Pilot Pushes Limits: Barely Escapes the Tree Line

[@aviation_nut]

I've been told there are two things you should consider for margins: Wear and tear on the aircraft causing some parasitic and skin friction drag in addition to engine fatigue and the pilot's own skills. Pilots are also imperfect, and might rotate a little bit too early or late, not always get up to Vy or Vx as efficiently as ideal. Another thing to consider in this specific case is of course density altitude. In a situation where margins are SO CLOSE, the fact you are taking off from a black surface thereby increasing temperatures immediately above the runway (while the weather instruments are in a cooler location) might even be a factor. Anyone who's walked from a park to a parking lot may have noticed this same effect. In most scenarios we shouldn't have to consider those factors exactly because we add a margin of error to them. I live in the Northeastern US where most airports are lower than 1,000 feet MSL and terrain is typically flat. I usually fly from airports with runways of 4,000 feet or more, so performance calculations rarely shed much doubt, unless you're in tailwind conditions or temperatures are over a hundred degrees. But mountain flying is a different animal altogether.

[@adb012]

Add a 3rd factor which is uncertainty in the real conditions and in your calculation. Temperature and density can be slightly different at the moment of take-off from the ones you used to calculate the take-off performance 1/2 hour earlier. (wind too but wind does have a margin built in the performance calculations since the manual has to consider 50% of the headwind or 200% of the tailwind). Runway slope: Did you even take it into account? Even if you did, the slope of the part of the runway that you are using for the take-off roll may be different than the slope of the whole runway. Performance calculations are also done based on tables that you have to interpolate or graphs that you have to approximate. Airplane wight is also not precisely known to the last digit. Your own weight can vary lie a couple of kilos throughout the day as you eat, go to the bathroom and expend energy. Do you know exactly how much you wight, as dressed, the moment that you are getting into the plane? And your passenger? And his backpack? All these factors ad variability to your performance calculation.

[@knockout4113]

6:17 FYI, you can toggle frame by frame of a KZbin video by hitting the period and comma keys on your keyboard

[@SnowWhite-kk8oq]

Oh my! you are my hero, you make me feel so safe in the face of danger.

[@jimmydulin928]

Good analysis, Munden. He did a very good job, but the outcome was a bit in doubt. First he is flying a complex airplane where gear and prop can get pilots oriented toward less energy efficient technique. He was going down drainage, a very important consideration in the mountains. He did lower the nose when at ten feet or so the stall warning horn squeaked. He then utilized fairly low ground effect to accelerate to the kinetic energy necessary to make the lower point in the tree line. No not altitude, that would have stalled him. From a max loaded every time crop duster point of view, he did not use elevator pitch to get off when the wing would fly in very low ground effect, six inches for a crop duster. The airplane will fly much slower than Vso, an out of ground effect number. Vso on the surface is waiting way too long. Vx or Vy on the surface is waiting way too long. First get the nose wheel just off very soon or quit. Start with the yoke full back and then relax as the nose wheel comes just off. Next has to be learned. With practice on long runways, find the slowest airspeed that you can force the mains off with back pressure on the yoke. The STOL guys who use the flaps to jump up have big engines and light weight and are waiting too long. The ones who use the elevator do better. We are not going for a record leave earth distance, just the best energy management. As soon as the mains come off in his Bonanza (big engine) he would have had to push hard on the yoke to stay in low ground effect (we use six inches but two or three feet is fine). Wiggle the yoke fore/aft to bracket level in low ground effect. He is going to want three feet to feel comfortable bringing the gear up. I don't think he got the gear up in the video, which is fine. The ground effect was superior energy. He certainly didn't need to mess with the prop, as he needed flat pitch anyway. Your students in the 172 or Cherokee will not need to push as hard, but absolutely want no pitch attitude. It will fly level in low ground effect and accelerate there very quickly. I didn't ever change the trim from cruise trim, but never got higher than 200' on the pipeline anyway. He got to near the end of the runway, but pitched up a bit early to make the coordinated turn to the low place in the trees. Had he done all this, again he did good, the outcome of the maneuver would not have been in doubt. I hate when pilots compare crop dusting, Ag now in jets, to acrobatics. We are not seeking or finding the razors edge as did Bob Hoover very effectively. We are using every form of energy management to avoid the razors edge. Working 100 gallon loads out of this field in the video in a 235 hp Pawnee would not have been a razors edge thing. Nor would the Pawnee ever have been more than six inches over the runway. Instead of nose wheel just off, the tail would be brought up very quickly. The modern turboprop Ag airplane has a long tail gear that puts the tail up almost level sitting still on the ground but he still needs the free level in low ground effect energy. One other thing this Bonanza pilot could have done had he been trained by a crop duster is while in two feet ground effect at the very end of the runway, he could have rudder turned in ground effect to point at the low place in the trees. In order to make a coordinated turn, which he did well, he had to disobey Wolfgang's law of the roller coaster where the experienced pilot would prefer the thing in speed not altitude. He had to trade precious airspeed for the altitude to allow the coordinated turn without catching the down wing on the surface. Yes, out of trim level rudder turn loses a bit of energy in the short time we are moving sideways. Don't knock it until you have tried it on long runways in low ground effect moving from one side of the runway to the other and back and still have more acceleration than at Vx or Vy pitch attitude. Crop dusters never try to climb over anything they can go under (wires) or rudder turn around (obstructions in the field or at the end of a spray run.) Airspeed is life down there. Airspeed, not altitude, is life on takeoff. Quick altitude is a dangerous pipe dream. Good job again, Munden. Good video. Good find.

