After a fly-in in Greenwood, Illinois, the airline transport pilot was attempting a short-field takeoff from a 2,802-foot runway in his AirCam.
He added flaps to increase aircraft performance. He checked the flight controls and confirmed the flap setting before takeoff.
He stated that he rarely used flaps, that the airplane does not require the use of flaps for a short takeoff roll, and that the airplane make and model had a takeoff roll of 300 feet. He added he had about 1,400 feet of runway available when he rotated the airplane at 50 knots.
However, a witness stated the airplane back taxied only about 100 feet past the runway threshold and then turned around for what appeared to be getting ready for takeoff.
A second witness said he heard the pilot make a radio transmission that he was going to back taxi. The witness watched the airplane back taxi and very shortly after it crossed the numbers of the runway, it stopped and turned around. A few seconds later, the pilot applied full throttle, and the airplane began to roll forward.
A third witness stated that the pilot attempted the takeoff with about 600 feet remaining to the end of the runway and that the airplane lifted off surprisingly quickly, perhaps 350 feet from the west edge of the runway, maybe further back.
Shortly after takeoff, the right wing dropped, and the pilot experienced a loss of aileron control, which were consistent with the exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall.
The airplane hit the ground to the right of the runway and cartwheeled before coming to a stop. Both people aboard the AirCam sustained minor injuries.
It is likely that the pilot took off with insufficient runway available and exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack.
Probable cause: The pilot’s decision to take off with insufficient runway available and his exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.
NTSB Identification: CEN18LA228
This June 2018 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
No, the nail on the head was failure to use the runway AVAILABLE! Joe Dickey got it right: “Something I used to tell students…runway behind you, fuel left behind and altitude above you will never help. Could have been a little “show off” involved too.” There’s no doubt the pilot was flying with testosterone between his ears, rather than between his legs. There would have been NO issues, NO accident, and NO injuries had he used the entire runway. FWIW, engine failure on takeoff is not unknown. What margin of safety did he have attempting a takeoff just barely past the numbers (flaps or no flaps)?
Ten degrees of flaps on take off always helps, bottom line !!! Plus a shorter take off run.. That’s why you use flaps when doing a short field take off. Flaps up to the maximum angle of the aileron down deflection will offer maximum lift in any convectional aircraft. Any more flap deflection than that is drag..
I have designed a more conventional wing for this aircraft with an increased torsional resistance and a more efficient slotted flap with a 15deg. setting being optimum for T.O. position.
A proof of design is currently flying since 2016 with about 200 hrs. I have had a few inquiries and will complete the MK-III version soon with flap and aileron parts nearing completion.
Flight test have shown an increase in cruise and and performance.
We incorporate an aluminum L.E. wrap and conventional fabric covering.
[email protected]
He didn’t run off the end of the runway, so insufficient runway was not a cause. Probably not used to the pitch moments using flaps on takeoff.
I see a lot of pilots using some flaps on takeoff when they are not actually necessary and use of flaps on a standard takeoff is not called for in the POH. To me this displays a lack of understanding of basic aircraft systems.
Wrong Barry. Insufficient runway does not have to mean you run off the end. To avoid ruining off the end, you can rotate prematurely with too little remaining space and too little airspeed, which will lead to the type of crash that happened here.
displays a basic lack of understanding take0ff performance…
I’ve never flown an AirCam, but I have flown C-172. Does the typical 172 wing develop more lift at low flight speed with 10 degrees flaps or with no flaps ?
The POH from the M model said no flaps on take off. The S POH says 10 degrees for take off is optional, as I recall.
It was a very long cross country, LDJ to SQL, when this was discussed with my check pilot instructor. We got a lot of mileage from that topic : )
From the C172M POH: “Normal and obstacle clearance takeoffs are performed with wing flaps up. The use of 10 degrees flaps will shorten the ground run approximately 10%, but this advantage is lost in the climb to a 50-foot obstacle. Therefore, the use of 10 degrees flaps is reserved for minimum ground runs or for takeoff from soft or rough fields. If 10 degrees of flaps are used for minimum ground runs, it is preferable to leave them extended rather than retract them in the climb to the obstacle. In this case use an obstacle clearance speed of 55 KIAS. As soon as the obstacle is cleared, the flaps may be retracted as the aircraft accelerates to the normal flaps-up climb-out speed.”
Gross T.O.W., wing area, wing load PSF… With 200hp. there should’nt be a problem other than the airfoil section changes radically during acceleration and deceleration, C.of P. travel is evident also.
Maybe he did’nt have full T.O. power!
As to flap design, Cessna has the better idea. The flap design I use on the new wing is similar to the Piper Cherokee due to placement of the rear spar on the Aircam.
As I mentioned we got a lot of mileage on that topic along the way. My check ride instructor said flaps should not be used on takeoff in the 172.
My reply was I do not have the right stuff, I don’t fly with the precision of a trained test pilot. I admit my limitations, the way a good man should know. For me anyway, I had noticed better climb performance at low flight speed in the 172 with 10 degrees.
But for people with good sense it shouldn’t matter. Flying is all about attitude. Just stay away, far away from the edge of the envelope and enjoy the privilege of flying.
If you ever get anywhere near the edge, the problem isn’t the airplane.
Tailwinds and Smooth Air
( been flying an RV-3 lately, the view is lovely )
Something I used to tell students…runway behind you, fuel left behind and altitude above you will never help. Could have been a little “show off” involved too.
Fly safe!
I think that show off was the problem.
I also think the NTSB boilerplated this. In the longer NTSB write up, one of the witnesses pointed out that the problem started at the point where they were at the edge of ground effect. Had the pilot lowered the nose a second or so before that point, the plane would have accelerated to Vy and then Vx with flaps. With positive rate at that point, cleanup and then continued climb should have been assured.
However, I only have a few hours multi w/o a multi rating. So all my recent experience has been SEL complex hi-perf and only for short do we use flaps. And at MTOW we rotate just below Vy (because it isn’t ready until that point). And you lower the nose a bit to accelerate….
I’m quite familiar with the performance qualities of this aircraft and know for a fact that single engine T.O. is capable. I observe them flying out of my field quite often.
Barry hit the nail on the head with this one .It says ‘ he put down some flap to increase aircraft performance ‘ , but after leaving the ground flaps decrease performance in climb or cruise . After all , you wouldn’t put down some flap to make an MCA on an airway, would you ?
It says ‘ he rarely used flaps for T/O ‘ and ‘ the aircraft does not require flaps for a short T/O roll ‘——which says it all really. He rotated to the pitch angle he normally used for a no flap T/O probably, and proceeded to stall in ground effect .