Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5 Dead in Plane Crash in Oklahoma Park

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5 Dead in Plane Crash in Oklahoma Park

    A small plane crashed in a park in Tulsa Saturday morning, killing five people, FOX 23 reported.

    The plane went down in Chandler Park at about 10:40 a.m., according to NewsOn6.com. Two men and three women were pronounced dead at the scene.

    Source and full story.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews

  • #2
    We will have to wait for the final report, but scud-running, not seeing and hitting a tall object might be a good parlor-talk prediction.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      The crash location (a park) made me wonder if it was some sort of showboating or terrorism type of thing. New facts in the news seems to dispel those remote suspicions.

      The news updates (new facts) suggests that this was a very mundane typical accident. New claims that apparently fog was a factor in this and it apparently happened shortly after takeoff.

      Shortly after a take off would explain why the pilot was so low. So far it seems like this was entirely pilot error. The pilot should’ve known were the obstructions/hazards were in the take off and landing paths; and should’ve navigated appropriately to avoid such obstacles.


      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      not seeing and hitting a tall object might be a good parlor-talk prediction.
      That part of your prediction/gamble; seems to be correct. So I’ll give you points for that.

      I pretty much lost interest in this story since the new facts seems to indicate this mishap to be quite typical and mundane. It would be interesting to know if the pilot was instrument rated or not. It sounds like the pilot was flying beyond his abilities and careless or reckless. If he was instrument rated it would be interesting to know how much time he had instrument flying.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
        .....I pretty much lost interest in this story since the new facts seems to indicate this mishap to be quite typical and mundane......
        So 5 people dead lose your interest and are just a mundane hiccup in your world ?

        Oh....silly me....there's no underhanded, fascist backed, black ops conspiracy here to take your interest, is there ?
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #5
          Ok, gentlemen....lets do two things. 1) Choose better words and 2) Be understanding and try to see what the other persion is saying.

          ATFS: I could agree with Brian call you a deragatory name for not caring, etc.

          However, Brian- What I think ATFS is saying is that this crash is one of way too many similar crashes..... Very predicable and so easily preventable. Nothing particularly insidious to lull the poor, innocent pilot into a trap.

          If that's so- then it's terribly tragic, but there isn't much to investigate, consider and discuss. The pilot seems to have made a gross and often repeated error of scud running and having the worst possible outcome that has happened before and will happen again....discussion over.

          Now, based on some unconfirmed further reading there's two interesting and divergent comments being made on a Tulsa news website: One report has the pilot declaring an emergency on the radio that his engine had failed. However, another comment states that the pilot does not have an instrument rating and that the weather was pretty bad.

          So, what was it? The mundane (and therefore that much more tragic) flight of a VFR pilot in weather he should have avoided, OR a guy flying profieciently when the engine quits???
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Now, based on some unconfirmed further reading there's two interesting and divergent comments being made on a Tulsa news website: One report has the pilot declaring an emergency on the radio that his engine had failed. However, another comment states that the pilot does not have an instrument rating and that the weather was pretty bad.

            So, what was it? The mundane (and therefore that much more tragic) flight of a VFR pilot in weather he should have avoided, OR a guy flying profieciently when the engine quits???
            It would be interesting if either one of those two claims or both of them are true.

            (Keep in mind that this post is highly speculative and making assumptions (hypothetical scenarios) )

            If it is true that they made an emergency call because of engine problems. It would be interesting to know if it was really engine problems or if the pilot perceived an engine problem. This was probably a weekend/holiday flyer (some non-aviation professional that doesn't have particularly high hours of currency or much experience). He may be used to flying solo or with a buddy; the extra weight of passengers and possibly luggage may have been more than he was used to. It may have been a longer trip and he may have had more fuel than he normally flies on. He may have miscalculated the weight and the altitude (temp, humidity) and the horse power. Put simply in aviation terms it may have been a combination of ignorance, arrogance and density altitude. Even if the engine didn't fail; it may have just not been producing as much horsepower as normal and aircraft may have been heavier than normal and the aerodynamic lift may have been lower than normal. You may have not kept track and considered all of the variables. The closer to the edge that you push things the more carefully you must calculate and consider the variables.


