Why is this video of a G36 Bonanza taking off so scary?












1














Why is this video of a G36 Bonanza so 'scary'?








If they had clipped the top of the trees, would it really have brought the plane down? (And even if yes, it looks pretty survivable).










share|improve this question




















  • 7




    On what basis do you think falling to the ground several hundred feet below while going 70 MPH is "survivable"? Such a car crash would frequently be fatal, and cars have far more safety features than small planes.
    – abelenky
    4 hours ago
















1














Why is this video of a G36 Bonanza so 'scary'?








If they had clipped the top of the trees, would it really have brought the plane down? (And even if yes, it looks pretty survivable).










share|improve this question




















  • 7




    On what basis do you think falling to the ground several hundred feet below while going 70 MPH is "survivable"? Such a car crash would frequently be fatal, and cars have far more safety features than small planes.
    – abelenky
    4 hours ago














1












1








1


1





Why is this video of a G36 Bonanza so 'scary'?








If they had clipped the top of the trees, would it really have brought the plane down? (And even if yes, it looks pretty survivable).










share|improve this question















Why is this video of a G36 Bonanza so 'scary'?








If they had clipped the top of the trees, would it really have brought the plane down? (And even if yes, it looks pretty survivable).















safety takeoff accidents stall






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Rodrigo de Azevedo

6921519




6921519










asked 5 hours ago









CloudCloud

3,03232047




3,03232047








  • 7




    On what basis do you think falling to the ground several hundred feet below while going 70 MPH is "survivable"? Such a car crash would frequently be fatal, and cars have far more safety features than small planes.
    – abelenky
    4 hours ago














  • 7




    On what basis do you think falling to the ground several hundred feet below while going 70 MPH is "survivable"? Such a car crash would frequently be fatal, and cars have far more safety features than small planes.
    – abelenky
    4 hours ago








7




7




On what basis do you think falling to the ground several hundred feet below while going 70 MPH is "survivable"? Such a car crash would frequently be fatal, and cars have far more safety features than small planes.
– abelenky
4 hours ago




On what basis do you think falling to the ground several hundred feet below while going 70 MPH is "survivable"? Such a car crash would frequently be fatal, and cars have far more safety features than small planes.
– abelenky
4 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















13














Because those trees will kill them



If you look at this document regarding the Bonanza G36 performance you will note that the lowest stall speed written is 61 kts. 61 kts is 112 kph or 71 mph. We can assume they were going a little bit faster than that but let us say 110 kph / 70 mph.



In that clip, they are just barely keeping airborne. This means the aircraft is extremely sensitive to disruptions. Any loss of power — even partial — or getting knocked back by a collision and thus losing a few knots or upsetting the aerodynamics of the aircraft, is very likely to send it crashing into the trees.



Going 110 kph / 70 mph into a tree is rarely survivable even in a car, and then you have to remember that cars these days are built to withstand crashes while at least keeping the occupants alive, but that assumes crashing into something wide, that distributes the forces over a wide area, and that gives way, like another car. Trees fail that on both accounts.



A G36 does not even come close to any such structural integrity in case of a crash. The cabin will crumple like figurative tin foil, sending the occupants smashing into the trunks of the trees, or throwing them clear of the aircraft only to then smack into other trees or the ground from several meters up and at a high speed. And that is going to be fatal.



Hence, this is scary because if they clip a tree they are very likely to die.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
    – Cloud
    5 hours ago








  • 3




    The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
    – John K
    4 hours ago










  • @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
    – MichaelK
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
    – Cloud
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
    – GdD
    4 hours ago



















4














They Trimmed the Margins to Zero



In this video, the aircraft takes off and flies a straight course through the trees and continues a shallow climb out. To the uninitiated, this may appear innocuous, until one realizes that the aircraft was performing at it's maximum limits with near zero room for error.



The voice and narration of this video does a good job breaking down what happened in this scenario, to recap in writing:



The pilots appear to have calculated the takeoff performance, found it to be adequate and made their attempt, which was found to be adequate, but sufficiently lacking in margin so as to excite those on board who were cognizant of the situation.



It is reasonable to assume that aircraft performance tables are generated under near ideal and non-threatening conditions.



It is also reasonble to assume that:




  • A pilot who flies recreationally may not be able to squeeze every bit of rated performance out of their aircraft.