[@Squawk-VFR]

I'm part of the 20% that is a pilot (Sport) out here in Mountain Home (U76). Chris's channel helped get me through my training, among others.

[@FSimsquad]

about the ground effect, you fly cessnas which is a high wing and rememebr GE is from the bottom if the WING (not the bottom of the plane) to about a wingspan down. This was in a bonanza (low wing) and what that means is at 5ft agl for him, he has 50% more ground effect than you do in the c172 simply becasue of the distance between the bottom of the wings between the c172 and bonanza, and what this also means is, he can be much higher than you can in your high wing cessna staying in ground effect in fact he can be about 4.5 feet higher than you can be and still give the same ground effect drag reduction :)

[@jimmydulin928]

Good point about low ground effect is more effective than high ground effect. Two energy management techniques are in play when level in ground effect: ground effect and no pitch attitude. Don't give up on the extreme free energy when level in low ground effect with high wing airplanes. Yes, low wing is best. Yes, high wing achieves tremendous acceleration help as well. The level in low ground effect (I use six inches) technique is default for me regardless of low or high wing. The acceleration advantage and the pitch angle advantage is great. It helped me when I had an engine failure on takeoff at six inches with runway remaining. I landed. In five engine failures coming out of the crop field, the extra airspeed resulting from being in low ground effect before failure allowed me to zoom over the wires and trees at the end of fields and make the turn to the adjoining field, road, or levee,. Airspeed, not altitude, is life anywhere during maneuvering flight.

[@FSimsquad]

@jimmydulin928 yes I agree with you, flying is an energy game. Potential and kinetic

[@AlyssaM_InfoSec]

I had a moment like this just over the summer. Took off from a 2200 ft grass strip with my friend. Did do a weight and balance and performance calcs and everything checked out fine. But like this there was a line of trees not far off the end of the runway with just a small gap to the right. It was a bit heart stopping (not nearly as close as this) but it still gave me a real moment of pause. Soft and Short field is no joke and there are a few tactics that conflict that you have to choose one or the other (like do you do a static throttle up or try to keep moving as you enter the runway and roll). Lots to analyze after.

[@jimmydulin928]

Good point about all forms of extra energy. ACS soft and short field techniques do conflict, but notice that nose wheel off or tail wheel up quickly and getting the mains off slower than Vso and moving the elevator for/aft dynamically and proactively to bracket level in low ground effect and staying in ground effect until at least Vcc if runway is available are soft field techniques. They are much better short field techniques than the energy inefficient pitch to Vx, which trades airspeed for altitude in a situation where the experienced pilot would rather have the thing in speed, as Wolfgang puts it.

[@gtm624]

FYI stick and rudder is also available on audible incredible book. I do agree with what is said in the book. But obviously judgment needs to be used because like in this instance. If Chris pulled too much he would have stalled. He did exactly what the book says but within the limits he had to work with. If he had a clear area on the other side of those trees he could have put the nose back down to gain more airspeed but not always an option. If that were heavily wooded area he would have to be in the same feathered edge climb. Great video and points. Definitely considering a 20-25% padding in the numbers Will be discussing with my instructor. A new plane is smooth as can be no dings perfect airflow perfect engine and a test pilot that had done the test thousands of times.

