 
Depends on what kind of PA 28. If what was a 161 I would say over weight. If it was a 236, probably not over weight. But have to wait for the facts to come out.
 
Caramon13 said:
I dunno, you can get 4 people into a PA-28. It all depends on how much they all weigh and what fuel amount you put into the plane. Simply seeing the number 4 and a PA-28 doesn't automatically equate to an overweight situation.
Click to expand...
You can, but i
Bonchie said:
Neither does going down 1000 feet from the runway automatically mean engine failure.

4 people and full tanks in a Warrior/Archer is going to put you right at the line if not over it, and that's assuming the women were 110 pounders.

But it could of been engine failure. I'm just throwing out ideas.
Click to expand...
True. Unless two are kids, 4 people in a PA28 is really pushing it. Combine that with the fact that it is a hot summer and runway lengths in the North East tend to be short, means that you really have very little fudge factor.

NY05 has two runways: one is all turf, 3000 x 130' and the other is a combo 3000 x 27' and only 2000' of that is paved. That leaves very little to no room for error.
 
Caramon13 said:
Risk is a part of life. You take a risk in anything you do. It is sad that these folks ended up losing their lives as a consequence of the risk of getting into that particular plane.

Now that the medical reform thing has been signed into law though my guess is the accident rate is probably going to get worse before it gets better.
Click to expand...

I grew up with risk...raced motocross for years...several kids I knew racing amateur pro died...but I still feel like the risk of flying a small plane is probably higher than anything I've ever done. I love it but man sometimes I wonder what the chances are of dieing if I fly for the rest of my life...
 
One of the early reports stated that the plane never got off the ground. I have no idea if there is any validity to that.
 
CC268 said:
Man...sometimes I wonder if it's worth the risk...can't believe how many of these pop up every week
Click to expand...
In the words of Dirty Harry....'a man's GOT to know his limitations'. Many of these accidents would not happen is people applied proper risk management before getting in the airplane.
 
Mike Smith said:
One of the early reports stated that the plane never got off the ground. I have no idea if there is any validity to that.
Click to expand...
Looking at that airport, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Even if he was using the paved runway, he would have needed part of the turf to takeoff. Even the best grass doesn't enhance the takeoff length.
 
CC268 said:
I grew up with risk...raced motocross for years...several kids I knew racing amateur pro died...but I still feel like the risk of flying a small plane is probably higher than anything I've ever done. I love it but man sometimes I wonder what the chances are of dieing if I fly for the rest of my life...
Click to expand...
I really dont know the answer, and I understand how you feel, but I would bet the percentages are a couple of digits to the right of the decimal in difference.
 
Bonchie said:
Neither does going down 1000 feet from the runway automatically mean engine failure.

4 people and full tanks in a Warrior/Archer is going to put you right at the line if not over it, and that's assuming the women were 110 pounders.

But it could of been engine failure. I'm just throwing out ideas.
Click to expand...
Possible, but not the end all of course. My PA-28, with me (185 lbs) and 36-to-the-tabs (not 50) gallons fuel, I can stay within the limits with 3 passengers, as long as they average 158 lbs...now flying at full gross is a challenge, but not impossible either.
 
Mike Smith said:
One of the early reports stated that the plane never got off the ground. I have no idea if there is any validity to that.
Click to expand...

That would make sense given that they crashed so close to the runway.
 
Fearless Tower said:
In the words of Dirty Harry....'a man's GOT to know his limitations'. Many of these accidents would not happen is people applied proper risk management before getting in the airplane.
Click to expand...

Yea I always try to keep that in mind...
 
Mike Smith said:
I really dont know the answer, and I understand how you feel, but I would bet the percentages are a couple of digits to the right of the decimal in difference.
Click to expand...

About a 100% chance I'd say! Just kidding..
 
Bonchie said:
Neither does going down 1000 feet from the runway automatically mean engine failure.