  • Mistakes can be made in the calculation of weight and balance which affect performance.


  • Conditions may change between the time calculations are made and time of takeoff.



Near the end of the commentary, the pilots can be heard verbalizing their learning experience. I think the lessons of the experience are not lost on them.



Lessons of aircraft performance are somewhat frightening to me as an aspiring instructor. Training usually occurs at one airport, often with a long runway, with one aircraft or type of aircraft and one loading scenario. If the training is compressed into a few months, the student may not even be exposed to a significant range of weather conditions.



I intend to teach my students to be awake to the amount of runway they are using and load the aircraft in multiple configurations as part of the training. I think many pilots have a moment of nervous surprise the first time they experience narrowing margins. I would like it to be less of a surprise.



Learn from this video, and from this other one, which had a less fortunate ending:









share|improve this answer





























    0














    What makes it scary is just how close they did come to an accident. They attempted a takeoff using the performance calculations listed in the POH on a hot day at high field elevation. That’s fine assuming EVERYTHING works out just like the book ie no errors in calculating performance, aircraft and engine in peak condition, field atmospherics, perfect short field takeoff technique, etc. But as the video showed, they came damned close to clipping the tree tops on climbout.



    The aircraft in question was a turbonormalized G36 departing from Mears Airport (3W5) in Concrete, Washington. The small country airport is located in a river valley surrounded by mountains. According to the pilot the performance calculations show that the aircraft could do it, and so he attempted to try it. Fortunately he managed to weave his way through the trees at just under stall speed to get clear of obstacles and clean up and accelerate the aircraft out of the reverse side of the power curve. The film is scary because it shows just how close he came to having a controlled flight into terrain or striking obstacles. Mountainous terrain quite often has downdrafts coming through the valleys on the windward side. Had he encountered one, he would have never made it.



    The airport is built on a small flat land surrounded by rough terrain. Had a pilot collided with the treestops at the end of the runway, there was a good chance that he would have lost control and crashed. The likelihood of survival in a situation like that, particularly in a high-performance airplane like a bonanza climbing out at 80+ knots, is not great.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "528"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58930%2fwhy-is-this-video-of-a-g36-bonanza-taking-off-so-scary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      13














      Because those trees will kill them



      If you look at this document regarding the Bonanza G36 performance you will note that the lowest stall speed written is 61 kts. 61 kts is 112 kph or 71 mph. We can assume they were going a little bit faster than that but let us say 110 kph / 70 mph.



      In that clip, they are just barely keeping airborne. This means the aircraft is extremely sensitive to disruptions. Any loss of power — even partial — or getting knocked back by a collision and thus losing a few knots or upsetting the aerodynamics of the aircraft, is very likely to send it crashing into the trees.



      Going 110 kph / 70 mph into a tree is rarely survivable even in a car, and then you have to remember that cars these days are built to withstand crashes while at least keeping the occupants alive, but that assumes crashing into something wide, that distributes the forces over a wide area, and that gives way, like another car. Trees fail that on both accounts.



      A G36 does not even come close to any such structural integrity in case of a crash. The cabin will crumple like figurative tin foil, sending the occupants smashing into the trunks of the trees, or throwing them clear of the aircraft only to then smack into other trees or the ground from several meters up and at a high speed. And that is going to be fatal.



      Hence, this is scary because if they clip a tree they are very likely to die.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 4




        I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
        – Cloud
        5 hours ago








      • 3




        The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
        – John K
        4 hours ago










      • @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
        – MichaelK
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
        – Cloud
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
        – GdD
        4 hours ago
















      13














      Because those trees will kill them



      If you look at this document regarding the Bonanza G36 performance you will note that the lowest stall speed written is 61 kts. 61 kts is 112 kph or 71 mph. We can assume they were going a little bit faster than that but let us say 110 kph / 70 mph.



      In that clip, they are just barely keeping airborne. This means the aircraft is extremely sensitive to disruptions. Any loss of power — even partial — or getting knocked back by a collision and thus losing a few knots or upsetting the aerodynamics of the aircraft, is very likely to send it crashing into the trees.