[@jimmydulin928]

The technique is for when things don't work out as POH planned. We don't know when we will need the extra energy of ground effect...until we do need it. And then at Vx pitch attitude and mushing just out of ground effect, it is too late. POH didn't work out in this video. Yet, he used extra ground effect acceleration energy to make it over anyway. And he didn't need Vx or Vy at the obstruction. He needed to make it just over, not well over. Well over would have been in a stall.

[@rmp5s]

2:48 - We all have moments like that in LIFE.

[@nodnarb310]

Performance data is perfect pilot, perfect plane, perfect conditions, and often sea level. I think adding 150% or 200% to performance data isnt a terrible idea unless you're familiar with plane and strip.

[@catzel1ps452]

Stick and rudder is a mandatory part of the flight school I went to in cali ( not a pilot , had to stop for medical reasons for now)

[@sh8873e]

Hi i am from Boise too. Great videos. To see dashboard instruments better to try to see a pilot's settings, it may help to use the MS Windows "Magnifier" and put the button down below in the Taskbar. It is simple and works awesome to magnify your screen temporarily. --Stuart

[@igclapp]

Or just use the zoom feature on the mobile KZbin app!

[@ClackClackKLR]

You can step through a paused video frame by frame with the , (back) and . (forward) keys

[@N1611n]

Remember this one from years ago, still edge of the seat stuff.

[@WildOn2sVlog]

Great breakdown

[@evanm6739]

He handled that situation like a professional

[@stephenabbott3623]

Amen re the ground effect!

[@matthewtudhope3201]

Had a very similar take off in my 152 at 55S. DA about 2500ft, book said I had about 400ft of margin on the distance to clear 50’ obs. needless to say it was much closer than it should’ve been, but thankfully not this close. In summer I would never have made it. Personal minimus are SO important, not to be overlooked.

[@landen99]

Ground effect is legit, but trees are more legit. Better to stop the take-off early if the speeds are not where you need them by the point on the runway where the plane can be safely stopped, than to hang around in ground effect hoping that it's increased efficiency saves you enough power to clear the trees. And the steeper the climb, the more energy lost, so you must aim for enough above the trees that changes in wind don't pull you down into them. Such a miscalculation of wind changes might allow a branch to snag your airframe and bring you down.

[@adb012]

I used to fly several different Tomahawks airframes at a fly school first, and a flight school then. I must have flown like 10 different Tomahawks. I cannot tell about the take-off roll and obstacle clearance performance because the real performance is hard to determine, but climb performance at Vx and max gross weight was listed in the manual as 700 fpm at sea level and standard ISA conditions. These 2 airports were basically at sea level (less than 100ft elevation) and even in cold, high pressure winter days and with less than max gross I would not see 700 fpm. Typical values at max gross weight were in the range of 500 to 550 fpm. That's a 20 to 30% degradation under the official performance. I always assumed that take off roll and over-obstacle distances suffered a similar degradation. Now look, this degradation was real, so if I took a 20 to 30% "safety margin" over the manual numbers, I would actually have zero margin, since any less distance available would guarantee a crash. So put a "real" safety margin on top of that and suddenly 50% doesn't look that crazy.

[@Bigskitch]

Density altitude is the scariest mf thing. Looking out the window might give you no indication that anything is different than a standard day and then boom, you're using 80-90% of a runway you normally only use 50% of. Just another reason to be thorough with your preflight work.

