Someone please explain what this pilot was up to.

J

JohnDeaux

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
AgroUrica
First post and I can't post links. But if you go to youtube and type the following, the 32 second inside-the-cockpit video will come up.

Momento en que se estrella primo de Vladimir Padrino López.

Perhaps a member here can post the link for others to see. After some responses, I'll post what the "word on the street" is about what happened.

Thanks in advance for any responses.
 
I translated the description, but will let you post, sounds like he was overloaded, stall horn squealing and in total denial until the end.
 
Reminds me a video of a Cessna 150 in the Rockies somewhere, guy got stuck in a canyon, end result was the same.


Tom
 
Obviously a case of terrain gradient exceeding the climb gradiant the aircraft. That’s why the publish performance in the AFM.
 
Stingray Don said:
Is this the video to which you are referring?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the video.

I'm writing from Venezuela. Two high-ranking military officers were killed in the crash along with the pilot who I believe was a sargent. One of those high-ranking officers killed is the cousin of Venezuela's head honcho of the military.

They were flying over the southern state of Bolivar, supposedly loaded with illegal gold (there's all sorts of illegal mining activity there and the military is in the big middle of it. Claims were that they were flying very low in an effort to avoid detection by possible US radar being operated from either Brazil or offshore.

The video is obviously short, but sure seemed to me they weren't anticipating landing at some nearby airstrip but instead were flying dangerously low and then perhaps suddenly stalled with zero room for error. The plane was a Cessna 206.

Thanks guys for the quick response. Does that explanation sound logical?
 
Last edited:
Looks like overweight and or DA

Also if this was some clandestine operation, wouldn’t filming it be a bad idea, let alone posting said video
 
James331 said:
Looks like overweight and or DA

Also if this was some clandestine operation, wouldn’t filming it be a bad idea, let alone posting said video
Click to expand...

James, what's DA? I'm not a pilot. I don't know who filmed the sequence, or how it got away from the crash site, but suffice it to say that that there are plenty of people here eager to do their part to bring down the Maduro regime.
 
DA = "Density Altitude", which is a fancy way of describing "how many air molecules your wings have to work with in order to generate lift." When the air is thinner (because you're high up, or it's a hot or humid day), an airplane can't climb as well as it would when it's down low and cooler. It's one of the many things that can affect how well an airplane can climb, differently under different circumstances. Weight is another big effect. Pilots are supposed to be trained to take these things into account.
 
Thanks guys. Anyone have any idea how low an aircraft would have to fly in order to avoid detection by radar? Looking at that video, appears the pilot was flying just above the tree-tops.
 
JohnDeaux said:
Thanks guys. Anyone have any idea how low an aircraft would have to fly in order to avoid detection by radar? Looking at that video, appears the pilot was flying just above the tree-tops.
Click to expand...

That airplane was barely flying, the squealing sound you hear is the stall warning telling the pilot of impeding stall, which means the wing stops flying. I think radar avoidance was the least of his worries at that point. He probably never got too far above the tree tops.
 
Odd they chose to film that little bit. I imagine there is more.
 
JohnDeaux said:
Thanks guys. Anyone have any idea how low an aircraft would have to fly in order to avoid detection by radar? Looking at that video, appears the pilot was flying just above the tree-tops.
Click to expand...
Depending on the radar, I would say it's not possible to fly low enough. Air traffic control radars probably have terrain limits, but if there are airborne radars in play (like, for drug interdiction or military use) they can potentially see anything and everything.

The last time I had anything at all to do with radars, one that I dealt with could pick up moving personnel on the ground; another could pick up multiple artillery rounds in flight and track them back to their origin. That was in the 1970s. One could assume the state of the art has advanced a bit since then.

Obviously radar was not these guys' biggest worry.
 
What were they doing? Unfortunately they were asking for what happened is what they were doing...
 
We used 300' AGL back in the day, for training, and a bit lower for the real thing. The expectation (hope?) was that low would usually keep you off ground-based systems, depending on terrain. But platforms like JSTARs, AWACS, and look-down-shoot-down fire control radars, would see you, regardless, absent counter-measures.
 