      Going 110 kph / 70 mph into a tree is rarely survivable even in a car, and then you have to remember that cars these days are built to withstand crashes while at least keeping the occupants alive, but that assumes crashing into something wide, that distributes the forces over a wide area, and that gives way, like another car. Trees fail that on both accounts.



      A G36 does not even come close to any such structural integrity in case of a crash. The cabin will crumple like figurative tin foil, sending the occupants smashing into the trunks of the trees, or throwing them clear of the aircraft only to then smack into other trees or the ground from several meters up and at a high speed. And that is going to be fatal.



      Hence, this is scary because if they clip a tree they are very likely to die.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 4




        I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
        – Cloud
        5 hours ago








      • 3




        The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
        – John K
        4 hours ago










      • @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
        – MichaelK
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
        – Cloud
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
        – GdD
        4 hours ago














      13












      13








      13






      Because those trees will kill them



      If you look at this document regarding the Bonanza G36 performance you will note that the lowest stall speed written is 61 kts. 61 kts is 112 kph or 71 mph. We can assume they were going a little bit faster than that but let us say 110 kph / 70 mph.



      In that clip, they are just barely keeping airborne. This means the aircraft is extremely sensitive to disruptions. Any loss of power — even partial — or getting knocked back by a collision and thus losing a few knots or upsetting the aerodynamics of the aircraft, is very likely to send it crashing into the trees.



      Going 110 kph / 70 mph into a tree is rarely survivable even in a car, and then you have to remember that cars these days are built to withstand crashes while at least keeping the occupants alive, but that assumes crashing into something wide, that distributes the forces over a wide area, and that gives way, like another car. Trees fail that on both accounts.



      A G36 does not even come close to any such structural integrity in case of a crash. The cabin will crumple like figurative tin foil, sending the occupants smashing into the trunks of the trees, or throwing them clear of the aircraft only to then smack into other trees or the ground from several meters up and at a high speed. And that is going to be fatal.



      Hence, this is scary because if they clip a tree they are very likely to die.






      share|improve this answer














      Because those trees will kill them



      If you look at this document regarding the Bonanza G36 performance you will note that the lowest stall speed written is 61 kts. 61 kts is 112 kph or 71 mph. We can assume they were going a little bit faster than that but let us say 110 kph / 70 mph.



      In that clip, they are just barely keeping airborne. This means the aircraft is extremely sensitive to disruptions. Any loss of power — even partial — or getting knocked back by a collision and thus losing a few knots or upsetting the aerodynamics of the aircraft, is very likely to send it crashing into the trees.



      Going 110 kph / 70 mph into a tree is rarely survivable even in a car, and then you have to remember that cars these days are built to withstand crashes while at least keeping the occupants alive, but that assumes crashing into something wide, that distributes the forces over a wide area, and that gives way, like another car. Trees fail that on both accounts.



      A G36 does not even come close to any such structural integrity in case of a crash. The cabin will crumple like figurative tin foil, sending the occupants smashing into the trunks of the trees, or throwing them clear of the aircraft only to then smack into other trees or the ground from several meters up and at a high speed. And that is going to be fatal.



      Hence, this is scary because if they clip a tree they are very likely to die.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 5 hours ago

























      answered 5 hours ago









      MichaelKMichaelK

      1,806614




      1,806614








      • 4




        I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
        – Cloud
        5 hours ago








      • 3




        The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
        – John K
        4 hours ago










      • @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
        – MichaelK
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
        – Cloud
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
        – GdD
        4 hours ago














      • 4




        I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
        – Cloud
        5 hours ago








      • 3




        The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
        – John K
        4 hours ago










      • @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
        – MichaelK
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
        – Cloud
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
        – GdD
        4 hours ago








      4




      4




      I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
      – Cloud
      5 hours ago






      I found out a bit more about this incident... it seems that one of the passengers wasn't honest about their weight and they had already dumped fuel to be inside the flight envelope (probably why the stall warning sounded as soon as they rotated?)... Thanks for the answer :)
      – Cloud
      5 hours ago






      3




      3




      The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
      – John K
      4 hours ago




