Cessna 182 crash on video

[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.

 

[A Squared]

Tell that to the crew of Apollo 1.

Well, that would be difficult, becuse they are dead. However if it were possible to communicate with them, I am fairly certain that the crew, because they were not stupid, wouldn't need me to tell them that it wasn't oxygen burning that killed them (oxygen doesn't burn) it was the flammable portions of the spacecraft burning at an accelerated rate because of the high concentration of oxygen which killed them.

 

[Say Again Over]

I'm not an engineer like A-Squared but I do seem to remember the fire triangle taught in Fire Fighter-1 class, went something like, Fuel, Heat, Oxygen. Take one away and you have nothing.

 

[Dangerkitty]

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




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)



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





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.

Ok, ok my words were very strong and for that I apologize. O2 is not a fuel but an accelerant or oxidizer. And having 100% O2 blowing into a fire is only going to make matters worse.

While you are handing out reading material you might wanna have a look at this:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031205X01998&key=1

This is the "scary" story I was referring about.

 

[A Squared]

O2 is not a fuel but an accelerant or oxidizer. And having 100% O2 blowing into a fire is only going to make matters worse.

Absolutely, concentrated oxygen and a fire is a very bad combination. It was never my intention to suggest that there aren't certain dangers associated with oxygen, only that the oxygen itself doesn't burn.

I apologize for responding so strongly. I don't take well to being called idiotic when my statement is completely accurate, but maybe I culd have voiced my objection differently

While you are handing out reading material you might wanna have a look at this:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031205X01998&key=1

This is the "scary" story I was referring about.

You're right, that would get the adreneline flowing. Good to see everyone walked away

 

[Dangerkitty]

I apologize for responding so strongly. I don't take well to being called idiotic when my statement is completely accurate, but maybe I culd have voiced my objection differently

No need to apologize, I was acting like a jackass. I would have had the same reaction had the situation been reversed.

:beer: