Tragedy at Mackinac County (83D)

TangoWhiskey said:
Looks fairly clear in the video Scott posted.... sorry to hear you lost a friend there. Is it a challenging field?
Click to expand...
Nope. 3800 feet. 15' decline to the water....Lose a blower with full fuel, though, or misfuel, it's a baddie. I75 runs just off the runway 07 departure end, then it's into Lake Huron.
 
Last edited:
In my friend's case, it was VFR-into-IMC, in spite of the fact that she was instrument rated and current.
 
Ugh. Prayers to the survivor and the victims' families. This is one of those where there's no immediate suspected cause. Just sad.
 
83D is not unusual for a North country airport and I have fueled up there a few times over the years, last was 3 summers ago going to the island... He barely passed the end of runway 25 before impact... The I75 expressway is right there but you need control to make it... Looks like he ran out of altitude, airspeed, and options, all about the same time...

denny-o
 
ScottM said:
I think they suspect a weight and balance issue, that is to say, the plane was well over gross.
Click to expand...
We'll see. An adult and four teenagers with presumably little to no luggage in a Baron doesn't scream "well over gross" to me. Let's wait for the reports.
 
gprellwitz said:
We'll see. An adult and four teenagers with presumably little to no luggage in a Baron doesn't scream "well over gross" to me. Let's wait for the reports.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well.

Idle speculation time: I wonder if the guy had a medical problem after take off? He was no spring chicken... Regardless, it's all very sad. To lose almost an entire family in one accident is tragic.

We've flown into St. Ignace many times. There's nothing tricky about it, but I've often looked down at all the trees and thought that there weren't many options if the engine sputtered. They've got a GREAT FBO, with wonderful service. They've given us a lift to our motel many times...

(Which, BTW, is the best way to see Mackinac Island. Stay on the mainland for 75% less than any motel on the island, and fly over each day. First, you'll actually save money, and second, you'll get to make one of the most beautiful flights in the world every day!)
 
gprellwitz said:
We'll see. An adult and four teenagers with presumably little to no luggage in a Baron doesn't scream "well over gross" to me. Let's wait for the reports.
Click to expand...
I am just repeating what the NTSB said they are suspecting. Their reason had something to do with him just taking on full fuel. But time and fact will tell.
 
Flew with a friend to OSH in his B-58, planning to camp by the plane. We stopped in Moline for the night and flew in early the next morning. He wanted me to fly the final leg since he had never done the arrival fandango, so I did and made one of my usual greaser landings on the proper dot.

We came home the day after a hard rain. He said we should put the wet tent & stuff in the nose bag area, so as to keep from soiling his fresh new interior by Rose in Mena. Then we topped the tanks and headed home, with a planned stop in St. Louis to see a King Air that he had found in the trade rags. At Spirit, he made the worst landing I had ever ridden through in a Baron, and scared us both.

Exec Beech had moved the plane to KC, so he decided we would fly over there and see it, and offered to let me fly the leg. My landing in KC was as bad as his had been, maybe worse, and tops the list as the worst one of my life.

I made him fly home, and suspecting that we had a CG problem after my debacle, dug out the book. With two adult males of generous proportion, full fuel and (I'm guessing) 30# of tent and crap in the nose, we were about 200# overweight and about 2" forward of the envelope. The landing at Addison was survivable, primarily because I got in the aft-most seat and moved all the cabin baggage and equipment as far aft as possible.

The shop replaced some bent part in the nosegear, and we argue to this day about who caused it.

If you're still reading this novel, I wouldn't be surprised to find the plane was over weight, and perhaps close to or exceeding CG.

ScottM said:
I am just repeating what the NTSB said they are suspecting. Their reason had something to do with him just taking on full fuel. But time and fact will tell.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Flew with a friend to OSH in his B-58, (Snip of scary-but-great story...)
Click to expand...

Wow, okay. So all those kids COULD put a Baron out of CG and overweight. Yeesh.

Makes me even happier with my plane. I've run the numbers every which way, and Atlas (our Piper Pathfinder, so-named because he can carry virtually anything) is almost impossible to overload or get out of CG.

