The pilot reported that, before departing from a high altitude (6,830 feet mean sea level), 1,600-foot private, dirt airstrip near Glades Park, Colorado, he set the wing flaps to 10° and trimmed the Cessna 182.
During takeoff, he advanced the throttle and the airplane “accelerated well.”
He anticipated becoming airborne near the first of the runway’s “two step downs,” which was about 1,000 feet down the runway. He further reported that during landing he noted the prevailing wind direction, and although light and variable he would be departing with a tailwind.
At the step down, he observed that the airspeed was low, but felt that he had gone beyond a “safe shut down point,” so he chose to continue the takeoff with the belief that he would be able to clear power lines near the departure end of the runway.
The airplane became airborne near the departure end of the runway, but was unable to maintain a climb rate enough to clear the power lines. The airplane hit two sets of power lines, hit an embankment, and the main landing gear collapsed.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, fuselage, and empennage. The pilot sustained minor injuries in the crash.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The automated weather observation station located 13 miles northeast of the accident site reported that, about 7 minutes before the accident, the wind was variable at 3 knots, clear skies, temperature 68°F, dew point 30°F, altimeter setting 29.96 inches Hg. The calculated density altitude was 8,985 feet. The pilot departed to the southeast.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain adequate airspeed and climb rate during takeoff in high-density altitude conditions, which resulted in his failure to clear power lines.
This was an “accident” before the power was applied; 1600′ unpaved runway at 9K DA (*and* a tailwind)? What could go wrong? Wait for better conditions; cooler air, lighten the plane? This was just not going to work. (A preplaned “no-go” point was a great idea but not enforced.)
This May 2019 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.
It is NOT high density….the conditions result in a low density of air molecules ….and air consists of 78% Nitrogen…21% oxygen ….
Use this: BEP-W
What air and oxygen is available for your
B – Brain (uses Oxygen)
E = Engine ( uses oxygen)
P = Propeller ( uses air)
W= wings ( uses air)
By using my acronym…..the pilot would have to recognize that under those conditions his chances of success were minimized….of course the the most difficult word to use on a pilots life to use is the word NO, …….no I am not going to do that
It is actually high effective altitude, when considering the pressure altitude, which is then corrected for temperature. It’s just the name given ; High [density] Altitude.
Aircraft Pilot Operating Handbooks, [ POH], will list a number of tables for takeoff distance at various altitudes vs temperatures, and aircraft weight.
There is also a correction for tailwind and grass runways.
So, it only takes a few minutes to look up the data, and do a little math so see if the takeoff is safe and possible.
Good for you Bill! Just say NO, (But that presupposes some common sense exits)!
After flying at Leadville, CO quite a few years ago, I subsequently simulated high density altitude takeoffs with all students. It’s hard to imagine how bad it can be. At Leadville, the takeoff roll was about three times longer, and the climb angle was so flat (100-300fpm). To demonstrate that in CT, I control the power to simulate the slow acceleration and to maintain that climb rate. It also helps pay attention to maintaining the correct airspeed with the elevator and not making the mistake of trying to duplicate a normal climb angle causing a stall. I think these demonstrations are far superior to just reading about or discussing high density altitude takeoffs and should be including in all training just like short and soft-field takeoffs are.
Probably been many takeoffs in the same conditions over the years. Maybe he should have went under the power lines.
Homeitis……or something to that affect which clouded his judgement.
Attempting a takeoff from a 1,600 ft, dirt strip with a DA of almost 9,000 ft, with obstacles….stupid.!
[ use the POH climb chart ].
However, there is a 3,400 runway 1.5 miles to the east.
The Cessna 175 that I fly has a SL roc of 1,400 fpm. but at 9,000 ft DA, it needs 1,650 ft to takeoff,
and 2,900 ft to clear 50 ft.
It took 2 minutes to calculate that from my 1961 POH.