A circling climb would have been the smartest move, while continuing to fly towards rapidly rising terrain was definitely not.
 
It’s totally unclear to me how any conclusion can be made from that video.
 
SbestCFII said:
A circling climb would have been the smartest move, while continuing to fly towards rapidly rising terrain was definitely not.
Click to expand...
Agree. I’m thinking they thought they were so close to ‘making it’.
 
James331 said:
Looks like overweight and or DA

Also if this was some clandestine operation, wouldn’t filming it be a bad idea, let alone posting said video
Click to expand...

Probably both DA and weight. 3 people PLUS a load of gold?

I suspect the video was liberated from the plane by Maduro's opposition. Just a guess, though.

They were probably filming it to confirm that they delivered the gold ... and that none stuck to their fingers. Again, just a guess.

Or maybe they were just straight up idiots. :)
 
JohnDeaux said:
nyone have any idea how low an aircraft would have to fly in order to avoid detection by radar?
Click to expand...
Depends on terrain and how far away you are. In the flat area around Detroit, the Detroit Metro radar won't pick you up at 1500 feet off the ground if you are 30 miles away with the transponder off. They will pick you up at about 15 miles at similar altitudes. Hills will make a big difference if you "hide" behind them.
 
JohnDeaux said:
Yes, that's the video.

I'm writing from Venezuela. Two high-ranking military officers were killed in the crash along with the pilot who I believe was a sargent. One of those high-ranking officers killed is the cousin of Venezuela's head honcho of the military.

They were flying over the southern state of Bolivar, supposedly loaded with illegal gold (there's all sorts of illegal mining activity there and the military is in the big middle of it. Claims were that they were flying very low in an effort to avoid detection by possible US radar being operated from either Brazil or offshore.

The video is obviously short, but sure seemed to me they weren't anticipating landing at some nearby airstrip but instead were flying dangerously low and then perhaps suddenly stalled with zero room for error. The plane was a Cessna 206.

Thanks guys for the quick response. Does that explanation sound logical?
Click to expand...

Well, that wasn't a sudden stall. You can hear the horn going off in the background for a while before they actually stalled, and they had a chance to save it, had they not turned toward rising terrain and tried to increase their climb gradient even more.

Do you know where they took off from? I would imagine that it was already a backcountry strip, probably on a warm day at a high altitude, and that they simply didn't have the performance to climb high.

I'll attempt a non-pilot explanation here:

The key thing to understand is what we call "angle of attack" (AoA) which is the angle between the wing and the air rushing past it. Generally, the amount of lift the wing develops is directly proportional to the angle of attack, up to what we call the "critical AoA" which is where the airflow separates from the wing and it stalls.

Several things will affect AoA:
1) Speed. A plane that is flying slower has less air coming at it to be able to deflect downwards to develop lift. Slower speed = higher AoA.
2) Weight. A heavier plane needs more lift, and thus a higher AoA at a particular speed. (Gold is heavy stuff, too.)
3) Altitude. The higher you are, the thinner the air is, and the higher AoA you need for a particular speed and weight.
4) Heat. The hotter the air is, the thinner it gets, and the higher AoA you need for a particular speed, weight, and altitude.
* "Density Altitude" is the term used by pilots to describe this thinning of the air effect, combining the effects of heat and altitude into one term.

What we see in the video appears to have all of the above.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, that wasn't a sudden stall. You can hear the horn going off in the background for a while before they actually stalled, and they had a chance to save it, had they not turned toward rising terrain and tried to increase their climb gradient even more.

Do you know where they took off from? I would imagine that it was already a backcountry strip, probably on a warm day at a high altitude, and that they simply didn't have the performance to climb high.

I'll attempt a non-pilot explanation here:

The key thing to understand is what we call "angle of attack" (AoA) which is the angle between the wing and the air rushing past it. Generally, the amount of lift the wing develops is directly proportional to the angle of attack, up to what we call the "critical AoA" which is where the airflow separates from the wing and it stalls.

