This one is absolutely bonkers – I am firmly of the view that they never stood a chance.
That a pilot with 31,000 hours should put themselves in such a position is baffling.
a perfect demonstration of the Swiss Cheese model, with a “lucky” outcome…
As quite a few recent accidents have shown, past some undefined hard limit, hours accumulation, or experience, leads to complacency and lack of risk awareness. Many can be exposed to this threat, myself included.
I also don’t understand the description in the report of the ‘crew’ and the passengers. The flight was private and not an instructional flight, and the PA46 is a single-crew aircraft.
Therefore the commander was the only crew member and what the report describes as the ‘PF’ was simply a passenger handling the controls. Should the title page not say “Crew 1, Passengers 5”?
PA46s operate out of Palo Alto all the time, which is the same length runway. But maybe not 500 lbs over gross.
johnh wrote:
But maybe not 500 lbs over gross.
And maybe not with less than full power during the takeoff roll…
Graham wrote:
I also don’t understand the description in the report of the ‘crew’ and the passengers. The flight was private and not an instructional flight, and the PA46 is a single-crew aircraft.Therefore the commander was the only crew member and what the report describes as the ‘PF’ was simply a passenger handling the controls. Should the title page not say “Crew 1, Passengers 5”?
You could fill several GBs of forum bandwidth with discussions on that…
Of course, when something happens, then whether crew or pax can make a significant difference. But then again, this is just the accident report, so it shouldn’t play any role in subsequent lawsuits.
johnh wrote:
PA46s operate out of Palo Alto all the time, which is the same length runway. But maybe not 500 lbs over gross.
The report did not contain the calculation for MTOW, but I would be interested to see whether the runway length is sufficient in that case.
Operating precisely at MTOW in SEPs is quite difficult to do unless you have accurate fuel quantity information (a totaliser) because the MTOW scenario is usually a case of weighing your passengers and baggage then accepting whichever quantity of fuel takes you up to MTOW. You can measure accurately what you put in, but (without a totaliser) not what is already in. In this situation he had modern equipment and should have known precisely, but managed to ‘misread’ it. I’d still be checking visually, if that’s possible on the type.
The cynic in me says that if you took a random sample of pilots who say to themselves and others “I am operating at MTOW today” you would find, upon weighing their aircraft and its contents, that most were actually somewhere between a little bit over and a lot over. Certainly I have seen enough aircraft taxiing out following talk of an MTOW departure that are quite clearly loaded above MTOW unless they have only a thimble-full of fuel on board. Overheard enough clubhouse discussions where someone says “12 and a half stone” with a straight face and I’m thinking 15 would be nearer the mark.
boscomantico wrote:
But then again, this is just the accident report, so it shouldn’t play any role in subsequent lawsuits.
Indeed. I would be surprised if the commander is not in some quite serious trouble, both with the aircraft owner and the regulator. For the W&B miscalculation alone, it would be hard to argue with a straight face that this was an honest mistake made by someone of such experience.
Having re-read the report, I can’t help but make the following remarks… all quotations from the report itself.
The aircraft manufacturer did not have any data to quantify the difference in performance between flaps 0° and flaps 10° but confirmed that it would decrease the ground roll distance.
Really? No data on this from a reputable aircraft manufacturer?
The aircraft manufacturer had not published any performance graphs to calculate the braking distance required following a rejected takeoff.
What? No data for an airplane used not only in private, but commercial ops?
Wycombe Air Park has five runways
Certainly an new way of counting to me…
It is probable that the aircraft would not have cleared the trees and could have ended up on the M40 motorway.
Pure speculation which has no place in a factual report.
The CAA is intending to publish an article in its ‘Clued Up’ magazine about takeoff decision making and rejected takeoff (RTO) considerations in general aviation.
and
In addition, the CAA intends to produce an article in its ‘Clued Up’ magazine about takeoff decision making and RTO considerations in general aviation
once more
The CAA is intending to publish an article in its ‘Clued Up’ magazine about takeoff decision making and RTO considerations in general aviation
I’m sure we appreciate all the no effort spared attitude by the CAA, but there’s no need for the stutter…
Dan wrote:
The aircraft manufacturer did not have any data to quantify the difference in performance between flaps 0° and flaps 10° but confirmed that it would decrease the ground roll distance.
Yes, bizarre to put 10 degrees of flap in the normal procedure but only provide data for flapless.