4 people and full tanks in a Warrior/Archer is going to put you right at the line if not over it, and that's assuming the women were 110 pounders.

But it could of been engine failure. I'm just throwing out ideas.
Click to expand...

I agree it does immediately raise the question of weight and fuel capacity. A PA-28 is not a "pile in" aircraft with full fuel. You have to be very careful about CG and really do the math.

I took two passengers with me and half fuel in a PA-28 and I was right there at the max limits weight wise and had CG just within the window. But, I've also taken kids up for Young Eagles, 3 at a time with full fuel and I've been fine both CG and weight wise.

Just because you "can" load a plane up with four people doesn't mean you "should" :).
 
I was just thinking the same thing after re-reading what little I can find about this. 4 adults, at least two of which look to be pretty full size. I wonder if they were over gross. One eyewitness reported though that the plane went silent before it came down. Either way, it was a hot day (for around here, probably 85F at 6:45pm), fairly humid, and they were certainly on the heavy side no matter how you slice it. If it was engine failure, they were taking off into the state forest (this is a private strip literally surrounded by trees.) The paved runway is 3000x27 according to airnav (and looks right on google maps). Not much room for error, nor failure at this place.
 
jbrinker said:
The paved runway is 3000x27 according to airnav (and looks right on google maps). Not much room for error, nor failure at this place.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that only 2000' of it is actually paved. The rest (400' on one end and the 600' on the other) is turf.
 
2k ft paved runway with a heavy plane on a hot day with trees at the end is not an ideal setup. However, likely weight and runway distance would be doable given those facts. Not much margin for error (and beyond my personal mins) but doable.
 
Caramon13 said:
I dunno, you can get 4 people into a PA-28. It all depends on how much they all weigh and what fuel amount you put into the plane. Simply seeing the number 4 and a PA-28 doesn't automatically equate to an overweight situation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not understanding the assumption that 3 pax = overweight in a PA28. I fly a 161 and just did w/b for three passengers. I'm 140 lbs, and the others are 125, 130 and 140. I added ten pounds of "just in case they are lying" weight to everyone, over-estimated baggage and it still came in under gross weight.
 
N2241Q, Piper Arrow, S/N 28R-7737029. 1977 Arrow III. 4 adults, bagage? Fuel? 3000 feet runway. Hot day.
 
A1Topgun said:
N2241Q, Piper Arrow, S/N 28R-7737029. 1977 Arrow III. 4 adults, bagage? Fuel? 3000 feet runway. Hot day.
Click to expand...
Its really a 2k ft paved runway. There is 400' of grass at one end and 600' of grass at the other. At a normal airport these would be classified as the safety zone not part of the runway.

I've never heard of a grass - paved - grass runway unless someone is just trying to stretch the numbers as such.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Its really a 2k ft paved runway. There is 400' of grass at one end and 600' of grass at the other. At a normal airport these would be classified as the safety zone not part of the runway.

I've never heard of a grass - paved - grass runway unless someone is just trying to stretch the numbers as such.
Click to expand...

Not really the same thing, but X01 has an asphalt/grass runway. Not on the ends, but on the sides:

Runway 15/33
Dimensions: 2400 x 60 ft. / 732 x 18 m
Surface: asphalt/turf, in good condition
RY 15/33 HAS A 50 FT ASPHALT CENTER WITH A 5 FT TURF EDGE ON EACH SIDE
 
I flew four adults out of a mountain strip in my PA28-140. Two were women, and we had fuel at least up to the tabs.
 
CC268 said:
Man...sometimes I wonder if it's worth the risk...can't believe how many of these pop up every week
Click to expand...

Do you drive a car, eat red meat, transfats, drink more than one soda a day or eat much sugar, smoke, any heart diease or cancer in the immediate family?

If you answered yes to even one of those questions, saftey concerns while flying shouldn't even be on your radar.