It's one of the few planes I've ever flown that can carry four 200-pound men, 150 pounds of luggage, AND have full tanks (84 gallons) without being over-gross or out of CG. Piper really got it right with the stretch-bodied -235/-236's...
 
T-210 can do it with 89 gallons and 1000# in the cabin, cruise 165 ktas at 9,500' @ <65% power.

Jay Honeck said:
Wow, okay. So all those kids COULD put a Baron out of CG and overweight. Yeesh.

Makes me even happier with my plane. I've run the numbers every which way, and Atlas (our Piper Pathfinder, so-named because he can carry virtually anything) is almost impossible to overload or get out of CG.

It's one of the few planes I've ever flown that can carry four 200-pound men, 150 pounds of luggage, AND have full tanks (84 gallons) without being over-gross or out of CG. Piper really got it right with the stretch-bodied -235/-236's...
Click to expand...
 
ScottM said:
I am just repeating what the NTSB said they are suspecting. Their reason had something to do with him just taking on full fuel. But time and fact will tell.
Click to expand...
I didn't see where they said they were suspecting that (at least any more than they are suspecting anything else). It "is one factor being investigated." They're still on a fact-finding mission at this point.
 
wabower said:
T-210 can do it with 89 gallons and 1000# in the cabin, cruise 165 ktas at 9,500' @ <65% power.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the OTHER 4-place piston plane I can think of (off the top of my head) that can lift that kind of weight.

It's a heckuva lot more expensive to obtain and operate, however...
 
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.:tongue:

Jay Honeck said:
Yep, that's the OTHER 4-place piston plane I can think of (off the top of my head) that can lift that kind of weight.

It's a heckuva lot more expensive to obtain and operate, however...
Click to expand...
 
gprellwitz said:
I didn't see where they said they were suspecting that (at least any more than they are suspecting anything else). It "is one factor being investigated." They're still on a fact-finding mission at this point.
Click to expand...
It was in a Trib article from the other day. I am not saying it was the problem at all. I am just repeating what was in the paper.
 
gprellwitz said:
We'll see. An adult and four teenagers with presumably little to no luggage in a Baron doesn't scream "well over gross" to me. Let's wait for the reports.
Click to expand...
It does to me. 1800 useful is common. 136 or 166 gallons of fuel is common.

1800 minus 816 for fuel means the six adults have to average less than 170 each.

1800 minus 1000 lbs for fuel is a problem. Plus the CG is likely aft.
 
bbchien said:
It does to me. 1800 useful is common. 136 or 166 gallons of fuel is common.

1800 minus 816 for fuel means the six adults have to average less than 170 each.

1800 minus 1000 lbs for fuel is a problem. Plus the CG is likely aft.
Click to expand...

This is a current picture of Moshes son Shalom with his 3 children (2 of the deceased girls and the boy who survived):

correction%20plane%20crash%20michigan--862899670_v2.grid-6x2.jpg


Yossi Menora, Shalom Menora, Rachel Menora, Rikki Menora, picture linked from MSNBC site.

The three kids don't strike me as more than 120lbs each. These are not your average pudgy US teenagers.


- Also, the pilot took on fuel at St Ignace, doesn't mean that he topped off. He may well have flown up there with reduced fuel load and just replaced the 25gal or so he used for the trip up.

- This was a day trip. Unless they purchased Uranium on Mackinac Island, I doubt that any of them had substantial luggage.
 
weilke said:
- Also, the pilot took on fuel at St Ignace, doesn't mean that he topped off. He may well have flown up there with reduced fuel load and just replaced the 25gal or so he used for the trip up.

- This was a day trip. Unless they purchased Uranium on Mackinac Island, I doubt that any of them had substantial luggage.
Click to expand...

The article said 60 gallons of fuel taken on if I remember right.
 
RMCN172RG said:
The article said 60 gallons of fuel taken on if I remember right.
Click to expand...

Well, there goes that theory :( . Fuel at St Ignace is a buck fifty cheaper than at his base.

