Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by rookiepilot » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:28 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by AirFrame » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:36 am

Cherokee 140, Pilot deceased. Three passengers all walked out from the crash site to an adjacent residence. All were from the same family, appears the pilot was the eldest.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
oldncold
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 11:17 am
Location: north of 49N latitude south of 78N lat

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by oldncold » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:26 pm

First nforemost my condolences to the family. If there is a silver lining to the tragedy them family will eventually have some sense of closure . There are 2 families still awaiting that closure from last year missing aircraft in the bc mountains.

Have 2 questions 1) what is useful load on a pa 28-140.with. 4 on board wouldn't leave much left for gas
2) if running with min fuel is it possible or likely to cause the unporting of the fuel pickup in the tank during. Normal manuevering like.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:54 pm

oldncold wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:26 pm
Have 2 questions 1) what is useful load on a pa 28-140.with. 4 on board wouldn't leave much left for gas
2) if running with min fuel is it possible or likely to cause the unporting of the fuel pickup in the tank during. Normal manuevering like.
There is rising terrain after taking off from that runway, so even if the engine is working perfectly it's going to be marginal with 4 on board. The passengers said the engine failed, but it could be that the pilot cut the power at the last moment in an attempt to save everyone's lives.
---------- ADS -----------
  

lhalliday
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:30 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by lhalliday » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:30 pm

Unusable fuel on a Cherokee is only a couple of gallons on each side. And the third and fourth people in the plane weren't adults.

I flew to Sechelt myself a few weeks ago, but used runway 11. This isn't my video, but it's the same terrain as a 29 departure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ECEBmG5zC4. The approach is interesting... :P

...laura
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:18 pm

It would probably have been close to full gross. If I've got the correct plane (don't want to post here, but easy to figure out), that's 2150lb gross and climb 660fpm. I've taken off from that runway in a plane with similar performance climbing at 60mph, and you're about 100ft above those trees. PA-28-140 POH says to take off with 25 degrees of flap, remove flap after takeoff, then climb at 74mph. Will that actually work at Sechelt and still clear the trees? I'm somewhat doubtful, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone who flies there in a PA28-140.

Probably better to not use flaps on takeoff (not really short-field), but I imagine if you climbed at Vy rather than Vx there probably wouldn't be much clearance from the trees.

Looks like the pilot has owned the plane for a year and was based at Sechelt.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
JasonE
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by JasonE » Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:34 am

I've got over 300 hours in an early PA28. I'd fly out of there (carefully) at a gross in one as long as it wasn't an overly hot day . Runway is 2400 feet, ELEV = 300. Trees are noted @ 100 feet, 300 feet from threshold in the CFS.

I would use 2 notches of flaps (25 deg) and best angle. Our Cherokee was 908 lbs useful load, later Warriors are much less. I used to fly ours often close to gross (sold it in spring.) Here's the take off performance for the one I flew below. Keep in mind this was for a 140HP and most have been upgraded to 150 or 160HP by now (ours was 160hp).

At gross (2150), assuming a warmer day at 2000ft denisty you'd need 2000ft of ground to clear 50ft trees. That gives you another 700 feet of ground run to clear the next 50 feet (remember the trees were @ 100 feet, 2700 feet from start of the runway). This is why I'd use short field t/o. Full power against the brakes, flaps, climb at 74mph. Margin's are not great, but certainly doable. I always added 10% since I'm not a test pilot skill level. But then again, I practiced this type of scenario every few months to keep my skills up.

Besides the article says 1-2 km from the airport so I'd say they cleared the trees initially.

Image
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by AirFrame » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:29 am

The registry shows two Cherokee 140's based at Sechelt. One has been owned by the same person for about 10 years, the other was only imported a couple of years ago, then deregistered, then reregistered a year later. Did anyone find photos of the accident airplane, or know the registration so we could be sure which one it is?
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:37 am

JasonE wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:34 am
I've got over 300 hours in an early PA28. I'd fly out of there (carefully) at a gross in one as long as it wasn't an overly hot day . Runway is 2400 feet, ELEV = 300. Trees are noted @ 100 feet, 300 feet from threshold in the CFS.

I would use 2 notches of flaps (25 deg) and best angle. Our Cherokee was 908 lbs useful load, later Warriors are much less. I used to fly ours often close to gross (sold it in spring.) Here's the take off performance for the one I flew below. Keep in mind this was for a 140HP and most have been upgraded to 150 or 160HP by now (ours was 160hp).