            Here's an old FAA video on density altitude for those novices that may not be very familiar with the phenomenon or the terminology of density altitude.
            http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+hypoxia&hl=en

            If he was used to flying VFR with a light aircraft; he may have been used to being lackadaisical about memorizing and knowing the hazards in the flight path of the takeoff and landing. He may have been used to being able to climb out quickly with a lightly laden aircraft; thusly avoiding most of the hazards. If he was going on a weekend jaunt to visit relatives for the holiday with his family as passengers; he may have had mission fever (go fever) thusly may have chose to fly when intellectually he should have known not to. The combination of allegedly not being instrument rated, heavily laden, not knowing hazards, and go fever may have been a deadly combination.

            Because of this possible lack of experience and not considering the density altitude; he may have not been able to climb out as fast as he normally was; thusly he may have encountered obstacles that he was normally not accustomed to, being essentially blind because of fog that would've prevented him from avoiding obstacles that he wasn't familiar with.

            There is also a wildcard. If he was flying with his wife and kids and a friend I suspect that there is a higher probability of him being distracted; as the family and friends may not know to observe the sterile cockpit rule. They may have been asking him questions, nagging or complaining which may have served as a distraction to make it more challenging to maintain navigational situational awareness of possible hazards.

            Comment


            • #7
              A rainy morning at Tulsa Oklahoma = density alitutude?

              I think you have an overactive imagination.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                A rainy morning at Tulsa Oklahoma = density alitutude?

                I think you have an overactive imagination.
                Who said anything about rain? Perhaps you have an overactive imagination. The news reports I read said fog.

                IIRC water in its different forms can have different effects on the engine. In a dispersed liquid form like a light rain I thought typically increased horsepower. I thought that in vapor form such as fog (high humidity)typically decreased horsepower.

                I thought a thunderstorm could both increase and decrease power depending on which form of water is more prevalent in the intake of the engine.

                Like it said in the video, some pilots take the specifications for sea level under ideal conditions and try to apply those specifications to higher altitudes such as Tuzla Oklahoma which is about 722 feet ASL.

                (Edit: I see now that at least one news article alleges that it was raining at the time the aircraft took off. I must have skimmed over that or else it was added after I read it.

                However I see no mention of rain in the preliminary investigation report)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok, to put it in perspective:

                  Most normally-aspirated piston planes can fly above 10,000 feet....probably a good bit above 10,000 feet.

                  And takeoff is not all that much of an issue up through 5,000 feet with "standard temp, pressure, etc"

                  But, 8000 feet, gross weight, and a hot afternoon and your denisty altitude can be near 10,000 feet.

                  Here's a website:

                  http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm

                  I assumed Tulsa was 1000 feet.....80 degress, some low pressure and 100% humidity puts it at ~3200 feet. The plane should have had no problem achieveing a decent climb rate unless it was grossly overloaded.

                  Dry it out to a dewpoint of 50 (don't know the RH, but that's fairly dry), and you are at ~2800 feet. Not all that much lower. Humidity has it's effect, but it's fairly minor.

                  Denver at 60 degrees F =~6300, but at 100 it's ~8700 feet....and yes, given the double penalty of needing more speed, but having less power (with a normally aspirated, zero-flat-rated plane)....you are looking at longer takeoff rolls and slower climb rates.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Two men, a woman and two girls were pronounced dead at the scene
                    Overweight unlikely.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      Two men, a woman and two girls were pronounced dead at the scene
                      Overweight unlikely.
                      Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                      the extra weight of passengers and possibly luggage may have been more than he was used to. It may have been a longer trip and he may have had more fuel than he normally flies on.
                      There is not enough information yet that I'd be willing to try to estimate odds. Likely or unlikely; the weight of luggage is a factor. From what I understand they were on their way to a ballgame and likely intended to spend the night; plus there may have been luggage for five people. Have you ever seen how much luggage people take; especially women?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                        There is not enough information yet that I'd be willing to try to estimate odds. Likely or unlikely; the weight of luggage is a factor. From what I understand they were on their way to a ballgame and likely intended to spend the night; plus there may have been luggage for five people. Have you ever seen how much luggage people take; especially women?
                        Ok, let's throw in some facts then:

                        The pilot filed a instrument flight rules flight plan from Riverside Airport (KRVS), Tulsa, Oklahoma, to Dallas Love Field (KDAL), Dallas, Texas.

