Cessna 182 crash on video

[Murdoughnut]

Was that an oxgyen tank that was loaded into the back? That would make sense as I read it was a medical flight. Hate to think that it ignited after the crash.

 

[FlyingPieceOfSt]

I used to fly air ambulance with Lears.

I never liked that feeling of someone video taping the loading of a passenger before a flight. Always felt as if a major incident would come from such an event. Taking ones soul away from us...And I'm not Indian!

It was bad enough we were working on the back side of the clock. Tired and hungry with no place to eat at 3 a.m. on some carribean island that we had to pay the tower to come and turn on the lights so we could land. Old Lears, helping the line guy spray Prist into the fuel hoping that cheap lil piece of plastic tubing stays in place so you dont go blind if it were to come off. Transferring fuel to the trunk as soon as we landed so we could use the gens to keep the juice flowing instead of the batts when we shut her down. Hoping we have enough battery to be able to relight the engines with a full trunk of fuel. Many of those islands do not have power carts available at those hours. Universal Services? Whats that? Myself and my partner in crime were the Interpreter,Customs,Immigration and Flightplanners. Boy did we come cheap. No blue team or green team to call and fix a problem, just us. I can go on and on about the bad stuff of air ambulance and how dangerous a flight can become. I am happy no one ever had a serious incident or accident at the company I used to work for.

Although it was tough work I learned alot about flying air ambulance. I never got payed so little and flew so much in my career. Most of the new recruits who come through our department will whine about alot about nothing. If they had a taste of that air ambulance and saw how good they have it compared to those days I had, believe me, the only thing they would bitch about is how uncle sam kills them every year in taxes.

Any one else had the pleasure of doing air ambulance? Would love to hear some stories. Might even start a thread if anyone is interested.

 

[sky37d]

Regardless of the mistakes, this was oh so sad

 

[SEVEN]

Regardless of the mistakes, this was oh so sad

You're right. The sad thing is the inexperienced pilot killed someone else from his mistake in poor judgement or lack thereof.

 

[Flying Illini]

Something to think about...this is probably some sort of mission/relief flying. I fly with a guy who flew for 8 years in extremely rugged terrain (Indonesia). He had this to say: You tried to keep things in balance but when you are THE ONLY LIFELINE to a village, you did what you had to do. Overweight was not uncommon when having to bring in emergency supplies or to evacuate a medical emergency.

It's unfortunate that it happened, maybe a pilot with more experience would have been able to handle the aircraft...but we don't know if this was a new guy or a guy who had been there for 3 years. Anyway, I'm sure that there was a good reason for who was on board and he was probably aware that he was at max gross or greater. Flying in and then saying that you can't take the patient and the doctor out b/c you would be over-gross won't accomplish anything...why even fly in.
It's a different type of flying that very few people can handle.

 

[sleddriver71]

As cold as it might sound, in air ambulance, you have to remember, you (the pilot), and your medcrew are already in good health. The aircraft is in good shape. The patient is already compromised. It is not worth it to take an unreasonable risk and endanger the lives of the ones who are healthy and possibly destroy the aircraft that could be used to transport many, many more patients in the future. In the long run, it's best for more people if you think of the patient in the back as a bag of hammers. You should not take unnecessary risks because you are worried that the patient might die, that's something that the pilot has to learn to desensitize himself/herself to. If it's unsafe to complete the mission as planned then change the plan, no ifs ands or buts about it.

 

[FlyingPieceOfSt]

As cold as it might sound, in air ambulance, you have to remember, you (the pilot), and your medcrew are already in good health. The aircraft is in good shape. The patient is already compromised. It is not worth it to take an unreasonable risk and endanger the lives of the ones who are healthy and possibly destroy the aircraft that could be used to transport many, many more patients in the future. In the long run, it's best for more people if you think of the patient in the back as a bag of hammers. You should not take unnecessary risks because you are worried that the patient might die, that's something that the pilot has to learn to desensitize himself/herself to. If it's unsafe to complete the mission as planned then change the plan, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Well Said.

Flyingpieceofst

 

[A Squared]

Was that an oxgyen tank that was loaded into the back? That would make sense as I read it was a medical flight. Hate to think that it ignited after the crash.

Contrary to popular belief, oxygen does not burn. If it did the air would always be catching fire.

