Massive overload Video...tragic

[motzartmerv]

This probably isn't the right place for this thread, but its a video of a c182 (i think) being overloaded and then trying to take off...U can clearly see them stuffing huge gass bottles in the back..An absolute discgrace of piloting..and has tragic results..i am posting it so us pilots can see what happens when we overload and stuff up the c of g...

 

Warning...not for the squeemish

 

 

 

[Guest disperse]

Overloaded or not they .... They were medical supplies in the back !!! SAD

 

I guess physic's dosen't care how noble your cause is ....

 

 

[poteroo]

Overloaded - Well Maybe, But Was it in CG Limits ?

 

A C180/182 of up to 1985 vintage use the same 0-470 Continental engine developing 230HP. The C180 used to be legal to fly around 200kg 'overloaded' on ag ops in Oz, and did it easily........because the CG was still fwd of the aft limit. For ferry purposes, the FAA allow a 15% gross weight increase, as fuel, (about 230kg), again, provided it's within the CG aft limit.

 

Although it wasn't legal, there were some massive 'overloads' put into C180 and C182 aircraft during the 1960's in PNG.....and they were all flown without mishap. Again, the loading was the critical issue - not the weight per se.

 

It looks to me that this 182 was loaded to aft of CG, and then the use of take-off flap - looked like 20 degrees, would have exacerbated the pitch up as the aircraft accelerated. Then, to make things worse, poor directional control, leading to aileron inputs,and elevator inputs to try early lift off to avoid the crowds, both created more drag, creating the long distance 'mushing' effect.

 

You can't blame the 182, which will usually pull a big load out of marginal strips if flown well.

 

Sad end to it all, but a few lessons here,

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Poteroo, after looking at the film clip several times, I think you are spot on.

 

I wonder if there was some flap retraction after the aircraft passed the camera - it is hard to tell from the grainy video, though the settling of the aircraft suggests it.

 

Sad to hear the woman crying before take off, misery compounded.

 

HPD

 

 

[motzartmerv]

wow..i didnt know that about the 182, must be quite a machine...if you read some of the coments on the youtube vid , one of them says that the pax had her foot on the rudder peddal, obviously posted by someone who can understand the language the report is in, but then again, there journalist's a probably as reliable as ours in these matters...:;)1:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Motza, the rudder may be to correct the wing drop... who knows.

 

I note the aircraft looks very well maintained, suggests to me a fairly professional operation.

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest Biggles1]

Thoroughly agree with you, Poteroo. There is only one better Bush "working" a/c and that is the C206. They might deridingly call them "SPAM Cans" but if you want a safer more reliable working a/c there is none better.

 

 

[facthunter]

Edge of envelope.

 

My respect for the Cessna's ability to "get in the air" when others would not is total. The wing "works" very well, but there is a limit .The amount of flap used here is excessive I feel. Flap would only be an advantage in getting off the ground earlier, if the ground was soft or rough. If the A/C had held height down to stay in ground effect it would have helped. Re the aft CofG, Cessnas have tipped on their tail after landing, so they have obviously been more tail-heavy than this one was. Limit to control in a aft CofG situation is when the tailplane stalls, and the aircraft has an uncommanded pitch-up, which you can do nothing to recover from. I'm not sure that was what happened here, but I'm not going to look at it again. If such is the case, the elevators should be in the stick-forward position at some point. Nev..

 

 

[Guest RogerRammedJet]

The ultimate cause of this accident is more likely to be poor pilot technique than overloading, flap or aft C of G issues.

 

I my experience, and I have a bit in the C182, the aeroplane in the video does not appear to be particularly tail heavy. I have seen a C182 land, taxy up to the bowser and then sit back on its tail when the pilot has "de-planed". Furthermore, unless you are loading heavy tool boxes into it, you can generally load a C182 until you can just shut the doors - and it will fly. The flap appears to be set at about 20o, which should be be OK, provided they are not retracted until a decent flying speed has been achieved.

 

I am not advocating any of the above - but the aeroplane can handle it. One of the most capable and forgiving aircraft around.

 

The apparent loss of directional control on TO is suggestive of generally cr*p pilot technique which ultimately ended in tears.

 

Rog

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Location is possibly a big factor here also. remote mountain village???

 

 

[poteroo]

The one thing which worries me about all our deliberations is this......... why did the aircraft swing right? The usual swing is left, and it's harder to control with nose pitched up at low speeds and high power. Could a brake have dragged? Could the RH pax have wedged a foot beside the RH rudder pedal? Could some freight or baggage have been loaded so as to wedge the rudder to cause the swing toward the crowd?

 

Does beg the old question though - why don't pilots abort early in the t/o run if they lose power or direction? Are Latin pilots more or less likely to abort? Is there a similarly pereceived loss-of-face as in Asia? A low speed incident might be embarrassing, but you live to fly again !

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

other possible contributing factors.

 

1 haste. we must save this person NOW

 

2 emotions. they get in the way of making sensible correct descisions

 

3 too many people overseeing the loading. is the pilot really in command

 

4 ego. i'll be a hero if i pull this off

 

5 distraction. pilot distracted during takeoff by people and objects in the path of aircraft. or inside the aircraft

 

how many compounded mistakes lead up to the accident???

 

 

[facthunter]

Directional control.

 

The pilot's seat slipping back due to worn detents in the rails is a common problem with Cessnas. You should always ensure that the pins have fully engaged, by moving the seat back and forward slightly till they do. Nev..

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

no i don't think the seat would have moved back as the bottle is jmmed upagainst it.

 

wind was from his left, dust and smoke drift show this. lost directional control when the nosewheel was lifted off the ground, aircraft bounced several times agrivating heading, aircraft became airbourne as runway edge dropped away and pilot had to make it fly to clear obsticles. seemed to be doing ok until correction back to runway was made.aircraft rapidly sank when wings returned to level then dropped left wing just before hitting ground.that may indicate that aileron was used to pick up near stalled wing. aircraft was always on the borderline with airspeed.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

a amet who speaks the language said the tv report said the passenger in the front jammed her foot on the rudder pedal during the takeoff roll..don't know how reliable this is, but would explain the massive amounts if yaw after liftoff..i have had a passenger who pushed the left rudder pedal during a landing..he said it was instict to push on the brake pedal as we approached...and i find myself doing the same thing when my missus is driving the car....

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

yep that would do it.