Clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. That was really hard to watch.

contactflying wrote:Unfortunately PTS have called for the unfortunate takeoff demonstrated here. Fortunately the latest PTS call for acceleration in ground effect prior to pitch up to Vx or Vy as appropriate. Unfortunately they still do not call for acceleration in low ground effect until near the obstacle.

I'm assuming PTS means pilot test standards, if that is incorrect I apologize.

I'm not a CFI by any means, so I can't say what has changed in training standards and when it changed... but I can distinctly remember being taught the soft field takeoff procedure in the almighty Cessna 150 back in the mid to late 1970's, a technique which would have been appropriate to use in that cornfield. As many have mentioned, just ease off the back pressure on the yoke to keep it a foot off the ground, then accelerate to Vx or Vy, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

If for some reason new student pilots are not still being taught this simple, effective, time-proven technique then there needs to be a violent riot staged in Oklahoma City by all the middle aged and older pilots of the world. It is simply sheer luck (and some old-school conservative 1940's era engineers in Wichita) that prevented that airplane from exploding on impact. As mentioned, a waste of a good airplane and nearly a waste of people's lives for no good reason.

Ezflap,
You are correct that the soft field technique is the best short field TO technique. For the flight test,however, it had to be the idiot pitch up right away like this poor fellow did. Some of us taught one way for the test and another way for safety. We were those of whom the FAA did not speak. After a number of accidents proving them wrong, they change. They never, however, admit error. Just look at the declassified stuff on the CIA.

It surprises me that soft field technique is not required on the flight test. I had to do a short field landing and soft field take off for my test. But we are also taught spin training up here, which IMHO is something that everyone should be taught.

What seems to be unclear is the length of the field. The obstruction heights adjacent to his/her intended flight path are probably about the same as what we cannot see at the end of the field,

One thing I learnt from Don Lee is that you only need to clear obstructions by one inch, and a couple of feet is always better. However, any actions taken to avoid obstructions by a larger margin reduces available aircraft performance and may result in a situation such as that in the video. I was taught that the best way to avoid this is to aim the aircraft at the very tip of the obstruction as if you were intentionally going to trim the last foot off with the prop. If the aircraft can safely climb out before reaching the obstacle then you would, of course continue to climb out at Vy and climb above the obstacle. But if you are still struggling to clear the obstacle then fly at 10% above Vs and continue aiming for the last foot of the obstacle until it passes under you.

I use this rule of thumb on most departures from off field environments that have any obstructions.

A1Skinner wrote:It surprises me that soft field technique is not required on the flight test. I had to do a short field landing and soft field take off for my test. But we are also taught spin training up here, which IMHO is something that everyone should be taught.

I agree 100% on the spin training. Got mine in a Zlin, it was fun and applicable.

I know for a fact that the commercial practical test standards call for short field and for soft field. Not 100% on the private PTS, I never held a private rating

Nosedragger wrote:That was hard to watch. I wonder if his seat rolled back, I didn't see much rudder wagging and he was yarding on the yoke for all it was worth. Looked a little short on flap too.

I suspect that the pilots seat took off to the rear ~ I've spent some time watching video . Seems that the 182 when it first gets off is controllabe
But barely . then there's a big pitch up and all goes to hell in a hand basket. Like to know where this was and accident report ( N number ) - mid west ???. I have multitudes of " off airport " arrivals and departures myself. This dude just f#*k ed up. Found that it was N4951D - video and NTSB on internet .

Interesting report. The airspeed was low because he was pulling back so hard, and the plane stalled causing the wing to drop into the ground. Least that what it looks like to me...

If you want to go up pull back, if you want to go down, pull back all the way.

This explains it in a nut shell

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=133507

I know I guy who wrecked like that once due to a passenger grabbing the yoke. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and think maybe that's what happened here?

gbflyer wrote:I know I guy who wrecked like that once due to a passenger grabbing the yoke. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and think maybe that's what happened here?

Why wouldn't he report that in the NTSB report then?

Same with the seat rail. I think he would have mentioned it...

NTSB said he was the only occupant. Didn't say anything about the seat rails, either.

Didn't see the NTSB part. Sorry.

Wow. Bet he never does that again.

am I wrong or does it look like a lot of flat ground behind the aircraft when he starts his takeoff run...and what's he doing in a cornfield with those piss ant tires...

iceman wrote:am I wrong or does it look like a lot of flat ground behind the aircraft when he starts his takeoff run...and what's he doing in a cornfield with those piss ant tires...

precautionary landing he was low on fuel with wind's at his destination

10deg flaps for soft field takeoffs is standard. Yarding on the yoke, not so much.

It was probability his first real soft field op

Actually 20 flaps is standard in a 182, for a soft field.

Here's my hypothesis: If you use normal take off trim, as soon as the airplane leaves the ground, it'll want to climb, and it's a whole lot harder to push the nose down than to pull it up. That's why I prefer to have substantial nose down trim on a soft field take off, because for me it's easier to use back pressure to keep the airplane from descending, let the speed build in low ground effect, and then climb out at Vx or higher.

So in this video, as soon as the airplane breaks free of the corn, it barely builds any speed at all before it starts climbing out of ground effect, obviously way below flying speed. In addition to less flaps than he should have used, I also notice that the nose wheel is much higher than necessary--all that is really necessary is to get it lightened, not raise it many inches into the air. That excessive angle of attack certainly kept the airplane from accelerating well.

The other piece of this issue is that in training, very few pilots are taught from actual soft fields, echoing EA's comment. They may use the proper soft field technique, but they never really experience the effect of the drag from a real soft field. Like everything we do, if we don't train realistically, then we really aren't training, we're just going through the motions.

Confession: I've made the same mistake myself, just once and only a few years ago, because I had the trim set for normal take off or perhaps aft--not sure at this point. As soon as the airplane left the ground, it climbed out of ground effect and stopped climbing, just mushing along. I pushed but couldn't push hard enough to lower the nose. The difference was that I kept lateral control although the airplane was hanging on the prop barely above stall, until I could retrim and get the nose down enough to build airspeed and start to climb. I'm a much better pilot than that, but on that day I was not flying well, because at the time I was overwhelmed by a very recent cancer diagnosis, and I frankly should not have been flying at all. Lesson learned--don't fly when emotions are out of control.

Cary