PA32 down out of PDK

I would have pulled the chute on that one.
 
FastEddieB said:
Probably deserves its own thread.

Nothing on COPA yet, but I just started a thread there.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the guys wants to keep it low-key. I didn't feel like making a new thread. Maybe someone else can. Use my pics.
 
I rode a Boeing into ATL this afternoon. Winds were "from the east" at 15G20. That would make for an interesting landing on 3, more so with a castering nose wheel. But I would expect directional control problems rather than being high or fast or whatever sent him off the end.
 
Hank S said:
I rode a Boeing into ATL this afternoon. Winds were "from the east" at 15G20. That would make for an interesting landing on 3, more so with a castering nose wheel. But I would expect directional control problems rather than being high or fast or whatever sent him off the end.
Click to expand...

If you can't land in a sub-20 knot xwind then you have no business flying a go-somewhere airplane like a Cirrus. Some people that I've seen in crosswinds will use minimal flaps even with a light breeze, and bring it over the numbers 15 knots fast (lord only knows why) and I could see it causing some problems in a slippery bird like that.
 
Hank S said:
I rode a Boeing into ATL this afternoon. Winds were "from the east" at 15G20. That would make for an interesting landing on 3, more so with a castering nose wheel. But I would expect directional control problems rather than being high or fast or whatever sent him off the end.
Click to expand...

Shortly after this, the airport changed direction to the 21's.
 
Strange, this time last year Jim Tobul wrecked his Corsair landing in strong winds at PDK.
 
AJC is working on another article for the paper. General gist is how pilots feel about airports that are surrounded by buildings, subdivisions, etc.
 
Last edited:
EppyGA said:
AJC is working on another article for the paper. General gist is how pilots feel about surrounded by buildings, subdivisions, etc.
Click to expand...

That's a slippery slope.

"Even the pilots think <insert urban airport here> is dangerous. We should close it."
 
kyleb said:
That's a slippery slope.

"Even the pilots think <insert urban airport here> is dangerous. We should close it."
Click to expand...

I guess we'll see what the tone of the article ends up being. :dunno:
 
kyleb said:
"Even the pilots think <insert urban airport here> is dangerous. We should close it."
Click to expand...

First place my head went, too. FYI, the press is reading this thread--I've been contacted based on comments posted here.
 
kyleb said:
That's a slippery slope.

"Even the pilots think <insert urban airport here> is dangerous. We should close it."
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't see how you could write this article and not have it end up anti airport. I'm starting to think that at some of the urban airports around the country that have become locked in by houses and buildings and there is a public concern for safety, a published circle in the climb procedure should be closely looked at.

Many pilots may bristle at the idea and say "It won't really help and it'll cost me time and money!" but if there is a public outcry due to a crash it's better to offer a solution to the non flying public instead of the usual "These engines almost never quit." and "Hey you could easily get hit by a drunk driver in your car." arguments. Just an idea.
 
kyleb said:
That's a slippery slope.

"Even the pilots think <insert urban airport here> is dangerous. We should close it."
Click to expand...

There's a local issue WRT a hotel being built in the corridor of the approach path for KCGS (a historic landmark). The airport is federally protected, but county legislators bend whichever way to support developers profits. Reminds me that I need to check-in on the status of that issue.
 
There has been an active group around PDK trying to get it closed for years. I'm guessing they are already active after this latest incident.
 
EppyGA said:
There has been an active group around PDK trying to get it closed for years. I'm guessing they are already active after this latest incident.
Click to expand...

Those people never rest!! :mad2:
 
EppyGA said:
There has been an active group around PDK trying to get it closed for years. I'm guessing they are already active after this latest incident.
Click to expand...

They enjoy sending nastygrams if you dont abide by the voluntary noise abatement procedures. Lol.

They listen for the N-number but when i make my calls and the tower is closed, i may or may not just use the last three.
 
EppyGA said:
AJC is working on another article for the paper. General gist is how pilots feel about airports that are surrounded by buildings, subdivisions, etc.
Click to expand...

Hopefully any such news story will use hard data. Comparing the total number of flight operations at PDK to the number that have ended up making unscheduled landings nearby would reveal that, as a percentage, it's a vanishingly small number. (I'm sure that have been others in the distant past, but I can think of only 1 other incident at PDK that affected the neighbors in about the past 4 years. That was the idiot who ran out of gas, with a kid in the plane, coming in from Hilton Head the night I did my first solo. He ended up about a quarter-mile short of the runway, but no one was hurt on the ground and there was no fire.)

There have been runway incidents, including the most recent Cirrus and the Corsair, but those are almost always contained within the boundaries of the field and rarely hurt anyone badly.

(In fact, looking at it that way makes me feel a lot better about regularly flying out of there).
 
TomATL said:
Hopefully any such news story will use hard data.
Click to expand...
I would like to hope so, too, and there may have been some time in the past that such a hope would have been reasonable. Alas, I fear it no longer is; all news media exist only to sell advertising and meet the vested interests of their publishers. If those advertisers or publishers include corporations who would benefit from turning an airport into a shopping mall, then ...
 