Still based on the pic above and the fact that it was a same-day sightseeing flight, I would be suprised if loading over gross is going to be the root cause of this accident.
 
I don't have a lot of 58 time; I'm in a 58P. Very hard to get aft CG in my plane, but it can be done. With two full sized folks up front and full fuel, I'm probably at or just over gross and forward CG. I try to put weight in back whenever I top off to compensate. 600 pound payload with full fuel.
I don't want to suggest flying over gross or with forward CG, but if one knows how to do it, it shouldn't be a problem on departure unless it's a short field or short considering obstacle clearance and weight.

Unfortunately, we've all seen the accidents where someone doesn't lift off when they think they should and pulls up before the plane is ready to fly.

Lots of sins can be forgiven if nothing goes wrong. The shorter the field, heavier the plane and the closer the obstacles, the more everything has to go just right.

Best,

Dave
 
wabower said:
With two adult males of generous proportion, full fuel and (I'm guessing) 30# of tent and crap in the nose, we were about 200# overweight and about 2" forward of the envelope.
Click to expand...

I'd be much more interested in what the CG was at landing, not at full fuel takeoff. I dont recall for sure, but if the baron is like the bonanza, the fuel is forward of the spar, so the CG moves aft with fuel burn.

Not doubting there was a cg issue as you suspect, just curious what the landing condition calculated out to.
 
IIRC (and it's been a long time) the the 58's empty CG and pilot seats are both about 5" forward of the fuel CG. Our forward CG was worse because of the stuff in the forward baggage compartment, and our projected landing CG was the number was the number I quoted earlier.

The loading mistake was that the camping gear was in the aft bag area for the trip to OSH, and should have been there for the return trip.

Doggtyred said:
I'd be much more interested in what the CG was at landing, not at full fuel takeoff. I dont recall for sure, but if the baron is like the bonanza, the fuel is forward of the spar, so the CG moves aft with fuel burn.

Not doubting there was a cg issue as you suspect, just curious what the landing condition calculated out to.
Click to expand...
 
Hot, heavy, short, uphill departure.....it's a B58 with 166 gallons, so that's 1000 lbs of fuel, 600+ pounds of pax, on a level field that requires 2800 feet.

Initial suspicions were I think correct.
 
weilke said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20100714X50804&key=1

:confused:

2 aborted takeoffs, didn't clear the interstate on the third.
Click to expand...
G*d D&mn. What the F were they thinking????? 2 failed attempts, 1/2 and 3/4 the way down the runway and unsuccessful and they attempt a third takeoff WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING???? Not to cast aspersions, but Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but whatever the ultimate cause, if you have two failed takeoff attempts and you attempt a third without changing something, there's something wrong with your decision making process.
 
Last edited:
...well maybe the fuel was such a terrific bargain the thought of offloading some and not tankering it back to PWK was just not thinkable.....sigh. D. Alt was just too high.

Aviation. It's pretty unforgiving of greed.

It sure screamed overload to me.
 
I'd like to think that if I aborted twice, I'd taxi back to the FBO, shut down, get out and sit down and think about it.

Very sad...
 
Saving $90 on fuel is sometimes not worth it


I hope that if I ever land myself somewhere I can't get out of that I am strong enough to either:

- go back to the FBO and pay a nice penny to de-fuel the aircraft to a safe level.
- put my family into a taxicab and shuttle them to the airport with the 7000ft runway 35 miles away.
 
weilke said:
Saving $90 on fuel is sometimes not worth it


I hope that if I ever land myself somewhere I can't get out of that I am strong enough to either:

- go back to the FBO and pay a nice penny to de-fuel the aircraft to a safe level.
- put my family into a taxicab and shuttle them to the airport with the 7000ft runway 35 miles away.
Click to expand...

That or set the family up in the FBO lounge with some sodas while you fly around for a couple of hours at full rich full throttle and the afternoon temp drops a few degrees. That might be the only way at a self serve field if nothing longer is near by or you can 't get a friend to pick them up. Or better yet shuttle them to the longer field one at a time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top