Posted on 08/13/2004 6:21:31 AM PDT by Archangelsk
On August 3, 2004, at 11:59 a.m., an Aerostar PA-60- 601P twin-engine airplane, N601BV, was destroyed shortly after takeoff from runway 16 at Lakeway Airpark (3R9), Austin, Texas. The commercial pilot and five passengers (three adults and two children) were killed in the crash.
The airplane was registered to and operated by Aviation Flight Standards, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware. A visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan was filed for the flight that departed Lakeway, about 11:58 a.m., and was destined for Wylie Post Airport (PWA), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91.
The airframe wreckage, engines, propellers, and propeller governors have been examined and no obvious preimpact mechanical deficiencies were noted. The hand-held Garmin global positioning system (GPS) MAP 295 receiver was sent to Garmin in an attempt to retrieve any stored data, including the airplane's groundspeed, headings, latitude and longitude positions, and altitude. However the unit was too damaged and the information could not be retrieved.
The Safety Board has received pilot and maintenance logbooks and will be reviewing the material in the next few weeks. Additionally, investigators will conduct interviews with witnesses to the accident and business associates of the pilot.
A preliminary weight and balance calculation indicated that the airplane was over its published maximum gross weight by approximately 284 pounds and was slightly forward of the allowable center of gravity limits. Interpolation of the airplane's published performance charts revealed that the takeoff, at the airplane's maximum gross weight and with the calculated pressure altitude, would have required a distance of 3,850 feet of runway to clear a 50-foot obstacle on a paved, level runway. Runway 16 at Lakeway Airport is 3,930 feet long and sloped uphill.
The NTSB identification number for this investigation is FTW04FA204 and the investigator-in-charge is Leah Yeager of the NTSB's South Central Regional Office in Arlington, Texas.
ping
I thought it might end up being overweight, even though spinners have tried to say it would have taken a lot more weight to make the plane overloaded.
Jen
Stupid pilot.
I would be more concerned about the weight and balance being out of the envelope than the acutal overloading.
.jpg)
These widowmakers are fast and beautiful, but I wouldn't set foot in one. They have one of the highest wing loadings of any non-military aircraft, about 35 lbs/sq. ft., or more than twice the wing loading of a 172. Their stall characteristics are extremely dangerous. You have to be an excellent pilot to fly this tricky little vixen. Messing about with weight and balance on a short runway is sheer idiocy.
-ccm
I was listening to KLBJ AM when this happened and I heard a lot of conjecture. The initial cause was thought to be the weight of the cargo in combination with the very hot day that it was that day. The hotter the day, the worse the lift. Then I heard about the pilot being in trouble with the FAA since he had crashed twice before. The last I heard was from people on the golf course who said the engines quit about 10 - 15 seconds before impact.
Isn't the Aerostar the one where a number of pilots have lost their hands reaching out to close the door in flight? See how close the prop is to where the door would be?
I haven't heard any of the in-flight stories, but I have heard a story about a taxiing Aerostar pilot waving to another Aerostar pilot and losing his hand.
A bad combination. Heavy plane, a little altitude, hot day, short (for an Aerostar...) runway. He got into the sucker's lift of ground effect. The pilot also, if I have the right prang, has a history of FAA enforcement action.
The load forward of CG wouldn't make the plane unstable but would make it slow to rotate (and you could run out of up elevator at flare time). And he was in a situation where he might well have pranged if he had NOTHING wrong with weight and balance. The book says the plane can't do that takeoff; the facts say the book was right.
Also, the "book" performance specifications were obtained with a factory test pilot flying a brand new airplane. I don't know any twenty or thirty year old plane that is lighter than it left the factory, or aerodynamically cleaner. Throw in 200 lb of newer avionics, a little hangar rash here and there, a set of mid-time engines, and even the factory test pilot probably couldn't get those numbers again.
As far as "overloaded", you can fly over gross and people do it all the time (you can do it legally in AK or for a long overwater flight -- of course, there are rules you have to follow). Several things combine to set gross weight: what the wings will lift, what loads they will bear, how strong your landing gear is and how much of a beating you want it to bear, how your airfoil behaves in suboptimal conditions (the first version of the Rutan Long-EZ had a canard that would stall if you got rained on).
If this guy was operating this flight under Part 121 rules he would have known not to try it. Indeed, I can't see how he could have been legal under part 135 or even 91. One can argue that the regs don't hold the plane up in the air, but in this case breaking them didn't either.
You might have gotten away with the short runway OR the wacky CG OR the uphill takeoff (if a runway has a significant grade to it, ALWAYS t/o downhill regardless of wind), OR the heavy load OR the hot day. In fact, I bet this guy often bent rules like this and got away with it. From which experience he took the wrong lesson.
Everybody has dumb attacks. How you react to surviving a dumb attack has a big effect on whether you will die in the pit with a yoke in your hand, or in the geriatric ICU gripping a nurse call button. You can go, say, "I survived flying through that weather and I'm NEVER gonna do anything that dumb again," or you can go, "Well, I am safe on the ground so I guess that weather (or that overload, or that short field...) wasn't such a big risk."
I regret this loss of life. All the more, that it was so unnecessary.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
The NTSB preliminary says nothing wrong with the engines. It's possible that the pilot cut the fuel cocks when he realised the crash was imminent.
As far as the Aerostar goes, it is a great machine, but a hot one. Hot machines attract pilots who think they are hot pilots: a percentage of whom are mistaken. It's not inherently unsafe if flown within its parameters. Disregad the parameters on anything that takes you off the ground and you may well die. The same Aero-News story also contains an update on a crash of a Cessna 172: statistically, the safest plane there is.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
The heat didn't help the weight situation one bit, but I blame the pilot. I can't believe that he didn't know in the first few hundred to a thousand feet, that something was wrong.
Do you now?How many FACTS do you have and did it ever occur to your oxygen starved brain that a FAMILY MEMBER such as MYSELF might read this post.I am Ricks' oldest Sister and sinse he will never be here to defend himself again - His BIG B*!#^ Sister is.Surely you can't be in aviation because my beleif was that Pilots are Angels grounded to a plane but if you are one I may have it wrong.(Even Lucifer was a FALLEN Angel) My life and the lives of my Family and our friends~ALL who loved him~was forever changed when his plane went down but to be persecuted in the press repeatedly,my GREIVEING Mother misquoted badly enough to be advised by my BROTHERS Attourney not to speak to the press again,every other day some half truthe printed in the paper then the "PRELIMINARY REPORT" shouted over our news stations~made it impossible for US to do ANYTHING but put on our boxing gloves and get ready to FIGHT. Yes this is the U.S.of A. and an open forum to speak your thoughts but my Momma taught me to think before I speak (although of her 3 children I am the LAST one to take that advice)and try NEVER to hurt someone with malicious words if uninformed....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.