At gross (2150), assuming a warmer day at 2000ft denisty you'd need 2000ft of ground to clear 50ft trees. That gives you another 700 feet of ground run to clear the next 50 feet (remember the trees were @ 100 feet, 2700 feet from start of the runway). This is why I'd use short field t/o. Full power against the brakes, flaps, climb at 74mph. Margin's are not great, but certainly doable. I always added 10% since I'm not a test pilot skill level. But then again, I practiced this type of scenario every few months to keep my skills up.

Besides the article says 1-2 km from the airport so I'd say they cleared the trees initially.

Image
Actually, the trees 300ft from the threshold aren't the main problem. It's the rising ground 0.5km from the end of the runway. The article says they crashed 0.5km from the end of the runway. (See google terrain). It's not very obvious that it's a problem unless you've flown there, as the CFS doesn't really mention it.

I suspect leaving 25 degrees of flaps might make things even worse, as in most planes that amount of flap will degrade climb performance.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:50 am

AirFrame wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:29 am
The registry shows two Cherokee 140's based at Sechelt. One has been owned by the same person for about 10 years, the other was only imported a couple of years ago, then deregistered, then reregistered a year later. Did anyone find photos of the accident airplane, or know the registration so we could be sure which one it is?
Look up their flights on flightradar24 and you'll get a good idea of which one it is. Here are pics of the crash:

http://www.coastreporter.net/news/local ... 1.23360736
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
JasonE
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by JasonE » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:03 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:37 am
Actually, the trees 300ft from the threshold aren't the main problem. It's the rising ground 0.5km from the end of the runway. The article says they crashed 0.5km from the end of the runway. (See google terrain). It's not very obvious that it's a problem unless you've flown there, as the CFS doesn't really mention it.
That is interesting there is no mention in the CFS of that. Certainly looks like a challenging airport.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright

User avatar
JasonE
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by JasonE » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:06 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:37 am
I suspect leaving 25 degrees of flaps might make things even worse, as in most planes that amount of flap will degrade climb performance.
I don't have the airplane anymore to verify, but I found I was always able to reduce the ground roll significantly that way. Flaps to get in the air and reduce slowly once airborne and airspeed (& climb) is established would have been my M/O unless I could verify otherwise. Too bad I don't have the airplane anymore to test. I found it never wanted to really rotate until 5-10mph above the POH rotation speed. It took a good yank to get airborne.

From the POH:

Image
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by JasonE on Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright

Walker
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Left Coast... (CYYJ)

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by Walker » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:19 am

In my younger years I "almost" killed myself in the same area (heavy and on a very hot day). Did a proper short field etc but was too stupid/complacent to do a density altitude check. Made it out by climbing out just above the power lines. Even if your looking for it the ground is very sneaky there...
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:42 am

JasonE wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:06 am
CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:37 am
I suspect leaving 25 degrees of flaps might make things even worse, as in most planes that amount of flap will degrade climb performance.
I don't have the airplane anymore to verify, but I found I was always able to reduce the ground roll significantly that way. Flaps to get in the air and reduce slowly once airborne and airspeed (& climb) is established would have been my M/O unless I could verify otherwise. Too bad I don't have the airplane anymore to test. I found it never wanted to really rotate until 5-10mph above the POH rotation speed. It took a good yank to get airborne.

From the POH:

Image
Not sure what it says in the Cherokee POH, but for other planes it says that taking off with flaps reduces the ground roll but increases the distance over 50 foot obstacle. Then what happens if you're still barely over the trees? Not a good time to reduce the flaps, and yet they're robbing you of climb.

I see the CFS mentions about rising terrain to the NW, but it's not really obvious from that how potentially dangerous it actually is. It's so close to the runway that you don't really have time to turn away from it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
JasonE
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by JasonE » Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:00 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:42 am
Not sure what it says in the Cherokee POH, but for other planes it says that taking off with flaps reduces the ground roll but increases the distance over 50 foot obstacle. Then what happens if you're still barely over the trees? Not a good time to reduce the flaps, and yet they're robbing you of climb.
"Take-offs are normally made with flaps up, to simplify operating procedure. However, for short field take-offs, and for take-offs under difficult conditions such as deep grass or on a soft surface, distances can be reduced appreciable by lowering flaps to 25deg (second notch)."

