PA-32 down in Salt Lake (7-25-2020)

I see average useful loads from 1630 to 1730, +/- of course. On the generous side with 1700 lbs available, could have #500 in fuel, with 84 gallon tanks. After that you have people, baggage, & density altitude to work with. Even a ‘heavy hauler’ will reach a limit.

I didn’t look how far from the runway, which can be another clue. Sorry to hear, hope the best.
 
sourdough44 said:
I see average useful loads from 1630 to 1730, +/- of course. On the generous side with 1700 lbs available, could have #500 in fuel, with 84 gallon tanks. After that you have people, baggage, & density altitude to work with. Even a ‘heavy hauler’ will reach a limit.

I didn’t look how far from the runway, which can be another clue. Sorry to hear, hope the best.
Click to expand...

According to the reports approximately 2 nm south of the end of runway 16.
 
sourdough44 said:
I see average useful loads from 1630 to 1730, +/- of course. On the generous side with 1700 lbs available, could have #500 in fuel, with 84 gallon tanks. After that you have people, baggage, & density altitude to work with. Even a ‘heavy hauler’ will reach a limit.

I didn’t look how far from the runway, which can be another clue. Sorry to hear, hope the best.
Click to expand...

Not all PA-32. Mine is only 1000lbs.

I’ve taken off high altitude at max gross, but I’m a turbo, and the bird has plenty of climb rate.

7k’ NA warm day, wouldn’t do it.
 
sourdough44 said:
I see average useful loads from 1630 to 1730, +/- of course. On the generous side with 1700 lbs available, could have #500 in fuel, with 84 gallon tanks. After that you have people, baggage, & density altitude to work with. Even a ‘heavy hauler’ will reach a limit.

I didn’t look how far from the runway, which can be another clue. Sorry to hear, hope the best.
Click to expand...
The article lists a 12 year old and 9 month old, I'm not sure yet WB is culprit

High DA and NA is fine if you have the right terrain clearance and are competent

On a separate note - some PA32 have really pathetic useful loads.. some you'll see for sale are around 1K lbs.. how you can call that a "6 passenger" airplane is beyond me. That's barely 4
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Not all PA-32. Mine is only 1000lbs.

I’ve taken off high altitude at max gross, but I’m a turbo, and the bird has plenty of climb rate...
Click to expand...

Tantalum said:
...On a separate note - some PA32 have really pathetic useful loads.. some you'll see for sale are around 1K lbs.. how you can call that a "6 passenger" airplane is beyond me. That's barely 4
Click to expand...

1000 lb useful load in a PA-32? What is the airframe filled with that adds all the empty weight? Are these the Lances with retractable gear & turbocharger installations that are porking it up? . 260 hp to 300 hp to lift and move 1000 lbs? My old Cherokee 160 was only 20 lbs short of a 1000 lbs useful load.
 
GRG55 said:
1000 lb useful load in a PA-32? What is the airframe filled with that adds all the empty weight? Are these the Lances with retractable gear & turbocharger installations that are porking it up? . 260 hp to 300 hp to lift and move 1000 lbs? My old Cherokee 160 was only 20 lbs short of a 1000 lbs useful load.
Click to expand...
Not the Lances, it's the saratogas. Seats are heavier, soundproofing is more comprehensive, and upholstery selection from the factory was also heavier. Similar dynamics befall the Textron offerings (g36 and 182t). Air conditioner options and turbo installations of course make it worse.

And yes, 1k useful is pretty self defeating for the volumetrics of a pa32. My NA arrow has a useful of 980#, but it attains 65pct cruise settings on 5 gph less. That makes a 1k useful pa32 a pretty range limited airplane with any kind of crowd on board.
 
3393RP said:
Also a two year old that survived with minor injuries. It seems unlikely the aircraft was overloaded, but it is certainly possible.
Click to expand...

I wonder if both adults that died were up front (obviously the pilot was), and if the 9 month old was on the lap instead of in a car seat?
 
Looks like the plane is based & registered in VA. There was a plan to fly the Grand Canyon corridors, then land in Page, AZ. With that in mind, likely had a fair amount of fuel weight.

I just picked the generous #1700 lb figure off some web info, on the high side. Yes, younger passengers would reduce the average weight some. I noticed it was in the low 90’s yesterday in SLC, this happened at 1:30 local.
 
GRG55 said:
1000 lb useful load in a PA-32? What is the airframe filled with that adds all the empty weight? Are these the Lances with retractable gear & turbocharger installations that are porking it up? . 260 hp to 300 hp to lift and move 1000 lbs? My old Cherokee 160 was only 20 lbs short of a 1000 lbs useful load.
Click to expand...