      The survivability of that kind of crash is basically a crap shoot. The rear seat pax will almost certainly live if there's no post crash fire. The front seat occupants, it will depend on the sorts of things they run into during the crash sequence and how much the front end of the cabin is deformed. They might get lucky, they might not. Coniferous trees are better than deciduous trees and can be like landing in a big hair brush if they are small and dense. Bigger ones, not so good. If an engine quits while I'm over a forest carpet, I'm heading for small conifers if I can identify them.
      – John K
      4 hours ago












      @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
      – MichaelK
      4 hours ago




      @JohnK Assuming you go head on into the trees. Any "side slip" (i.e. the plane starts turning during the impact) and you have nothing but thin sheet metal / composites between you and the tree trunk coming at you at 50+ mph.
      – MichaelK
      4 hours ago




      1




      1




      @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
      – Cloud
      4 hours ago




      @JohnK I never knew dendrology would be useful in aviation ;)
      – Cloud
      4 hours ago




      1




      1




      I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
      – GdD
      4 hours ago




      I was not criticizing your good answer @MichaelK. What I mean is that the pilot got in that position by not taking it into account, among other things.
      – GdD
      4 hours ago











      4














      They Trimmed the Margins to Zero



      In this video, the aircraft takes off and flies a straight course through the trees and continues a shallow climb out. To the uninitiated, this may appear innocuous, until one realizes that the aircraft was performing at it's maximum limits with near zero room for error.



      The voice and narration of this video does a good job breaking down what happened in this scenario, to recap in writing:



      The pilots appear to have calculated the takeoff performance, found it to be adequate and made their attempt, which was found to be adequate, but sufficiently lacking in margin so as to excite those on board who were cognizant of the situation.



      It is reasonable to assume that aircraft performance tables are generated under near ideal and non-threatening conditions.



      It is also reasonble to assume that:




      • A pilot who flies recreationally may not be able to squeeze every bit of rated performance out of their aircraft.


      • Mistakes can be made in the calculation of weight and balance which affect performance.


      • Conditions may change between the time calculations are made and time of takeoff.



      Near the end of the commentary, the pilots can be heard verbalizing their learning experience. I think the lessons of the experience are not lost on them.



      Lessons of aircraft performance are somewhat frightening to me as an aspiring instructor. Training usually occurs at one airport, often with a long runway, with one aircraft or type of aircraft and one loading scenario. If the training is compressed into a few months, the student may not even be exposed to a significant range of weather conditions.



      I intend to teach my students to be awake to the amount of runway they are using and load the aircraft in multiple configurations as part of the training. I think many pilots have a moment of nervous surprise the first time they experience narrowing margins. I would like it to be less of a surprise.



      Learn from this video, and from this other one, which had a less fortunate ending:









      share|improve this answer


























        4














        They Trimmed the Margins to Zero



        In this video, the aircraft takes off and flies a straight course through the trees and continues a shallow climb out. To the uninitiated, this may appear innocuous, until one realizes that the aircraft was performing at it's maximum limits with near zero room for error.



        The voice and narration of this video does a good job breaking down what happened in this scenario, to recap in writing:



        The pilots appear to have calculated the takeoff performance, found it to be adequate and made their attempt, which was found to be adequate, but sufficiently lacking in margin so as to excite those on board who were cognizant of the situation.



        It is reasonable to assume that aircraft performance tables are generated under near ideal and non-threatening conditions.



        It is also reasonble to assume that:




        • A pilot who flies recreationally may not be able to squeeze every bit of rated performance out of their aircraft.


        • Mistakes can be made in the calculation of weight and balance which affect performance.


        • Conditions may change between the time calculations are made and time of takeoff.



        Near the end of the commentary, the pilots can be heard verbalizing their learning experience. I think the lessons of the experience are not lost on them.



        Lessons of aircraft performance are somewhat frightening to me as an aspiring instructor. Training usually occurs at one airport, often with a long runway, with one aircraft or type of aircraft and one loading scenario. If the training is compressed into a few months, the student may not even be exposed to a significant range of weather conditions.



        I intend to teach my students to be awake to the amount of runway they are using and load the aircraft in multiple configurations as part of the training. I think many pilots have a moment of nervous surprise the first time they experience narrowing margins. I would like it to be less of a surprise.



        Learn from this video, and from this other one, which had a less fortunate ending:









        share|improve this answer
























          4












          4








          4






          They Trimmed the Margins to Zero



          In this video, the aircraft takes off and flies a straight course through the trees and continues a shallow climb out. To the uninitiated, this may appear innocuous, until one realizes that the aircraft was performing at it's maximum limits with near zero room for error.