Several things will affect AoA:
1) Speed. A plane that is flying slower has less air coming at it to be able to deflect downwards to develop lift. Slower speed = higher AoA.
2) Weight. A heavier plane needs more lift, and thus a higher AoA at a particular speed. (Gold is heavy stuff, too.)
3) Altitude. The higher you are, the thinner the air is, and the higher AoA you need for a particular speed and weight.
4) Heat. The hotter the air is, the thinner it gets, and the higher AoA you need for a particular speed, weight, and altitude.
* "Density Altitude" is the term used by pilots to describe this thinning of the air effect, combining the effects of heat and altitude into one term.

What we see in the video appears to have all of the above.
Click to expand...

Or, if you ain't got enough power for your weight and conditions, you ain't gettin' over that hill. Pilots are supposed to calculate weight and balance for each flight, then evaluate if the airplane has enough performance for the conditions. These guys obviously didn't do that or made a fatal mistake.
 
watch the vid closely you'll see they are turning right, and it rolled right. What's the term for that? the right wing stalled first.
 
Stewartb said:
Climbing 360s are one of the first lessons mountain fliers learn.
Click to expand...

Actually, I had a negative experience with that. I was climbing towards a pass when got into an argument with my more experienced passenger, who claimed that we're not going to make it. He suggested that we circle. I shrugged but obliged. We circled and ended at the exact same altitude. The loss of lift from banking has offset the remaining climbing ability of the airplane.

The best (most profitable) thing a mountain pilot can do in such a situation is to make use of wind hitting a slope. It's going to be way better than folding a slow climb path. But if you have to circle, at least do an elongated racetrack pattern.
 
As noted there is no way to determine what’s going on from that video. If you are in the mountains you can be in a perfectly okay situation, turn up the wrong canyon and suddenly your not.
 
zaitcev said:
Actually, I had a negative experience with that. I was climbing towards a pass when got into an argument with my more experienced passenger, who claimed that we're not going to make it. He suggested that we circle. I shrugged but obliged. We circled and ended at the exact same altitude. The loss of lift from banking has offset the remaining climbing ability of the airplane.
Click to expand...

What bank angle were you using?!? Even 30 degrees still gives you nearly 90% of the upward component of lift...

The best (most profitable) thing a mountain pilot can do in such a situation is to make use of wind hitting a slope.
Click to expand...

Amen... If the conditions allow. That was one of the more useful things I learned in the mountain flying course. I used it this summer, departed Spanish Fork, UT and used the mountains + winds aloft to peg my VSI at +2000 fpm from about 7000 to 11,000. Whee! :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What bank angle were you using?!? Even 30 degrees still gives you nearly 90% of the upward component of lift...



Amen... If the conditions allow. That was one of the more useful things I learned in the mountain flying course. I used it this summer, departed Spanish Fork, UT and used the mountains + winds aloft to peg my VSI at +2000 fpm from about 7000 to 11,000. Whee! :D
Click to expand...

87%, but that's an interesting concept. Usually we're concerned about stall speed in the turn, but what effect does 13% less lift have on the climb? Is it a linear effect? I haven't really thought about it.
 
PaulS said:
87%, but that's an interesting concept. Usually we're concerned about stall speed in the turn, but what effect does 13% less lift have on the climb? Is it a linear effect? I haven't really thought about it.
Click to expand...

It's even worse, actually, and for 2 reasons.

Reason #1 is, you're facing a Dilber's joke:
TINA: "This article says that women are paid 75 cents for each dollar that men earn! It's an outrage that you are paid 25% more!"
WALLY: "Actually, I'm paid 33% more."
(pause, Wally and Dilbert look at each other, while Tina is mad)
WALLY: "Somehow, I have a feeling that I'm not going to be complimented on my math skills."

You always need the lift to be equal to your weight, no matter if in level flight or climb, and regardless of the turn. Therefore, when banking 30 degrees, you need 15.5% more lift, not 13%.

Reason #2 is, it's not the excess of lift that makes you climb, it's the excess of power. If you have N amount of power, and 80% of N is used to maintain your flight, then 20% is converted to climb rate according to the airplane's weight. Every second of 0.2*N adds this much Joules to your potential energy as you climb.

When you're banking, you have to change your angle of attack, and thus you consume more power to maintain the flight, say 95% of N. Your climb rate is thus the new value, proportional to 0.05*N.

