Should buff right out....

Flying Dave wrote:Should buff right out....

Not so much for the seat cushion.

Downwind with a 4” layer of wet snow? Didn’t accelerate. First thing I wondered was why someone would be revving an engine blowing S—t into a hangar with the doors open.

Lot of curious decisions made there for sure.

If I was the pilot I don't think I'd appreciate buddy continuing to film after the crash but I have a fairly high aversion to video taped embarrassment.

Some pilots are conscientious about flight safety and their equipment, and some are as relaxed as the elevator on that poor old 182 as it taxied through the snow for a downwind takeoff after a short warm-up.

Flying Dave wrote:Should buff right out....

That is surprisingly little damage for what they did. A competent airframe shop can have that back in the air good as new.

At least he remembered to close and lock the door window afterwards.

colopilot wrote:

Flying Dave wrote:Should buff right out....

That is surprisingly little damage for what they did. A competent airframe shop can have that back in the air good as new.

At least he remembered to close and lock the door window afterwards.

Ya that's for sure. Couple new wings and a prop strike inspection and go fly again!

So many questions.
Glad I wasn’t the only one grumbling about the hanger dusting at the start of the video.
Sprint to the scene, hang back when you get there?
Some of the best video work I’ve seen in a while tho’
Ol’ Clyde sure new how to build’m Stout.

These guys are in the age group that trained based on the techniques outlined in the Practical Test Standards before 2013. We need to have a feel, using Patrick's potatoes, how soon the nosewheel will come just off, relative wind noise, control pressure, buoyancy, how soon the mains will come just off into low ground effect, engine sound, and such. We need to have experience with various field and wind conditions, various loads, various density altitude, various egress in low ground effect downhill possibilities. The continue or abort is easier to read and execute when we evaluate, Patrick's potatoes, tail up in tw or nose gear just off in trike early. Waiting on the airspeed indicator to indicate Vy or Vx as appropriate can eat up way too many potatoes.

It is unimaginable but the old PTS called for rolling with all wheels on the ground (nosewheel airplane) until Vy or Vx as appropriate and then pitch up. No nosewheel just off test, no mains just off in low ground effect, no potatoes. Well, that is just what he tried to do. The roll until Vy or Vx didn't give him the option to abort if the nosewheel wouldn't come just off in a reasonable amount of potatoes. Yes, he should have done the math. I don't think he did. I like Patrick's technique better.

Rough ground, deep snow, taxiing with the elevator down. Trying to horse and bounce the nose up with full elevator and not enough speed actually slowing him down, then loosing directional control as the main probably grabbed a bit deeper of snow at the side. Just painful to watch.

As was pointed out in the comments on Youtube, are you sure it was downwind or a quartering head.

contactflying wrote:....We need to have a feel, using Patrick's potatoes, how soon the nosewheel will come just off.....The continue or abort is easier to read and execute when we evaluate, Patrick's potatoes, ....Waiting on the airspeed indicator to indicate Vy or Vx as appropriate can eat up way too many potatoes.....No nosewheel just off test, no mains just off in low ground effect, no potatoes....the nosewheel wouldn't come just off in a reasonable amount of potatoes. .....

More mysterious terminology....what is the potatoes reference all about?

Potatoes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfXT38YIO6g&t=224s