          The voice and narration of this video does a good job breaking down what happened in this scenario, to recap in writing:



          The pilots appear to have calculated the takeoff performance, found it to be adequate and made their attempt, which was found to be adequate, but sufficiently lacking in margin so as to excite those on board who were cognizant of the situation.



          It is reasonable to assume that aircraft performance tables are generated under near ideal and non-threatening conditions.



          It is also reasonble to assume that:




          • A pilot who flies recreationally may not be able to squeeze every bit of rated performance out of their aircraft.


          • Mistakes can be made in the calculation of weight and balance which affect performance.


          • Conditions may change between the time calculations are made and time of takeoff.



          Near the end of the commentary, the pilots can be heard verbalizing their learning experience. I think the lessons of the experience are not lost on them.



          Lessons of aircraft performance are somewhat frightening to me as an aspiring instructor. Training usually occurs at one airport, often with a long runway, with one aircraft or type of aircraft and one loading scenario. If the training is compressed into a few months, the student may not even be exposed to a significant range of weather conditions.



          I intend to teach my students to be awake to the amount of runway they are using and load the aircraft in multiple configurations as part of the training. I think many pilots have a moment of nervous surprise the first time they experience narrowing margins. I would like it to be less of a surprise.



          Learn from this video, and from this other one, which had a less fortunate ending:









          share|improve this answer












          They Trimmed the Margins to Zero



          In this video, the aircraft takes off and flies a straight course through the trees and continues a shallow climb out. To the uninitiated, this may appear innocuous, until one realizes that the aircraft was performing at it's maximum limits with near zero room for error.



          The voice and narration of this video does a good job breaking down what happened in this scenario, to recap in writing:



          The pilots appear to have calculated the takeoff performance, found it to be adequate and made their attempt, which was found to be adequate, but sufficiently lacking in margin so as to excite those on board who were cognizant of the situation.



          It is reasonable to assume that aircraft performance tables are generated under near ideal and non-threatening conditions.



          It is also reasonble to assume that:




          • A pilot who flies recreationally may not be able to squeeze every bit of rated performance out of their aircraft.


          • Mistakes can be made in the calculation of weight and balance which affect performance.


          • Conditions may change between the time calculations are made and time of takeoff.



          Near the end of the commentary, the pilots can be heard verbalizing their learning experience. I think the lessons of the experience are not lost on them.



          Lessons of aircraft performance are somewhat frightening to me as an aspiring instructor. Training usually occurs at one airport, often with a long runway, with one aircraft or type of aircraft and one loading scenario. If the training is compressed into a few months, the student may not even be exposed to a significant range of weather conditions.



          I intend to teach my students to be awake to the amount of runway they are using and load the aircraft in multiple configurations as part of the training. I think many pilots have a moment of nervous surprise the first time they experience narrowing margins. I would like it to be less of a surprise.



          Learn from this video, and from this other one, which had a less fortunate ending:


















          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          2NinerRomeo2NinerRomeo

          9661615




          9661615























              0














              What makes it scary is just how close they did come to an accident. They attempted a takeoff using the performance calculations listed in the POH on a hot day at high field elevation. That’s fine assuming EVERYTHING works out just like the book ie no errors in calculating performance, aircraft and engine in peak condition, field atmospherics, perfect short field takeoff technique, etc. But as the video showed, they came damned close to clipping the tree tops on climbout.



              The aircraft in question was a turbonormalized G36 departing from Mears Airport (3W5) in Concrete, Washington. The small country airport is located in a river valley surrounded by mountains. According to the pilot the performance calculations show that the aircraft could do it, and so he attempted to try it. Fortunately he managed to weave his way through the trees at just under stall speed to get clear of obstacles and clean up and accelerate the aircraft out of the reverse side of the power curve. The film is scary because it shows just how close he came to having a controlled flight into terrain or striking obstacles. Mountainous terrain quite often has downdrafts coming through the valleys on the windward side. Had he encountered one, he would have never made it.