If the public is worried about airports surrounded by "civilization", than Midway will be in big trouble.
 
Kritchlow said:
If the public is worried about airports surrounded by "civilization", than Midway will be in big trouble.
Click to expand...

"The Public" probably isn't, but a handful of vocal airport opponents can create real headaches.
 
Norman said:
When did that neighborhood become civilized? :confused:
Click to expand...

Especially the one around PDK! :eek: English is a second language for most of the folks, lots of massage places etc. There are a couple nicer neighborhoods, but some rough ones as well. But, FTY makes the PDK area look like Naples!:mad2:
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
They enjoy sending nastygrams if you dont abide by the voluntary noise abatement procedures. Lol.

They listen for the N-number but when i make my calls and the tower is closed, i may or may not just use the last three.
Click to expand...

Why not announce using one of the FAA's N-numbers? N1 is easy to remember. ;-)
 
ahkahn said:
Well, that gave us a whole lot of nothing.
Click to expand...
Not much, but I think it rules out Jet-A. No mention of unusual sounds or smoke.

Sounds a lot like it could have been something simple like a clogged injector or binding throttle cable not producing full power and airplane loaded at or slightly over gross.

I had a similar experience departing Huntsville, TX a few years ago in a 177RG on a hot day. Runup was completely normal, but the airplane wouldn't climb for crap. It was just me in the plane and I was able to limp up to pattern altitude and bring it back. If I had been near gross, I'd have ended up in the prison at the end of the runway.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The FAA would have been the least of my worries. The Hollister prison facility was at the end of the runway.
Click to expand...


Sorry I was being sarcastic. Implying that the FAA is sending people to prison for flying over gross. Its early. Need coffee.
 
Witness stated engine sounded normal; could have possibly been overweight?
 
Ryanb said:
Witness stated engine sounded normal; could have possibly been overweight?
Click to expand...
It is possible. But I don't think he was significantly over-gross and that alone would not necessarily result in the accident as it played out. IF the engine was running, but not producing full power, it certainly would have been a contributing factor.

The reason I bring up my clogged fuel injector experience is that my situation would have ended up very similar had I been heavy that day. I noticed nothing wrong on the runup. Engine might have been a little rougher, but nothing that seemed really unusual.
 
ahkahn said:
Well, that gave us a whole lot of nothing.
Click to expand...

Not nothing, I think the detail about the ground scars across four lanes might indicate there wasn't a stall. Sounds like he flew it into the crash, but ended up in the worst possible location with that lane barrier(wall).
 
Temperature at time of the accident was 78. Not sure it's relevant other than it was a little warmer than normal.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane410.shtml

RisingUp reports the useful load at 1032 lbs with max fuel 94 gallons. No idea how much fuel they had, but at full there is only 468 lbs left to gross, which is much less than 4 adults and baggage. At half tank, they have 750 lbs to gross.

I can imagine a scenario where the fuel jockey is told to put in x gallons, but nearly tops off the tanks instead. Or full tanks in KAVL and didn't burn off enough on the flight down - it's less than an hour flight, they would have been around 85% if starting full?

What scares me about those scenarios is that I can very easily see myself missing the extra fuel quantity and taking off over weight too. It wouldn't be hard to do.
 
Being very inexperienced, I don't know what I don't know but, He was initially cleared for 3R which is 6001'. He held short of 3L, then asked for clarification on which runway, was then cleared for 3L which is 3746', "could" that make a difference? Is it possible when you take into account fuel, pax, luggage, DA that he just mushed it in? I truly don't have any idea. Being over weight scares me so bad I wont even get close.
 
I once had a scary takeoff in a C-172P (160HP) that sounded normal. I was later told "that plane is a dog." It was an above temperature day and I also recall being on the stall horn through the climb-out and initial turn. Fortunately I was recently from training and could feel the reduced elevator authority and knew not to pull anymore.
 
mikeinbama said:
Being very inexperienced, I don't know what I don't know but, He was initially cleared for 3R which is 6001'. He held short of 3L, then asked for clarification on which runway, was then cleared for 3L which is 3746', "could" that make a difference? Is it possible when you take into account fuel, pax, luggage, DA that he just mushed it in? I truly don't have any idea. Being over weight scares me so bad I wont even get close.
Click to expand...

Being overweight should scare you because you're into the test pilot range. "Might fly" is not a phrase I care to use when describing my flying abilities.

But what is scarier I think is being overweight and never tripping the mental breaker that says "check if your W&B is right".

Being honest - W&B is an extra step and when you've flown the same "way inside the box" profile many,most people just don't do it - myself included. What we SHOULD do is compute the W&B for every flight, to make it a formal requirement. All it takes is a spreadsheet or an app on your tablet and a scale. Then, yes...you CAN take passengers and luggage into account and know that you're not over weight.

Next you need your performance charts, which again I'll admit I don't look at and I'm not sure I even remember how to use anymore. I suspect most pilots don't look at it every flight. But we SHOULD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top