Plane crash from inside the plane (Supposedly all survived)

[MK-84]

Back country strip in Idaho, did not check density altitude. Too heavy for the short runway, and obstacles at the end.

Here's a similar video with an almost identical situation. Plane couldnt outclimb terrain, except this guy tried to turn around and stalled. Neither occupant survived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4

Pilots arent very creative in finding new ways to crash.

Looks to me the terrain was uphill, he eventually realized that and tried to either turn (or the stall turned for him) and well...

I'm not a pilot, but as some advice, be critical (critical does not mean condecending) of the pilots actions, but not the pilot. We're critical of a pilots actions after the fact, not during, which really is not realistically fair to judge their actions.

[W7LPNRICK]

In most situations it's best to say, "Hind sight is always 20/20, but I wasn't there"... 

[Puma44]

In most situations it's best to say, "Hind sight is always 20/20, but I wasn't there"... 

Neither was anyone else in here.  Lots of "expert" opinion based on a view through a soda straw.

[eagl]

Neither was anyone else in here.  Lots of "expert" opinion based on a view through a soda straw.

It doesn't take much of an expert to see what happened, and anyone can "what-if" the scenario in order to maybe avoid being in the same situation.

I don't like hot/high ops and most 4-seat aircraft aren't really designed to haul 4 adult males around anyhow.  This crash simply reinforced my natural inclination to never take an aircraft known for having a slow climb rate into a hot/high situation with all 4 seats full.  Yea it's 20/20 hindsight but I sure don't want to repeat that mishap and maybe some other pilot might benefit from discussing the scenario as well.

Plus I did something similar in a cessna 152 with my Dad up at Big Bear Lake near LA.  The difference was that we were able to grab another 50 ft or so altitude over the lake before we got to the trees, and there is a little notch in the rim surrounding the lake that we were able to fly through.  But of course we planned on circling over the lake for altitude even before we took off, did our weight-balance to make sure we were still "on the charts", and intentionally did not refuel the plane.  So the difference between my encounter with hot/high/ohcraplookatthosetrees and this one was an hour's worth of pre-flight planning where we did the math and came up with a back-up plan that did not rely on hoping the plane would somehow make it over the treeline.

Call it 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacking, or call it learning from experience, or learning from other's mistakes before making the same mistakes, call it "going to school" every second of every day, it's all good.  Note I didn't say anywhere what that mishap pilot "should" have done...  He did all the preflight planning he felt was necessary, and it turned out he was wrong.  So next time his planning will probably be better and I know for darn sure I plan on continuing my conservative planning process whenever I'm faced with similar situations.

[Puma44]

It doesn't take much of an expert to see what happened, and anyone can "what-if" the scenario in order to maybe avoid being in the same situation.

I don't like hot/high ops and most 4-seat aircraft aren't really designed to haul 4 adult males around anyhow.  This crash simply reinforced my natural inclination to never take an aircraft known for having a slow climb rate into a hot/high situation with all 4 seats full.  Yea it's 20/20 hindsight but I sure don't want to repeat that mishap and maybe some other pilot might benefit from discussing the scenario as well.

Plus I did something similar in a cessna 152 with my Dad up at Big Bear Lake near LA.  The difference was that we were able to grab another 50 ft or so altitude over the lake before we got to the trees, and there is a little notch in the rim surrounding the lake that we were able to fly through.  But of course we planned on circling over the lake for altitude even before we took off, did our weight-balance to make sure we were still "on the charts", and intentionally did not refuel the plane.  So the difference between my encounter with hot/high/ohcraplookatthosetrees and this one was an hour's worth of pre-flight planning where we did the math and came up with a back-up plan that did not rely on hoping the plane would somehow make it over the treeline.

Call it 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacking, or call it learning from experience, or learning from other's mistakes before making the same mistakes, call it "going to school" every second of every day, it's all good.  Note I didn't say anywhere what that mishap pilot "should" have done...  He did all the preflight planning he felt was necessary, and it turned out he was wrong.  So next time his planning will probably be better and I know for darn sure I plan on continuing my conservative planning process whenever I'm faced with similar situations.

Agree completely Eagl.  As any pilot knows, we can't judge this guy.  None of use knows how much  fuel, baggage, passenger weight, temperature, etc this guy had to deal with and therefore can't make the call on him.  All we can do is learn from it hopefully never get in the same situation.  I have no doubt he certainly learned from it.  Very glad everyone walked away from it. 

[LilMak]

That plane was very similar in performance to my 170. It seemed to take that thing a year to get off the ground. I think his only option was to abort before he got airborne. I would've been in full panic about 3/4 through that roll in my plane but I bet I don't have 1/20 th the experience he has. Not trying to Monday morning quarterback. He'd probably made that run 100 times without an issue. He did a fine job flying that thing all the way in. His hands were on the controls even as they were clipping the trees.

[Babalonian]

It doesn't take much of an expert to see what happened, and anyone can "what-if" the scenario in order to maybe avoid being in the same situation.

I don't like hot/high ops and most 4-seat aircraft aren't really designed to haul 4 adult males around anyhow.  This crash simply reinforced my natural inclination to never take an aircraft known for having a slow climb rate into a hot/high situation with all 4 seats full.  Yea it's 20/20 hindsight but I sure don't want to repeat that mishap and maybe some other pilot might benefit from discussing the scenario as well.

Plus I did something similar in a cessna 152 with my Dad up at Big Bear Lake near LA.  The difference was that we were able to grab another 50 ft or so altitude over the lake before we got to the trees, and there is a little notch in the rim surrounding the lake that we were able to fly through.  But of course we planned on circling over the lake for altitude even before we took off, did our weight-balance to make sure we were still "on the charts", and intentionally did not refuel the plane.  So the difference between my encounter with hot/high/ohcraplookatthosetrees and this one was an hour's worth of pre-flight planning where we did the math and came up with a back-up plan that did not rely on hoping the plane would somehow make it over the treeline.