              The airport is built on a small flat land surrounded by rough terrain. Had a pilot collided with the treestops at the end of the runway, there was a good chance that he would have lost control and crashed. The likelihood of survival in a situation like that, particularly in a high-performance airplane like a bonanza climbing out at 80+ knots, is not great.






              share|improve this answer


























                0














                What makes it scary is just how close they did come to an accident. They attempted a takeoff using the performance calculations listed in the POH on a hot day at high field elevation. That’s fine assuming EVERYTHING works out just like the book ie no errors in calculating performance, aircraft and engine in peak condition, field atmospherics, perfect short field takeoff technique, etc. But as the video showed, they came damned close to clipping the tree tops on climbout.



                The aircraft in question was a turbonormalized G36 departing from Mears Airport (3W5) in Concrete, Washington. The small country airport is located in a river valley surrounded by mountains. According to the pilot the performance calculations show that the aircraft could do it, and so he attempted to try it. Fortunately he managed to weave his way through the trees at just under stall speed to get clear of obstacles and clean up and accelerate the aircraft out of the reverse side of the power curve. The film is scary because it shows just how close he came to having a controlled flight into terrain or striking obstacles. Mountainous terrain quite often has downdrafts coming through the valleys on the windward side. Had he encountered one, he would have never made it.



                The airport is built on a small flat land surrounded by rough terrain. Had a pilot collided with the treestops at the end of the runway, there was a good chance that he would have lost control and crashed. The likelihood of survival in a situation like that, particularly in a high-performance airplane like a bonanza climbing out at 80+ knots, is not great.






                share|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  What makes it scary is just how close they did come to an accident. They attempted a takeoff using the performance calculations listed in the POH on a hot day at high field elevation. That’s fine assuming EVERYTHING works out just like the book ie no errors in calculating performance, aircraft and engine in peak condition, field atmospherics, perfect short field takeoff technique, etc. But as the video showed, they came damned close to clipping the tree tops on climbout.



                  The aircraft in question was a turbonormalized G36 departing from Mears Airport (3W5) in Concrete, Washington. The small country airport is located in a river valley surrounded by mountains. According to the pilot the performance calculations show that the aircraft could do it, and so he attempted to try it. Fortunately he managed to weave his way through the trees at just under stall speed to get clear of obstacles and clean up and accelerate the aircraft out of the reverse side of the power curve. The film is scary because it shows just how close he came to having a controlled flight into terrain or striking obstacles. Mountainous terrain quite often has downdrafts coming through the valleys on the windward side. Had he encountered one, he would have never made it.



                  The airport is built on a small flat land surrounded by rough terrain. Had a pilot collided with the treestops at the end of the runway, there was a good chance that he would have lost control and crashed. The likelihood of survival in a situation like that, particularly in a high-performance airplane like a bonanza climbing out at 80+ knots, is not great.






                  share|improve this answer












                  What makes it scary is just how close they did come to an accident. They attempted a takeoff using the performance calculations listed in the POH on a hot day at high field elevation. That’s fine assuming EVERYTHING works out just like the book ie no errors in calculating performance, aircraft and engine in peak condition, field atmospherics, perfect short field takeoff technique, etc. But as the video showed, they came damned close to clipping the tree tops on climbout.



                  The aircraft in question was a turbonormalized G36 departing from Mears Airport (3W5) in Concrete, Washington. The small country airport is located in a river valley surrounded by mountains. According to the pilot the performance calculations show that the aircraft could do it, and so he attempted to try it. Fortunately he managed to weave his way through the trees at just under stall speed to get clear of obstacles and clean up and accelerate the aircraft out of the reverse side of the power curve. The film is scary because it shows just how close he came to having a controlled flight into terrain or striking obstacles. Mountainous terrain quite often has downdrafts coming through the valleys on the windward side. Had he encountered one, he would have never made it.



                  The airport is built on a small flat land surrounded by rough terrain. Had a pilot collided with the treestops at the end of the runway, there was a good chance that he would have lost control and crashed. The likelihood of survival in a situation like that, particularly in a high-performance airplane like a bonanza climbing out at 80+ knots, is not great.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

                  40.8k375149




                  40.8k375149






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58930%2fwhy-is-this-video-of-a-g36-bonanza-taking-off-so-scary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Ronny Ackermann

                      Köttigit

                      MySQL 8.0.15 starts normally but any connection hangs