                        To begin with, I'd say that while it's not 100% certain, there is a very good chance that the pilot was instrument rated.

                        Then the distance of the flight in a straight line would be some 200 NM.

                        The plane was a Piper Lance PA-32R-300.

                        This plane has a fuel capacity of 564 pounds, good to fly 748 NM.
                        That means that much less than 1/2 tanks was needed for the flight, and that's with good IFR reserves and more. Of course this doesn't discard the chance that the tanks could be full anyway.

                        This plane has an MTOW of 3600 lb, and an empty weight of 1968 lb (typical, I don't know that specific plane of course), what would give us a useful load of 1632 lb and a full fuel payload of 1068 lb.

                        So let's speculate that the tanks were filled up. Let's further speculate the weights as follow:

                        2 men each: 220lb (dressed) + 20 lb (luggage) = 240 lb x 2 = 480 lb
                        Woman: 180lb (dressed) + 20 lb (luggage) = 200 lb
                        2 girls each: 130 lb (dressed) + 20 lb (luggage) = 150 lb x 2 = 300 lb
                        Total: 980 lb (payload) + 564 lb (full fuel) + 1968 lb (empty weight) = 3512 lb.

                        That's some 90 lb below MTOW, and I'm assuming full fuel, pretty high personal weights, and 100 lb of luggage for what you speculated was a weekend.

                        Yes, it's speculative, but I keep my speculation that overweight was unlikely. At least it's more unlikely than if the article had said "five sumo fighters" instead of "two men, a woman and two girls". And even if the airplane was slightly overweight (say 150lb, less than 5%), that would not affect the performance a lot (but still illegal). So I'd further speculate that overweight was not a factor in the accident, and I give this speculation a very good probability of being true.

                        Going further, the weather was 22ºC (barely ISA+7ºC) and 30.11 inches (more pressure than the standard 29.92 inches at sea level). Even when the humidity was probably high (dew point 19ºC), from a density altitude point of view, this plane took off very close to sea level (maybe even below sea level, 3WE will do the maths ).

                        Couple that with the fact that the plane has a 1000fpm rate of climb at sea level and MTOW, a service ceiling of 15400ft (where the plane can still climb at 100fpm), and that the rate of climb diminishes nearly proportionally with the altitude (normally aspirated non flat rated engine), and you have that at a density altitude of say 4000 (and they were nowhere remotely close to that) the plane should still be able to climb some 700 fpm.

                        I'll speculate, with a very high confidence, that neither an overweight nor the density altitude were a factor at all why the plane impacted a guide wire of a 600ft tower (meaning that it impacted it even below 600ft) 8 NM off the departure airport, where even if there was both a 4000ft density altitude and a small overweight it should have already been several thousands of feet above the take-off elevation.

                        With that I finish my speculation. Would you wish to speculate anything else?

                        Thanks then.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That's all speculation Gabriel, we have to wait for the final report.

                          I mean, for all we know, the vacum pump might have failed and he blew it on partial panel.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            That's all speculation Gabriel, we have to wait for the final report.
                            Yes. Data-driven speculation, but speculation anyway.
                            I mean, for all we know, the vacuum pump might have failed and he blew it on partial panel.
                            You mean that a perfectly qualified IFR pilot flying a plane that was in perfect order except for the just failed vacuum pump, while under a high workload misstated his emergency saying "engine failure" instead of "vacuum failure", then lost control in about the same time than the zero IFR time pilots of the "178 seconds to live" tale, and then just by chance fell exactly over a guide wire of a tower that just happened to be there, but with sufficient forward speed to cover several hundreds of feet after impacting the ground????

                            I like it. More likely than overweight and density altitude.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am wondering if they turned into a tailwind, lost airspeed, and then when the stall warning went off, they pulled up sharply?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X