Call it 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacking, or call it learning from experience, or learning from other's mistakes before making the same mistakes, call it "going to school" every second of every day, it's all good.  Note I didn't say anywhere what that mishap pilot "should" have done...  He did all the preflight planning he felt was necessary, and it turned out he was wrong.  So next time his planning will probably be better and I know for darn sure I plan on continuing my conservative planning process whenever I'm faced with similar situations.

Very interesting and good post, especialy since I was very recently (July 4th) pigybacking with somenoe who was looking over and has studied that same general area (Lake Arrowhead) very well, when we did a flybay of the lake for the holiday.  It's right next to Big Bear and we came in low over it on the way to our first pass of Arrowhead.  They got some big trees in them there hills.  (was it the little b!@#$ notch to the N into oncoming warm dessert winds or the the one to the S and oncoming to the cooler stuff?  gets bumpy even low over those lakes in the summer.)

[eagl]

The notch we flew through was to the South-South-West if I recall correction, since we were heading back to San Diego.  Not too bumpy over the rim and then out over the hot hazy LA basin.

Funny part about that - we were talking to the controller (VFR) and he called out crossing traffic and asked if we could climb 1000'.  We said yea no problem, pulled back on the stick and trimmed for best rate... And went from a nice snappy 110kt cruise to 65 kts, gained 200', and just hung there with pretty much zero VVI.  Oops.  The controller asked if we were climbing and we told her we were pretty much stuck where we were.  It was going to be a problem since the other guy was IFR, but then we picked up the visual and with a very relieved tone of voice the controller told us to descend back down to VFR alts and maintain visual separation. 

That 152 had a higher pitch cruise prop so it would cruise about 10 kts faster than a standard 152, but it was a total dog climbing especially when hot/high.  That day we pretty much topped out around 7500' if I recall correctly.  It sure was great to and from Catalina Island, but not the right plane for mountain flying or getting to the backside of the mountains East of San Diego or LA. 

[W7LPNRICK]

You sure wouldn't climb over any of these 8,500 + notches around here...lol
 

[colmbo]

He nearly aborted due to the long roll-rate, but was suddenly lifted by a gust.

Don't mean to offend, realize you know this guy but that statement is BS.  I've spent way to many hours getting heavy airplanes out of short strips to believe that.

[W7LPNRICK]

Maybe I miss-quoted...for some reason he finally had lift he wasn't expecting.... I don't KNOW anything, but want to give the benefit of a doubt.  

[Babalonian]

The notch we flew through was to the South-South-West if I recall correction, since we were heading back to San Diego.  Not too bumpy over the rim and then out over the hot hazy LA basin.

Funny part about that - we were talking to the controller (VFR) and he called out crossing traffic and asked if we could climb 1000'.  We said yea no problem, pulled back on the stick and trimmed for best rate... And went from a nice snappy 110kt cruise to 65 kts, gained 200', and just hung there with pretty much zero VVI.  Oops.  The controller asked if we were climbing and we told her we were pretty much stuck where we were.  It was going to be a problem since the other guy was IFR, but then we picked up the visual and with a very relieved tone of voice the controller told us to descend back down to VFR alts and maintain visual separation. 

That 152 had a higher pitch cruise prop so it would cruise about 10 kts faster than a standard 152, but it was a total dog climbing especially when hot/high.  That day we pretty much topped out around 7500' if I recall correctly.  It sure was great to and from Catalina Island, but not the right plane for mountain flying or getting to the backside of the mountains East of San Diego or LA. 

OK the controller and other traffic added to it, that pass if I'm recallign correctly i the one over the damn/lake, shouldn't of been a problem at all unless there was a very stiff and warm breeze comming up out of Torrance or a controller/traffic in the area making things more difficult than needed.  $5 says the other plane the controller was trying to keep you clear of was also having problems with the hot/high, maybe worse.

Yeah those mountains are beasts, with how hot and choppy the air can be at times on the backside, and mostly imho because it makes all those passes leading through them to greater LA a logjam in the air at times.  Great thing about being based out of Camarillo imho, if we're going south we hug the coast, North or East we shoot over the tamer mountains that are north of Santa Paula and south of Bakersfield.

[B4Buster]

Made it to the home page of AOPA:

http://www.aopa.org/index.html

[cpxxx]

In my opinion the sheer popularity of this video will save lives. Les Gropp may be going through an uncomfortable time of it after his mishap. But if only one pilot remembers this video before he attempts a hot/high/heavy take off on similar day and decides to either stay on the ground or lighten the load. Then it will be worth it. Of course we'll never hear of it. But it will happen.

There will be people alive thanks to Mr Gropps mistake. That's a positive outcome.

[B4Buster]

In my opinion the sheer popularity of this video will save lives. Les Gropp may be going through an uncomfortable time of it after his mishap. But if only one pilot remembers this video before he attempts a hot/high/heavy take off on similar day and decides to either stay on the ground or lighten the load. Then it will be worth it. Of course we'll never hear of it. But it will happen.

There will be people alive thanks to Mr Gropps mistake. That's a positive outcome.

I totally agree. I know I will think twice about taking that third pax on a hot, dense day; I will atleast run the performance numbers again. I have been hesitant to criticize Mr. Gropp myself. He has been flying since before I was born. If he made that mistake, I could too.

I would not think twice about jumping in a plane with Mr. Gropp. He will never make a mistake of that magnitude again.