[@Hoodinville]

This one hits close to home as I fly an turbo-normalized A36 (this was a G36, but close), and this field is right in my back yard.. Concrete, WA 3W5. Chris goes over this incident in one of his follow-up videos and adds a fair amount of detail that I think is relevant.. I can also add some thoughts: - While Chris has a lot of time and is KZbinr etc... he did not have a lot of time (at the date of the incident) in this particular aircraft, a turbo'd Bonanza G36 .. it was somebody else's plane he was flying around for the weekend with buddies. This likely had a big impact because he probably didn't internalize how bad of a runway hog these airplanes are - 36 series is not turbo'd by default. Turbo normalizer is an STC, and it's a normalizer in that.. it only ensures 30" of manifold pressure (MP) up to the critical altitude.. basically, the airplane engine feels like it's at sea-level at all altitudes up to 18k. This helps with speed cruising high .. as you still get 30" MP at say 18k feet. But down low, you do not have 35"+ of manifold pressure like you would on a classic turbo engine. You would think turbo helps you takeoff roll.. here it actually hurts you for several reasons: 1) TN system heats the air going into the engine, so engine makes less power at 30" MP than a normally aspirated (NA) 36 bonanza would at 30". 2) TN system runs super hot climb vs the NA engine, so the max fuel mixture is made richer to compensate (essentially, you dump fuel through to lose heat). NA A36 max fuel flow is like ~28gph whereas TN 36 is set up to 35gpm max. This mixture is so rich that the performance of the plane is degraded meaningfully.. like 10%If you are careful with the TN system you can gain some of this loss back by using less than full mixture on takeoff and then putting it back to 35GPH in cruise climb so the engine doesn't overheat... but most people don't know this. 3) These late model Bonanzas have a ton of STCs on them like the TN system that adds a lot of weight beyond the base model.. further decreasing performance - 36 series is weird in that.. there isn't really a meaningful short field flaps configuration. You can take off with flaps at the approach setting, which allows a lower rotation speed and hence less runway consumed, but the approach flaps impact the climb rate so much vs. no flaps (the normal config).. that the distance to clear a 50ft obstacle is essentially the same as the no-flaps normal takeoff. Taking off with approach flaps could only really help if the pavement is very short but there is no obstacle... but here we have tall trees, so we get nothing. This is covered in BPPP training - Another aspect, which I don't think is unique to the A36/G36 but is a factor here.. is that normally you are told to get the gear up as quickly as possible to improve the climb rate. The 36 gear retraction speed in the 1984+ models is impressive.. gear comes up quickly, like in 4 seconds or less. But what is maybe not commonly known unless you fly these and really feel it.. is that during the gear retraction cycle, the outer doors open and the drag of the airplane is meaningful increased during this period, so there is a momentary loss of performance. This is why Chris noted in one of his deep-dives of this incident that retracting the gear as soon as he got above the runway was actually a mistake -- if it's not clear whether you will clear an impending obstacle at the departure end of the runway, you cannot afford to have that perf dropout at the worst time.. you just need to accept the climb rate you get with the gear out and ride it out until you are sure. The TL;DR is that TN A36 is a beautiful cross country aircraft.. it's fast, comfortable, and stable XC platform. But takeoff performance is bad even in comparison to normal A36 and you need to get every ounce of performance out of it.. if you are going to be in a tight situation like this. Personally I'm hesitant to fly into fields that are much less than 2800 feet because I have seen in real life what this looks like, and it's not great. I don't think this is related to the fact that the airplane is "old and worn" in this case... the aircraft in question is relatively new, privately owned, and likely very well maintained. It's just that these aircraft can be very tricky.. and if you are used to C172/C182 takeoff performance where the aircraft just leaps off the runway like a kite, you are not getting that here!

[@igclapp]

Interesting information. Thanks. It's worth noting that density altitude should not be directly used to determine performance of turbocharged and turbine-powered aircraft as pressure altitude and temperature have independent effects on these types of engines. Always refer to the AFM/POH!

[@evanm6739]

The curve for taking off in a tailwind in a Cessna 172 is actually insane. Sharpest curve I've seen performance wise.

[@nikivan]

I think the chirping sound is from the angle of attack instrument, not the stall horn. He maintained a cruising attitude while in GE (reduced drag), allowing him to build up airspeed. Still very sketchy and I don't think it was in his initial plan to shoot for the gap between the trees.

[@DoctorZaius]

You think it's hard to say if he had 10 seconds of ground effect available? 4 to 5 seconds at most. But I agree that rotate -> ground effect to Vx -> Vx climb seems best. Note that Vx changes with altitude so Vx here refers to adjusted Vx.