The newer ones, ours has the executive center, AC and the materials are heavier. But my family of 3 weighs 355lbs combined so it doesn’t matter to us and my wife can’t fly more than 3 hours without peeing.
 
Witnesses stated the engine sounded sick. Was a turbo lance. Wasn't there some issues with the early turbo pa-32's? Registration changed September of last year. I know witnesses are often unreliable in diagnosing engine so I'll take that with a grain of salt. Second turbo Lance down and second plane crash after departing U42 in the last 6 weeks.

One woman, a 21 year old nursing student heard the crash, grabbed a kit and ran to scene and started helping the injured before paramedics arrived and after as well. My hats off to that woman. Need more people like her
 
Hmm. That’s not a turbo Lance.
 
Yeah. That's a Cherokee 6. The D Alt was pretty tall that day....and he was fully loaded :(.
 
Racerx said:
Witnesses stated the engine sounded sick. Was a turbo lance. Wasn't there some issues with the early turbo pa-32's? Registration changed September of last year. I know witnesses are often unreliable in diagnosing engine so I'll take that with a grain of salt. Second turbo Lance down and second plane crash after departing U42 in the last 6 weeks.

One woman, a 21 year old nursing student heard the crash, grabbed a kit and ran to scene and started helping the injured before paramedics arrived and after as well. My hats off to that woman. Need more people like her
Click to expand...

If he is new to the turbo and first time taking out of high altitude airport maybe he accidentally leaned for takeoff.
 
bbchien said:
Yeah. That's a Cherokee 6. The D Alt was pretty tall that day....and he was fully loaded :(.
Click to expand...

Living in Southern California I learned real quick that high DA flying is a completely new ball game.

Fully loaded. High altitude. High DA. Hottest part of the day.

Why as pilots we need to learn from others, sometimes we can learn from our own mistakes.
 
bbchien said:
Yeah. That's a Cherokee 6. The D Alt was pretty tall that day....and he was fully loaded :(.
Click to expand...

Ain't never seen a retractable six... The early Lance was not a T-tail. Registration says it had a Tio-540 which I thought meant turbo injected...but I didn't think turbo was offered until 78 and registration is calling it a 75. The cowl doesn't have the turbo cowl.
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Living in Southern California I learned real quick that high DA flying is a completely new ball game.

Fully loaded. High altitude. High DA. Hottest part of the day.

Why as pilots we need to learn from others, sometimes we can learn from our own mistakes.
Click to expand...

I agree we need to learn. Yes it was a hot and high DA. But we don't know it was at gross. 6 occupants with one being 9 months old, another a 2 year old, and a 12 year old. I've seen some 12 year olds that were definitely full size adults. I was 85 lbs at that age so it varies a lot. It's sad and I'd like more info before stating DA definitely played into it. I fly a Six and if the engine quits 1.5 miles off the runway, I ain't making it back to the airport regardless of DA.
 
Katheryn’s

Gives some background about the pilot. DA was between 7000-8000 feet at the time. If they were loaded with baggage for a trip that could be a factor. If he didn’t lean properly that could be a factor.

Last weekend flew into Bryce Canyon for an overnighter with my wife in a 180 HP 172. DA taking off was a bit more than 10k. Maybe 250 fpm climb. Good times.
 
Tantalum said:
High DA and NA is fine if you have the right terrain clearance and are competent
Click to expand...

Just a note on terrain clearance: plenty of room to work with there. Flying south you can stay under the Bravo shelf and outside of the Provo airspace if needed and follow I-15 southbound for a good long while.

A question: if he was outside of W&B would he have been able to get much out of ground effect and travel 1.5 - 2 miles? Seems like there must have been at least another mitigating factor?

The fact that three of six survived seems to say he did fly it all the way to impact.
 
woodchucker said:
The fact that three of six survived seems to say he did fly it all the way to impact.
Click to expand...

I had that thought as well. It might have just been a dropped cylinder and no good options. Downtown airports make me nervous for this reason.
 
woodchucker said:
The fact that three of six survived seems to say he did fly it all the way to impact.
Click to expand...

Well, if so at least he did what a pilot is supposed to do in the face of the emergency, even if there was an error in flight planning.
 
Lately in these crashes the plane is always full. I am sad to see yet another tragedy that may have been related to w/b. Now I know we just spend lots of time speculating on speculations here but the discussion is useful. Lately I find myself weighing my passengers on a scale I bought and keep at the hangar. I fly a Pa32-301 so this is close to home. Based on my experience it would have been easy for them with full fuel and some luggage to be overweight even on a 6 seat Saratoga. Having said that its rare that the Saratoga needs full fuel. Most passengers need a bathroom break after 2-3 hours and that plane will fly for 3-30-4 hours easy with 35 Gallons(max on wing indicators) in each tank (70gals instead of the usual 107 full), it would be unusual to fully load the tanks. I rarely do. Without full tanks it would have taken a bit more weight to go over the limit...but its suspicious. Also if the heavy passengers were all in the 4 fwd seats with the younger ones in the back that would have put the plane over the fwd aft envelope. So sorry for another aviation community loss. Hope we find out soon some of the causes on these flights.
 