The new value is defined by the characteristics of the wing, not the angle of the bank alone.
 
DaleB said:
Depending on the radar, I would say it's not possible to fly low enough. Air traffic control radars probably have terrain limits, but if there are airborne radars in play (like, for drug interdiction or military use) they can potentially see anything and everything.

The last time I had anything at all to do with radars, one that I dealt with could pick up moving personnel on the ground; another could pick up multiple artillery rounds in flight and track them back to their origin. That was in the 1970s. One could assume the state of the art has advanced a bit since then.

Obviously radar was not these guys' biggest worry.
Click to expand...
I used to do radar coverage analysis overlays for our drug enforcement folks. If you know where the radar is it's not that difficult to know where to fly to avoid detection. There are gaps but they change from time to time. We used to do some analysis of where and when the druggies fly and it became obvious that they must hire some very smart people and bribe others to give them the info they need to avoid detection. It takes some time for them to realize when we've done something different and that's when shipments get interdicted but soon they get smart and figure out a counter move. The money that's involved in the illicit drug trade allows them to corrupt many so it's not a war that's winnable if stopping the supply is your primary strategy. If you can't decrease/eliminate demand you're doomed to fail and waste billions of dollars fighting an unwinnable war on drugs just like we're doing.
 
Witmo said:
I used to do radar coverage analysis overlays for our drug enforcement folks. If you know where the radar is it's not that difficult to know where to fly to avoid detection. There are gaps but they change from time to time. We used to do some analysis of where and when the druggies fly and it became obvious that they must hire some very smart people and bribe others to give them the info they need to avoid detection. It takes some time for them to realize when we've done something different and that's when shipments get interdicted but soon they get smart and figure out a counter move. The money that's involved in the illicit drug trade allows them to corrupt many so it's not a war that's winnable if stopping the supply is your primary strategy. If you can't decrease/eliminate demand you're doomed to fail and waste billions of dollars fighting an unwinnable war on drugs just like we're doing.
Click to expand...
The only way to win a drug war is like china did it, Make it free, allow usage in certain places. When you know who is using kill them.
Then give the local authorities the order to kill any one they catch delivering or using right on the spot.
You get caught in most south east Asia countries with drugs you are dead.
 
zaitcev said:
It's even worse, actually, and for 2 reasons.

Reason #1 is, you're facing a Dilber's joke:
TINA: "This article says that women are paid 75 cents for each dollar that men earn! It's an outrage that you are paid 25% more!"
WALLY: "Actually, I'm paid 33% more."
(pause, Wally and Dilbert look at each other, while Tina is mad)
WALLY: "Somehow, I have a feeling that I'm not going to be complimented on my math skills."

You always need the lift to be equal to your weight, no matter if in level flight or climb, and regardless of the turn. Therefore, when banking 30 degrees, you need 15.5% more lift, not 13%.

Reason #2 is, it's not the excess of lift that makes you climb, it's the excess of power. If you have N amount of power, and 80% of N is used to maintain your flight, then 20% is converted to climb rate according to the airplane's weight. Every second of 0.2*N adds this much Joules to your potential energy as you climb.

When you're banking, you have to change your angle of attack, and thus you consume more power to maintain the flight, say 95% of N. Your climb rate is thus the new value, proportional to 0.05*N.

The new value is defined by the characteristics of the wing, not the angle of the bank alone.
Click to expand...

Good start! Like I said, I haven't really thought about it, but it is not only an available energy issue, it's also a time distance altitude change problem. Climbing in a circle may not be as efficient as climbing wings level, but the circle climb done in a timely fashion i.e. before you run into terrain, may be the only exit in some situations. In other words, it's better to take a hit in climb rate in a circle, then shooting for maximum climb but still running into terrain. That's if you failed to keep yourself from having to make that choice in the first place.
 
PaulS said:
Climbing in a circle may not be as efficient as climbing wings level, but the circle climb done in a timely fashion i.e. before you run into terrain, may be the only exit in some situations.
Click to expand...
Well yeah... But the main reason it helps is because you circle outside of the downdraft zone if you have the foresight to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top