 

[bell47]

Contrary to popular belief, oxygen does not burn. If it did the air would always be catching fire.

Really? then how does my OXY/Acetelene torch keep burning if I turn off the acetelene? That's funny because I can turn it OFF and BURN right through 1/2 plate steel. O2 only.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Contrary to popular belief, oxygen does not burn. If it did the air would always be catching fire.

Tell that to the Falcon 50 Crew that took off from TEB only to be back on the ground in less than 3 minutes due to a spark from an Entertainment system that had chaffed the oxygen line. The oxygen line started leaking out O2 and there was an immediate fire fed only from the Oxygen. I talked to the crew of that incident personally up at FSI TEB and it was a scary story to say the least.

Out of all the dumba$$ idiotic statements I have read on flightinfo yours is close to being the dumbest.

By the way Einstein the air we breathe is 78% Nitrogen and only 20% Oxygen. Nitrogen is inert.

 

[mtrv]

Tell that to the Falcon 50 Crew that took off from TEB only to be back on the ground in less than 3 minutes due to a spark from an Entertainment system that had chaffed the oxygen line. The oxygen line started leaking out O2 and there was an immediate fire fed only from the Oxygen. I talked to the crew of that incident personally up at FSI TEB and it was a scary story to say the least.

Out of all the dumba$$ idiotic statements I have read on flightinfo yours is close to being the dumbest.

Oxygen just helps the fuel burn at very high temps. Too little or too much, and the fuel won't burn. Oxygen itself is NOT flammable, but add a spark to the perfect amount of oxygen and something that's combustable...........and you'll have an intense fire!

Example: Oxygen and Acetyline (spell?) torch. Adding oxygen creates an intensly hot flame. I can't light the oxygen only, no matter how hard I'll try.

 

[KigAir]

Be careful, critiquing a 182 pilot will get you three visits from the International Cessna High Wing Pilot's Association. They will come one at a time and speak quietly with you and give you education.

Damn, where's TDTubo!

 

[UA-RESURRECTED]

That's funny because I can turn it OFF and BURN right through 1/2 plate steel. O2 only.

That's because cutting steel is an oxidation process. Nothing is actually burning. The original statement was correct. Oxygen, in itself, does not burn.

 

[GravityHater]

Oxygen does seem to 'burn' without the addition of a flammable substance. This is because at very high temperatures, almost any substance has what it takes to contribute to a conflagration! Even steel will combust at a high enough temperature. Yes, even concrete!
The other thing is that O2, at 2000psi, if forced through a tiny orifice (or crack) can generate enough heat to start a fire using the container itself as a source of carbon. Carbon + O2 + heat = fire!

 

[GravityHater]

Regarding the comments on this sad crash. I have to ask: How did we arrive at the following notes in this thread?
-high
-hot
-overloaded
-overgross
-inexperienced pilot
-short runway
-long runway misused
-goosing it off
-aft cg
-too much flaps
-flaps retracted too early
-high da
-apparent he didn't check W&B
-sank because he came out of ground effect
-won't climb with that much flaps
-poor judgement
-max gross or greater

I ran though the thread and plucked all these comments verbatim.
I am the biggest speculator of all, we can learn a lot from it but I think we are guilty of a lot of inference here.
There is not the slightest indication of most of the conclusions offered here. There isnt any way we can know what how much fuel was onboard, or what the airplane weighed and thus if it was below, at, or overgross.
There is no way to know the elevation or the temperature and thus the D.A.
There is no way to know the flap extension unless you have applied some pretty detailed analysis to the images.
Inexperienced pilot? Hell I don't even know his name let alone his hours logged.
Short runway? Someone said plenty of runway. What is the runway length? I can't even tell from the vid where the runway is! Who knows if it was short or not!
Aft CG. Cmon, that is WILD speculation. Can you see the elevator in the full down position or something?

I don't think this is nitpicking. I think if we speculate, for reasons of wanting to learn, we should at least offer each idea as a possible reason, not as fact. Such as presented in a question: "Could he have had a W&B problem?
I expect higher from FI participants. Look at the video again. All I see is an airplane crash on takeoff with a huge crowd around. A little uncoordinated flight is suspected. REALLY hard to infer all that other stuff. Provide visual evidence to support your suggestions!