If I had to guess, I'd say one of the women and the baby were in the second row, and the toddler and twelve year old were in the back. Those two were just slightly injured.

It should also be pointed out it's highly improbable all three kids together weighed more than 150 lbs, and if the plane was carrying a lot of fuel, it would be much less likely any of them could have survived the post crash fire.

Regardless, its all very sad.
 
Racerx said:
Ain't never seen a retractable six... The early Lance was not a T-tail. Registration says it had a Tio-540 which I thought meant turbo injected...but I didn't think turbo was offered until 78 and registration is calling it a 75. The cowl doesn't have the turbo cowl.
Click to expand...

A Lance is pretty much a retractable Cherokee Six. The FAA, for reasons unknown, likes to put "TIO" on the engine, even when it is just an IO. I have seen that on numerous difference registrations when I know for a fact that the planes were never turbocharged.
 
woodchucker said:
Just a note on terrain clearance: plenty of room to work with there. Flying south you can stay under the Bravo shelf and outside of the Provo airspace if needed and follow I-15 southbound for a good long while.

A question: if he was outside of W&B would he have been able to get much out of ground effect and travel 1.5 - 2 miles? Seems like there must have been at least another mitigating factor?

The fact that three of six survived seems to say he did fly it all the way to impact.
Click to expand...
1.2 nm from the end of the runway to the crash site. Certainly it was flying; could have been on the edge.
 
Kristin said:
A Lance is pretty much a retractable Cherokee Six. The FAA, for reasons unknown, likes to put "TIO" on the engine, even when it is just an IO. I have seen that on numerous difference registrations when I know for a fact that the planes were never turbocharged.
Click to expand...

I actually looked up my registration for the Six yesterday and sure enough "TIO"
 
There's a new Air Safety Institute video covering this crash from July 2020 and the NTSB report. Key takeaways are:
- the plane was near (but slightly below) gross weight limits
- density altitude was around 7300'
- the pilot may have taken off with a tailwind of up to 10kts.

The pilot was described as meticulous and safety conscious. The POH takeoff distance and climb tables both suggested that the flight was possible, with climb performance of 500 ft/min, but the pilot was never able to get out of ground effect. Whether this is really "pilot error" seems questionable. Nevertheless it's a good reminder that our POH tables aren't necessarily accurate for older airframes. Unfortunately, the standard advice to pad performance values by 50% is also pretty arbitrary.

 
I watched that video the other day and was left in stunned surprise the plane wouldn't do what the manual said it would do. Now, please bear in mind I have yet to take my first lesson and have no experience piloting an airplane when I ask these questions.

Performance is degraded by the age of the aircraft, and it could have been expected to perform this take off when new?
Or as the video said, pad performance numbers by 50%, even in a newer aircraft?
Is there a level of maintenance that can maintain "book" performance or is performance going to deteriorate over time no matter what?
 
squincher said:
Performance is degraded by the age of the aircraft, and it could have been expected to perform this take off when new?
Or as the video said, pad performance numbers by 50%, even in a newer aircraft?
Is there a level of maintenance that can maintain "book" performance or is performance going to deteriorate over time no matter what?
Click to expand...
An airplane was used to determine “book” numbers, but I’ve flown just enough new airplanes to know that they aren’t all built as straight as the “test” airplane.
I’m not personally a fan of a blanket 50%, however…yes, if you fly a reasonably well-maintained airplane using “book” techniques that should be adequate, but most people don’t use “book” techniques, and can degrade performance far more than the 50% “pad” they think they‘re using.
Best, IMO, is to evaluate your performance to determine a realistic adjustment to “book” numbers.
 
We've been discussing this on the FB PA32 group. Speculation is either failure to lean for max power for that DA prior to takeoff (although report suggests he tried that in flight- maybe too little too late?) or tailwind takeoff as cause. I wondered if there could have been some tailwind windshear just as he got above ground effect/tree level that exacerbated it. From the report it sounds like he did due diligence even if he got uncomfortably close to POH limits. Most likely combination of older engine, less than perfect technique, lack of perfect leaning, tailwind shearing. Its never just one thing that gets you- swiss cheese analogy.
 
squincher said:
I watched that video the other day and was left in stunned surprise the plane wouldn't do what the manual said it would do. Now, please bear in mind I have yet to take my first lesson and have no experience piloting an airplane when I ask these questions.

