Fatal GA accident cockpit video

[Evan]

Because?

400 feet straight ahead is an existing rule of thumb...and a good one.

Because...

[3WE]

I'm thinking ATL, DFW type places...you go around, but someone's taking off right underneath you on the "paired" takeoff runway...Seems like there could be a traffic conflict pretty quickly.

You've lost me here...This was a statement about operations during visual conditions where a landing and departing aircraft may be at the same altitude going the same direction, but a mere 1000 feet apart...no bug deal until the landing plane goes around- then suddenly you have violated prescribed separation standards and have some risk of a collision.

If I'm going around and a plane is climbing up right there below me- maybe he shouldn't climb straight ahead, but level off and turn as opposed to forging straight ahead while I climb and then level straight ahead on the published MAP?

Or do you want us to continue with the 1000 ft separation and hope no blind spot kicks in?

And I don't see very good relevance to this crash. Did he turn towards another aircraft that had just departed a close-parallel runway?

[brianw999]

I get the feeling that you folks are trying to merge two distinctly different subject threads here.
Let's keep this one concentrated on what happened in this particular set of circumstances.

[Evan]

I get the feeling that you folks are trying to merge two distinctly different subject threads here.
Let's keep this one concentrated on what happened in this particular set of circumstances.

I mentioned traffic on this thread as as one possible reason to stay on runway heading within the field during a go-around. 3WE posted:

Traffic?

So this was my response to his question: his own words. Traffic is one possible obstacle during a go-around and, without ATC intervention, remaining on runway heading until clear of the field is a good way to maintain separation from it. My point (or question actually) is: why are VFR pilots alllowed to deviate from the runway heading within the field during a go-around? Aside from some exceptional circumstances as pointed out by guamainiac, I can't fathom it. It's stupid and reckless and it this case put these cowboys into the trees (notice the open lack of trees towards the end of the runway).

Now maybe, as Gabriel suggests, the left bank was unintentional and maybe they had their reasons for not correcting back to right. I was just wondering why there are no regs to help them with this decision.

[elaw]

Are you seriously saying that although these people were presumably intelligent enough to know that flying into trees would injure or kill them, that they would have been "helped" by a regulation prohibiting that? How?

[Evan]

Are you seriously saying that although these people were presumably intelligent enough to know that flying into trees would injure or kill them...

I wouldn't presume. They did seem to fly calmly into trees...

...that they would have been "helped" by a regulation prohibiting that? How?

In the same way regs preventing descent below MDA without the runway in sight have "helped" pilots who may have wanted to do this. Of course, regs only help those who are presumably intelligent enough to adhere to them, so you might have an excellent point here.

[guamainiac]

I have a hazy recollection of the old FAR's having a remote clause that said something to the effect .... or anything necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft ...

Let's see here, they flew calmly into the trees in Russia. How do you spell, I like my "Stoli" straight up, never on rocks?

[3WE]

400 feet straight ahead is an existing rule of thumb...and a good one.

Because...

Gabriel (Indeed, the hell better Areroengineer) has calculated that a gentle turn at 200 feet adds no risk...

That's why it's a rule of thumb that does not need to be a regulation.

The risks you try to list are flawed because there are many exceptions.

Your need to always climb 400 feet straight ahead and have it be a hard regulation, when in fact there are occasions when one can turn perfectly safely at 200 feet...

...that's that black and white thinking again.

[Gabriel]

I really think that that last gust put the aircraft in a position beyond it's ability to respond, that is, keep that right wing down which puts it into the final and fatal slip. Look at the way that wing suddenly lifts and it sure reminded me of instructors who took you out for X-wind practice to "keep that wing down". If he was attempting to get onto a base leg after the go around he would have lifted that wing a bit during the turn.

I don't know what video you are watching.

One wing goes up as much as the other goes down precisely at the time that the airspeed reaches the slow end of the white arc, which means that they were stalling, and the speed loss happened, just by chance, as they were climbing quite steeper than what they had been doing before when they were keeping a healthy airspeed and climb rate.

I have no doubt that the last wing drop and final roll was the result of a stall which in turn was the result of letting the speed go to low as they pushed up too much (hence increasing the AoA).

[Gabriel]

That sure looks like he weather cocked but the direction of what I thought was weather cocking on take off does not match the "wing lift" of the roll.

No. I am not sure what you mean with "that", but nothing in this video looks like weather cocking.

[Gabriel]

400 feet straight ahead is an existing rule of thumb...and a good one.

Yes, for a 747 that gets to 400 ft 15 seconds after lift-off, not for a C-150 that takes one minute.

The idea is to be established in a stabilized climb-out before starting maneuvering.

Even then, my rule of thumb with the Tomahawk was runway heading until 500ft, but mainly for a matter of a more consistent exit pattern avoiding crossing the downwind leg of the traffic pattern.

[Gabriel]

My point (or question actually) is: why are VFR pilots alllowed to deviate from the runway heading within the field during a go-around? Aside from some exceptional circumstances as pointed out by guamainiac, I can't fathom it. It's stupid and reckless and it this case put these cowboys into the trees (notice the open lack of trees towards the end of the runway).

You will be horrorized by this but....

In non-towered airports in VFR conditions you can land in any runway (including coming head-on with you that are taking off) and make any approach you like ("classic" left pattern, right base, straight-in, spirals down...) and not make a single radio call.

Now maybe, as Gabriel suggests, the left bank was unintentional

Are you serious? They were fully stalled!

and maybe they had their reasons for not correcting back to right

They start correcting to the right in the initial climb.

I was just wondering why there are no regs to help them with this decision.

You mean that a reg will be more convincing that a tree?

[Evan]

You will be horrorized by this but....

In non-towered airports in VFR conditions you can land in any runway (including coming head-on with you that are taking off) and make any approach you like ("classic" left pattern, right base, straight-in, spirals down...) and not make a single radio call.

And how does that make you feel? Do you think a few rules are a bad idea? Or is chaos part of the fun?

Are you serious? They were fully stalled!

I meant the initial bank leaving the runway heading.

They start correcting to the right in the initial climb.

I meant a return to the runway heading, away from the trees. Obviously that doesn't happen.

You mean that a reg will be more convincing that a tree?

I think a tree is more convincing, but the tree happens to convince them at a point when there is no longer an opportunity to avoid it. A reg might convince them not to get in harms way in the first place. I think that's what things like MSA area about (what, the mountain is not enough to convince them? See: CFIT). Maybe I just have a lower opinion of the 'general' in general aviation, but I think that opinion is justified by videos like this one. I don't like rules of thumb because some people are all thumbs. And some people will always need convincing.

Even then, my rule of thumb with the Tomahawk was runway heading until 500ft, but mainly for a matter of a more consistent exit pattern avoiding crossing the downwind leg of the traffic pattern.

And some people are wise enough to leave themselves room for error. My reg would be based on Gabriel's common sense.

[guamainiac]

Gabriel, note that I said in a successive post that I was wrong and guilty of some compartmentalized thinking regarding wind direction.

Regarding "weather cocking" it is the same as weather-vein'ing. When you do a cross wind take off (or during any airborne activity), the aircraft will react and turn into the wind.

I think the final analysis will deal with alcohol. Though I have never seen an instructor do it, I have been at a few aviation functions where the guys went from the bar to the cockpit with no time. One put down his beer and offered to give a visiting family a ride, and they foolishly went.

[guamainiac]

Gabriel, "one wing goes up as much as the other goes down"

That is a good thing no? It sure beats the alternative!