​

 

[FN FAL]

Regarding the comments on this sad crash. I have to ask: How did we arrive at the following notes in this thread?

-high
-hot
-overloaded
-overgross
-inexperienced pilot
-short runway
-long runway misused
-goosing it off
-aft cg
-too much flaps
-flaps retracted too early
-high da
-apparent he didn't check W&B
-sank because he came out of ground effect
-won't climb with that much flaps
-poor judgement
-max gross or greater​

I ran though the thread and plucked all these comments verbatim.
I am the biggest speculator of all, we can learn a lot from it but I think we are guilty of a lot of inference here.
There is not the slightest indication of most of the conclusions offered here. There isnt any way we can know what how much fuel was onboard, or what the airplane weighed and thus if it was below, at, or overgross.
There is no way to know the elevation or the temperature and thus the D.A.
There is no way to know the flap extension unless you have applied some pretty detailed analysis to the images.
Inexperienced pilot? Hell I don't even know his name let alone his hours logged.
Short runway? Someone said plenty of runway. What is the runway length? I can't even tell from the vid where the runway is! Who knows if it was short or not!
Aft CG. Cmon, that is WILD speculation. Can you see the elevator in the full down position or something?​

I don't think this is nitpicking. I think if we speculate, for reasons of wanting to learn, we should at least offer each idea as a possible reason, not as fact. Such as presented in a question: "Could he have had a W&B problem?
I expect higher from FI participants. Look at the video again. All I see is an airplane crash on takeoff with a huge crowd around. A little uncoordinated flight is suspected. REALLY hard to infer all that other stuff. Provide visual evidence to support your suggestions!​

Awsome...good post. At least I liked it, anyway.

Another note on the ground effect comment, unless ground effect goes halfway up to the base of the transition area...​

 

[A Squared]

Really? then how does my OXY/Acetelene torch keep burning if I turn off the acetelene? That's funny because I can turn it OFF and BURN right through 1/2 plate steel. O2 only.

I assume that you are talking about getting a cut going and turing off the acetylene and keeping the cut going with just oxygen. It's not the oxygen burning, it's the steel. Try this: turn off your acetylene, turn on your oxygen, and take your striker and get a nice oxygen flame going. Check back when you realize that you're neve going to get a pure oxygen flame going

Tell that to the Falcon 50 Crew that took off from TEB only to be back on the ground in less than 3 minutes due to a spark from an Entertainment system that had chaffed the oxygen line. The oxygen line started leaking out O2 and there was an immediate fire fed only from the Oxygen. I talked to the crew of that incident personally up at FSI TEB and it was a scary story to say the least.

I'll let you in on a little secret here danger kitty, I am utterly unimpresed by "scary" stories from people who don't understand enough chemistry to understand what's happening to them. Yes I'm sure that there was a fire. I am equally sure that it was very very scary. Other than that it's a complete yawn and only demonstrates your ignorance. Oxygen does not burn. It's not physically possible. Ask any chemist (or a high school student with a rudimentary grasp of chemistry, something you obviously lack)

Out of all the dumba$$ idiotic statements I have read on flightinfo yours is close to being the dumbest.

Ummmm, I think that your statement might just be a little stupider than mine, seeing as yours is wrong and mine is not.

By the way Einstein the air we breathe is 78% Nitrogen and only 20% Oxygen. Nitrogen is inert.

Yes I'm aware of that, probably much more aware of it than you. You are so clueless sthat you don't even realize that pointing this out doesn't do anything to support your ignorant misconceptions (is that redundant?)


Here's a couple of links which you would have done well to have read before opening your yap and displaying for all the world to see how truly ignorant you really are.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03291.htm

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/reactions/faq/is-oxygen-flammable.shtml

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=1081413

This would be an excellent time for you to apologize for acting like a complete horse's ass when you didn't have a clue what your were talking about.

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.uline.com/ProductDetail.asp?model=S-361

 

[dseagrav]

Contrary to popular belief, oxygen does not burn. If it did the air would always be catching fire.

Tell that to the crew of Apollo 1.

 

[81Horse]

Did some of you flunk Chemistry 1?

Spacecraft materials and astronauts burn very well -- and very quickly in the presence of 100 percent O2 at 15 psi.