Performance is degraded by the age of the aircraft, and it could have been expected to perform this take off when new?
Or as the video said, pad performance numbers by 50%, even in a newer aircraft?
Is there a level of maintenance that can maintain "book" performance or is performance going to deteriorate over time no matter what?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of variables, and while I generally love asi's videos, I felt this one left a lot out. The age of the airplane has little to do with it. If the airplane is rigged correctly and the engine is making rated power, they will perform pretty close to book numbers. The pilot also plays a huge part. Maintaining the appropriate airspeed and proper mixture adjustment are critical in marginal situations like this. The egt's they showed looked fairly close to what I see in my plane, although every engine monitor is different. As mentioned above, this was likely a function of several small errors compounding into one large tragedy.

I'm guessing the tailwind and rapidly approaching trees made him pull up before he had enough speed. These planes in particular don't like to climb below Vy. Clean Vy is 92, Vx is 87, not much spread. 25* flaps (middle notch) and gear down it's 68/87. I generally pull her off at 65, pull the gear up, and accelerate to Vy in ground effect as she just doesn't climb and accelerate at the same time, especially near max gross. It's hard at times to wait for that airspeed to build up. To the guy's credit, he kept her under control and flew her all the way into the crash.
 
Tokirbymd said:
We've been discussing this on the FB PA32 group. Speculation is either failure to lean for max power for that DA prior to takeoff (although report suggests he tried that in flight- maybe too little too late?) or tailwind takeoff as cause. I wondered if there could have been some tailwind windshear just as he got above ground effect/tree level that exacerbated it. From the report it sounds like he did due diligence even if he got uncomfortably close to POH limits. Most likely combination of older engine, less than perfect technique, lack of perfect leaning, tailwind shearing. Its never just one thing that gets you- swiss cheese analogy.
Click to expand...
The video puts a lot of emphasis on the tailwind takeoff. That would certainly have increased his ground roll distance. But once he left the ground would it have mattered? I've always thought that KIAS was all that mattered for climb performance and if you are able to get wheels up, then the wind direction stops being relevant (unless there was a sheer incident as you mention).
 
yeah, sorry guys, I know I'm not the nTsB (nor Probable Cause Danny, you know, both sanctioned authorities of respect around here lol), but it's all right there fellas... take a look at the fuel flow record as presented by that video. It's an angled (ergo 300hp turning) Lyco 540. That's waaaaay too rich folks, so much so the EGT swing at idle to WOT was almost nonexistent. He didn't lean for that DA. That's your cause right there.

The wind didn't help him, his load choices didn't help either (I blame this one as #2), but it wasn't technically causal. He would have struggled to climb even without the tailwind. He started to hint at the right mixture prior to impact, too late.

I'm also skeptical of the weight and balance, I'll suggest he was likely slightly overgross, but probably not more than 100 pounds, so I'm willing to stipulate. Either way, a gross takeoff, which doesn't help things here. Lances are just limo-Arrows, they get back-squatty just the same when filled to the brim. That nose is gonna want to come up and hershey bar wings are induced-drag machines. Pilot technique here had no shot of overcoming the mixture-underpowered takeoff and likely aft-end CG condition. Once the wings lift, it's the signature up-down-up-down business on the yoke with no "healthy" climb forthcoming, and the panic sets in. It's a strong siren song. 94 (minus taxi) gallons of 100LL into crashed impact are not going to be survivable for most. The fire damage to the ground properties tells the tale.

The insinuation that book numbers and that of an older and worn engines can yield in excess of 500 fpm deltas is a canard. I've flown over TBO and high time airframe/engines as an owner pretty much exclusively, and power variations are just not significant from book values, absent actual mechanical malfunction. Incorrect mixture in a NA engine will however make performance differences at altitude congruent with this takeoff sequence (predicted +4-500fpm, but yield <100 to outright descent when out of ground effect).

BL, don't eff around with NA engines in gross loaded spam cans, make it rain if you can afford 100hp per adult, or get yourself a turbo and keep the mixture and power selection problems at takeoff self-limited (turbo does that). Or eff around and find out.

I got a reminder when I got into a go-around situation after runway touchdown, loaded with the fam and their sh%t at 5k DA in flat-@ss KS on my way to SD, and it opened my eyes as a lowlander. I said this sh%t is for the birds, now I just takeoff with fam in the mornings or evenings. I'm unlikely to go west with pax in the summer without turbo, but that's me and mine. Condolences to the survivors, their lives will never be the same. This stuff was supposed to be fun, it's a real tragedy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top