[@timypaul]

Yeah I think soft field takeoff could have worked better here with the effect of the ground effect. Good point man

[@jimmydulin928]

The soft field takeoff technique is the best short field takeoff technique because we get into low ground effect much earlier. A common problem with the soft field technique, as often taught, is staying in a high pitch attitude after lift off. We need to level the fuselage as soon as we have pitched up into low ground effect. Just a bit of for/aft wiggle on the yoke will find level in low ground effect effectively. With big engines, we have to push hard on the yoke. With normal trainers up to 172, we just have to push a little. Or set trim for cruise. There is no mark like for Vy, but leave it unchanged on landing. I use/teach full flaps on all landings so the trim is the same as cruise in small Cessnas. Only when you get to six seats or have a lot of weight back there is cruise trim not enough.

[@igclapp]

I don't think a soft field takeoff is appropriate for a paved runway. If so, Cessna etc. would recommend using a soft field technique even for short paved runways. But they don't.

[@jimmydulin928]

@@igclapp Cessna lawyers are going with FAA developed Airmen Certification Standards, which are very poor total energy management. Nor do they say anything about down drainage egress, a very important mountain airport consideration. Crop dusters and bush pilots do what Wolfgang said experienced pilots do in 1944. If you are worried about liability, do as you must. If you are worried about making it out even if you have not figured the takeoff data correctly, why not use all the energy available? I want to make it even if I have laced some holes in the Swiss Cheese. I am not perfect, but have preferred to take the thing in speed, as Wolfgang put it.

[@igclapp]

@@jimmydulin928 I'd honestly be interested to see a side-by side comparison of Cessna's paved short field technique versus the accelerate in ground effect and zoom climb technique to see which one clears an obstacle better.

[@igclapp]

@@jimmydulin928 Also I should mention that it's more for the pilot's legal protection to follow the technique specified in the manual. Imagine a pilot hits the trees on a short field takeoff and didn't use the technique in the manual. Big time legal liability!

[@jumpinjetle]

They put themselves in a pinch by landing there in the first place

[@gtm624]

FYI stick and rudder is also available on audible incredible book. I’m a bit confused. That sounds like Chris Palmer but yet someone googled Trent Palmer but it’s steves breakdown video that your further breaking down. Lol.

[@BravoLima170B]

It’s chris

[@BravoLima170B]

Nice discussion. I wouldn’t get in a plane with a pilot who disagrees with Stick and Rudder. What a boring way to build time.

[@wassermutt7805]

Flying in Ground Effect is a more efficient regime of flying because the drag is lowered. Therefore you should be able to build energy faster while in Ground Effect and since you aren't climbing that energy will be in the form of speed. You can transfer that speed into altitude when needed. But obviously you have to make that transfer at the correct time, no need to build up a large amount of speed and deposit into that tree at ground effect height. As for the video, you see a lot of pre-flight discussions include "We need to have X speed by X distance or we're aborting the take off". Didn't hear that here and wonder if many people do that. I don't typically use short runways and if I'm not at 200' at halfway down my home airport, something is wrong. Lots of forgiveness comes in a 6000' package. So curious how many people do set those parameters pre-take off, what parameters do you use, and how do you quantify them?

[@igclapp]

I would maybe use a target of 75% of rotation speed by half my calculated ground roll. Distance travelled is proportional to the square of speed achieved if acceleration is constant. However, acceleration is actually decreasing during the takeoff roll due to increasing aerodynamic drag and lower prop thrust, so that's why I use 75% instead of 70%.

[@kevinbaslee3262]

This is another example of a pilot not knowing or not able to fight the urge to pull up over an obstacle. Yes, he did fight the urge enough to not stall the plane and managed to escape buy a narrow margin. As was pointed out in the video, he was right up against the stall horn nearly the entire time from rotation to clearing the trees. In any plane I have ever flown, that would be an airspeed well below Vx. If you are below Vx induced drag is higher than it would be at Vx, therefore you are not achieving a max performance climb. To answer your question, I think you leave it in ground effect to accelerate to Vx and then pitch up to hold Vx. Any slower than Vx, you lose performance due to the increase in induced drag, any faster than Vx you are covering more distance in a given time and that is decreasing your climb angle. Now, Vx is affected by DA and weight, so unless we are going to do a lot of math to figure out our exact Vx, we probably won't know for sure right down to the knot what it is. That leads to the second question you asked. Is 50% too much? I give that a solid no! As mentioned, the aircraft likely won't perform as a new one, you as a pilot likely won't perform as well as a test pilot, and the numbers may not be exact for the given weight and DA that day. If you loose 10- 20% for each reason I just gave you, you could easily be at 50%.