Regardless, you can't clear the trees without an engine!
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright

geneticistx
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by geneticistx » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:35 pm

I flew into Sechelt on Wednesday and landed and departed on 29 in a 172. There was no wind but I still felt some windshear over those trees on the rising terrain. My camera was set to the wrong settings, but here is what i filmed https://www.dropbox.com/s/0dfbdx33zm1w8 ... d.mov?dl=0
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by rookiepilot » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:51 pm

geneticistx wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:35 pm
I flew into Sechelt on Wednesday and landed and departed on 29 in a 172. There was no wind but I still felt some windshear over those trees on the rising terrain. My camera was set to the wrong settings, but here is what i filmed https://www.dropbox.com/s/0dfbdx33zm1w8 ... d.mov?dl=0
That looks challenging as not a favourable option to turn.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by cncpc » Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:17 pm

JasonE wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:00 am


Regardless, you can't clear the trees without an engine!
This.

It was downhill all the way from the end of runway to the accident site.

Still a useful discussion in a broader context. You have to watch your ass on some days in some winds in some aircraft with some loads when using 29 at Sechelt.

Grateful for the survivors, sad for the lost pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

geneticistx
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by geneticistx » Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:48 pm

Tough couple weeks in bc. 182 near hope/merrit, Shannon Falls, Sechelt, and I was at Topanga Cafe in kits 5 days before it burnt down.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4510
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by trey kule » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:30 am

Are you all having fun tossing out the speculation?
Two adults, a teenage girl and a toddler. Maybe not full fuel. But dont let that stop anyone from pilloring a deceased pilot flying “hot and heavy”

For the life of me I will never understand what possesses people to “speculate” with every random thought that pops into their head.

Oh wait. I forgot. Its all about learning. And of course respectful. Speculating about pilot error...



Rant over...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:00 pm

trey kule wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:30 am
Are you all having fun tossing out the speculation?
Two adults, a teenage girl and a toddler. Maybe not full fuel. But dont let that stop anyone from pilloring a deceased pilot flying “hot and heavy”

For the life of me I will never understand what possesses people to “speculate” with every random thought that pops into their head.

Oh wait. I forgot. Its all about learning. And of course respectful. Speculating about pilot error...



Rant over...
Actually, nobody said that. Anything useful to add?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:20 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:00 pm
trey kule wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:30 am
Are you all having fun tossing out the speculation?
Two adults, a teenage girl and a toddler. Maybe not full fuel. But dont let that stop anyone from pilloring a deceased pilot flying “hot and heavy”

For the life of me I will never understand what possesses people to “speculate” with every random thought that pops into their head.

Oh wait. I forgot. Its all about learning. And of course respectful. Speculating about pilot error...



Rant over...
Actually, nobody said that. Anything useful to add?
As a thread I posted, I don't see any of that either. I see airport terrain comments and performance numbers for the aircraft type in question.

Where is the issue exactly?
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by CpnCrunch » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:28 pm

My point is that Im not certain that plane can actually take off safely on that runway with flaps 25 at full gross.

I doubt it was an engine failure. Seems a big coincidence that they flew to ycd and back and then the engine failed right when they encountered the steeply rising ground. Possible, but not the most likely explanation.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by cncpc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:32 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:28 pm
My point is that Im not certain that plane can actually take off safely on that runway with flaps 25 at full gross.

I doubt it was an engine failure. Seems a big coincidence that they flew to ycd and back and then the engine failed right when they encountered the steeply rising ground. Possible, but not the most likely explanation.
I went and had a look at that pic from the link above. There doesn't seem to be much rotational damage on the prop. Some rearward bending more likely from contacting something while still moving forward. Somebody had the theory that perhaps he closed the throttle when he knew they were going in.

Whatever the case, from a passenger point of view, in a crash like this, survivability will depend on what the pilot does in the last few seconds before impact. Three people walked away from this accident. At a minimum, it seems he didn't lose control of his aircraft in those final seconds.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4072
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Plane crash at Sechelt airport

Post by pelmet » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:08 pm

C-GVZP, a privately-operated Piper PA-28-140, departed runway 29 at the Sechelt Aerodrome (CAP3) on a local sight-seeing flight with the pilot and three passengers. The wind was variable and gusty, predominately from the west. The aircraft's rate of climb immediately after take-off was low. As it overflew the Chapman Creek ravine off the departure end of the runway, the aircraft stopped climbing and flew into trees on the side of the ravine. The pilot was fatally injured; the three passengers received minor injuries and the aircraft was destroyed.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”