I see plenty of people who screw themselves up, yet to see a plane related one


zaitcev said:
I hated flying in NY. Trees, trees everywhere. Altitudes very low. Around here people rarely die in takeoff failures. Instead they put the airplane down. The brush seems like not enough to flip anyone over even. Well, except that 421 that was misfueled with jet fuel, that was bad.
Click to expand...

NY is easy peasy! No DA issues, no REAL mountains, no crazy winds, shy of a baren sea level wasteland, it's pretty safe in NY as long as you don't play with ice in a non FIKI.
 
Last edited:
FlySince9 said:
Did you make it? ;)
Click to expand...

No, I'm posting from beyond the grave.

In all seriousness, the airplane performed just fine. The takeoff was slow since we were at gross, and I did have to circle to get above the local peaks to get on my way. I'd be surprised if an Arrow had that much trouble, those have even more ponies than my aircraft. But it does depend on who the passengers were. If they were all women, no problem. If they were all big men (but he pilot) it could have been problematic.
 
CC268 said:
Man...sometimes I wonder if it's worth the risk...can't believe how many of these pop up every week
Click to expand...

James331 said:
Do you drive a car, eat red meat, transfats, drink more than one soda a day or eat much sugar, smoke, any heart diease or cancer in the immediate family?

If you answered yes to even one of those questions, saftey concerns while flying shouldn't even be on your radar.
Click to expand...

Well, to nitpick, statistics do put driving a car as being safer than GA flying, but I agree on your other points.

I don't fault CC268, or anyone else, for occasionally reassessing their stance on the risks of flying. My CFI was just in a plane crash a couple weeks ago and I admit it shook me and my resolve for a few days. Ultimately, though, the risk is still worth it to me. It's a passion... in my soul, and I'd rather die flying than of something like cancer or a heart attack. I think risk assessing is a natural - and healthy - reaction to these things. Keeps us from developing the hazardous "invisibility" attitude.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Well, to nitpick, statistics do put driving a car as being safer than GA flying, but I agree on your other points.

I don't fault CC268, or anyone else, for occasionally reassessing their stance on the risks of flying. My CFI was just in a plane crash a couple weeks ago and I admit it shook me and my resolve for a few days. Ultimately, though, the risk is still worth it to me. It's a passion... in my soul, and I'd rather die flying than of something like cancer or a heart attack. I think risk assessing is a natural - and healthy - reaction to these things. Keeps us from developing the hazardous "invisibility" attitude.
Click to expand...

Stats also factor in the dumb chits of the world, and you get away with a lot more stupid in a car then a plane.

In my experience, I've had more "this is going to be close" moments driving, almost getting side swiped, stuff jumping infront of me, ice on the roads, etc etc.

Flying, not so much, the only time I've gotten into one of those situations was flying into new backcountry spots, which I knew ahead of time and it was calculated.

Also from what I see at work, lots of other toys killing folks, ATVs, high power sleds, ski, snowboard, tree stands, etc
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Exactly. I'm not understanding the assumption that 3 pax = overweight in a PA28. I fly a 161 and just did w/b for three passengers. I'm 140 lbs, and the others are 125, 130 and 140. I added ten pounds of "just in case they are lying" weight to everyone, over-estimated baggage and it still came in under gross weight.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, no one said "3 pax = overweight in a PA28" as an absolute.

I've flown 4 people in a Warrior as well. 3 in a 140. But that was with fuel to the tabs and we were pushing gross. It was also 50 degrees outside.

Anytime there are 4 adults and possibly full fuel on a PA-28, weight and performance could be an issue. Especially on a hot summer day. Your 3 people you cite are very much underweight compared to normal people and this plane had two large men on it, one judging by pictures that was easily 200 pounds.
 
Last edited:
rbridges said:
for some reason, I always thought you had a mooney.
Click to expand...

Had a Cherokee for about a decade. Acquired the Mooney last August. LOVE the Mooney, since it is so much faster. Just a bit busier to take off, and more difficult to land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top