[@jimmydulin928]

He stayed down and finally lowered the nose to stay level in ground effect until near the end of the runway. There he was faster than Vx. Pitching to Vx earlier would have given up the extra acceleration kinetic energy of low ground effect. Had he pitched to Vx as soon as he rolled on the ground to Vx, the Airmen Certification Standard, he would have mushed into the trees. Yes, DA may have been higher than where Vy is required for Vx climb, where up over least distance is same as fastest up. I flew all the 65 hp trainers in the mountains and taught in the C-140 at Monte Vista 7600.' Neither vx nor Vy was ever appropriate there. Like Wolfgang, I chose to take the thing in speed every time. I told students that if pulling back didn't get the climb they expected, push on the yoke. That is exactly what happened in this video.

[@kevinbaslee3262]

@@jimmydulin928 Why is the stall horn still chirping just before he gets to the trees if you believe he accelerated to above Vx? Would Vx and stall be that close at a high DA? Just asking...you obviously have more experience with high DA than I do.

[@jimmydulin928]

Yes, he accelerated to faster than Vx while still in low ground effect. Yes, he gave up some of that airspeed for altitude to just clear the low place in the trees and yes, the stall horn or some say angle of attack indicator chirpped again. Pitching to Vx or Vy as appropriate in ground effect does not mean we will stay at Vx or Vy airspeed​ out of ground effect. Study Wolfgang's law of the roller coaster in Stick and Rudder and notice both that airspeed is altitude and altitude is airspeed and that Wolfgang said the experienced pilot preferred to take the thing (same thing) in the form of airspeed. This experienced pilot chose to first take the thing in airspeed knowing, again as Wolfgang points out that he can convert the speed into height and zoom over the obstacles. He got it mostly right, but by trying height before realizing he first needed speed, he lost some of that free ground effect zoom reserve.@@kevinbaslee3262

[@jimmydulin928]

@@kevinbaslee3262 There is no Vx at high DA and Vy may be necessary for level flight.

[@dwaynemcallister7231]

Ground affect is very helpful for sure less induced drag, however I have seen some pilots waste this gift by keeping the plane on the back side of the power curve where drag is higher. 50 percent extra is not too much if aircraft has a high time engine or a less than perfect propeller or it's raining...You need to understand your situation and your aircraft it's not likely it will equal book numbers. I watched my father a commercial charter pilot in northern Canada pull the throttle back on take-off more than a few times, he flew for 42 years but never wrecked his plane, I never asked him how he knew when to abort, but he had it down.

[@jimmydulin928]

If nose wheel does not come just off or tailwheel come up quickly, abort. If the mains can not be pitched off by halfway, abort. This requires using the soft field or level in low ground effect as soon as possible technique default to acquire the feel for when it will fly in low ground effect. This is much slower than Vso. Getting into ground effect early means the outcome of the maneuver is not in doubt. Not getting there early is an indication for rejected takeoff.

[@Vulporium]

I'm not a pilot but I think I would have got on the gas a little harder, and tried to maximize the amount of runway I was given. To me it seems like he almost taxies for a moment before really powering up. It could have been the difference of a few feet at the treetops. And not that I would push boundaries, but it could have been life or death if those few missing trees still stood in that gap. (assuming they were there)

[@Jigsaw407]

You can never have too big a margin, only too little. So if you slap on 50% and your runway is longer than that, what's the harm?

[@mts982]

so in this case would it have been better to have a head wind to help with lift?

[@nsv1218]

Yes, it always helps with takeoffs. Think Kites and how a headwind would help keep it in the air/gain altitude

[@jimmydulin928]

@nsv1218 We couldn't see the other way. Down drainage egress, which he took, often if of greater importance in the mountains where many airports are one way.

[@nsv1218]

@@jimmydulin928 oh that's a great point, thanks for bringing that up!! Just a few hours in as a student, so I wasn't aware.

[@CramcrumBrewbringer]

He did NOT correctly calculate the take off performance.

[@alk672]

10% increase to POH number is grossly inadequate. 50% sounds about right, your life depends on it. The aircraft was in a better shape, yes, but more importantly the pilot was a professional ex-military ace, a test pilot. Using ground effect (known as zoom takeoff) is indeed theoretically the best type of takeoff which can technically help you clear obstacles that cannot be cleared with the POH short field technique, but if it doesn't work you're low and at high speed, so you die for sure.

[@tangocharlie9291]

Density altitude is real.

[@Gus1966-c9o]

guy game close to ending up on pilot debrief channel .

[@andreasbacher2695]

He is rotating too early in my opinion. There is runway left to accelerate. Maybe this could have improved the situation given the aircraft then climbs out a lot better than he did? Second, if at the half runway mark, airspeed is not at least 70% of rotation speed, abort immediately (i.e., 50 kts in my F33A with the IO 550 engine). The turbonormalized Bonanzas need longer take off distances as far as I know. I always calculate T/O distance very thoroughly and do this twice to avoid errors when T/O run available is less than 3300 ft on hot days and/or field elevation is higher than 1000 ft in my F33A.

[@igclapp]

It's not 70% of rotation speed by half the runway distance, it's 70.7% (75% for a safety margin) of rotation speed by half of your calculated ground roll. If you're at 70% of your rotation speed halfway down the runway, you will be at rotation speed at the very end of the runway, assuming constant acceleration because distance travelled is proportional to the square of speed achieved. However, acceleration is actually decreasing during the takeoff roll due to increasing aerodynamic drag and lower prop thrust. So you will most likely not even be at rotation speed by the end of the runway.

[@andreasbacher2695]

@igclapp Thank you for correction and for sharing your obviously deep knowledge about this! Greetings, Andreas!

[@zeropoint216]

I'm watching and I am a pilot on Microsoft Flight Simulator

[@AgentPurpleK]

yo you gotta switch to youtube dark mode!

[@neilpatrickhairless]

It's wild that he didn't clip the tops off those trees with all the extra weight in his drawers from 🏀 🏈 and 💩

[@captaindunsel2806]

2:25 Don't be afraid to criticize a pilot with more experience than you. Bozo might be in his 80's, but he's still a clown.

[@loveplanes]

No way tailwind…

[@SpaceFrawg]

3:11 Not a pilot here... have you noticed non-pilots parroting your words as their own in the comment section of other aviation videos? If not, you will, there are definitely poser pilots out there. They may not necessarily claim to be a pilot but, go out of their way to make it seem like they are without saying it and I think the giveaway that their not a pilot is how nasty and rude they are to others, it's not so much a friendly correction as it is a swift kick in the balls. *for all the pilots out there, balls is a slang term for testicles :)

[@Bigskitch]

@@SpaceFrawg generally, a sour attitude and superiority complex are indicators that you’re talking to someone who *is* a pilot! 😉

[@SpaceFrawg]

@Bigskitch No doubt there are pilots like that out there, I mean I've watched a Dan Gryder video or two and heard pilots on Vas Aviation talking on the comms , I'm down with the lingo, in such a way that the only reasonable solution is that they're in dire need of a tune up... an attitude adjustment, a beating that only a thirteen year old would give to his, I digress, you get the idea. My overall experience listening to folks in other vocations is that the ones who are really in the know don't take much glee in beach slapping the less fortunate. I think there is an opening here for a viral video in the vein of The Hot/Crazy Matrix... maybe The Pilot/Poser Matrix charting interesting data points to a logical conclusion.

[@alk672]

The guy probably made some sort of mistake, maybe more than one. Maybe his brakes were dragging, maybe his mixture wasn't leaned correctly, whatever. The reason he's dumb is because he bet his life on a number from a 50-year old POH that was written by salespeople. You can't do much dumber than this. A lot of mistakes are just that - mistakes, but this is not a mistake, this is stupidity. And there's another dude who is a pilot sitting right next to him. Now the guy in the left seat is a prominent aviation KZbinr, teaching us to fly. Come on.

[@jimmydulin928]

He did a good job. Level in lower ground effect from the beginning would have make the outcome not in doubt, but good job.

[@alk672]

@@jimmydulin928if making chances of your and your passenger’s survival about 50% is good job - yes, he did.

[@kwpowell0412]

Are there regulations that would not allow those trees to at least be trimmed, if not removed?