WX at the time was: KSNT 301951Z AUTO 19008KT 26/M03 A3011 which would make the density altitude almost 8900ft! With 4 pax and likely close to (or above) max gross, they would likely have had little or no margin for error and failing to lean the mixture or a downdraft may have been the final link in the chain. Thankful to hear everyone made it out safely though.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1

I appreciate the objectivity of this forum!

Andrew's numbers are spot on. DA was 8900 ft. Wow!

Student question... even though a high sink rate is technically an incipient stall (see Air France), I've never heard a stall warning with level attitude and high angle of attack (i.e., sink). Something about the aerodynamic environment of stall tab I imagine. Anyone?

Abort? He didn't abort because he didn't plan it. Time gets gets distorted on roll-out. You have to know your time and distance points BEFORE pushing the throttle. I'm just as guilty as anyone.

My take aways...

1) Do what we don't always do... calculate V1 and know in how many feet you need to be there. If you don't get there, pull the throttle.

2) If you don't haul back on the yoke and stall the airplane, you can walk away from a tree-top landing. Despite the planning error, the Stinson pilot kept flying the airplane.

Keepeth thy airspeed up... Least the earth riseth up and smite thee!

The only air pocket I can identify was between the pilot's ears!

This video should be mandatory for every student pilot.

Yeah, what they said. However, my butt was puckering 30 seconds in.

This time I was able to see it. As a former private pilot with my instrument ticket, I see two main causes, both the responsibility of the pilot: weight and balance, and density altitude. The "downdraft" is just an excuse. The aircraft had an extremely long takeoff run and was unable to climb out. It was way behind the power curve as shown by its "mushing," especially towards the end. The aircraft was very possibly overloaded, as well. Give the pilot credit, tho, for not stalling the sucker and probably killing everyone.

Thank goodness everyone survived.

Wow!... The plane was telling the pilot emphatically, "I can't do what you're asking of me." Then, after ignoring the reality of the take-off performance ('lack of' to be more precise), miles of clear flat ground were flown over all while the plane continued to offer every indication that it was incapable of climbing to a safe altitude.

There's no indication in the video or the commentary that the PIC has a clue of how many chances they had to avoid this.

An expensive dinner trip. At the very least, if he didn't abort takeoff, I do believe I would have just turned around after not climbing anymore than that. It seems there was ample time to do one of the two. I hate to armchair on this one but I have to agree with Harry here below, seems like pilot error no matter how you want to dress it up.

That was crazy.

I am a loss to understand why he continued the take offs ( there were 2) and not determine there was something wrong. High, hot, over gross, possible engine loss of full power (leaning, or low compression) or whatever reason, that aircraft barely flew out of ground effect, and then not for very long. I Fly into a one way in, one way out 600' grass strip in a valley @1600' , and to see him keep trying to put that plane into the air with all that runway, and virtually no obstacles, blows my mind. We are taught that every accident has a chain of events and in order to prevent an accident, you have to break the chain. Lots of links in this accidents chain, and you can bet there are more we don't know about.

You guys bring up valid points. Many of them echoing exactly what I was thinking while watching the video. The other was "Climb b**&*, climb!!!"

Out of curiosity, I checked out the weight and balance of a default Stinson 108-3 from http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/ac-0.htm#DocumManual
Using the spreadsheet I found there and changing nothing but the weight of 4 packs (assumed weight of 180 pounds per for 4 males), and a full tank of fuel (45 gallons U.S.) (I gave the benefit of a doubt for 1 gallon burned for taxi) and no baggage puts him at 2404 lbs. Which would be 4 pounds over gross. IMHO, he was at the edge/outside of his envelope on an average day. Please don't flame me, this is just what I found curious, and what I did to see if I was right. I suspect NTSB will do the exact same thing, but in much more detail.

Great vid for weight and balance training.
Glad to see they made it out o.k.

Perfect demonstration of hazardous attitude (it won't happen to me). They are all very lucky to be alive.

It's sad. This was ultimately caused by "get home-itis". That little virus that affects a pilot's ego into thinking that he can do the impossible. It's usually manifested by thinking that you have enough fuel to make it non-stop to your home field. Often it appears by thinking "the weather will break before we arrive" or the often fatal just count "3 potato" before executing the missed approach. Because you just might see the field.
I don't fly small aircraft so I don't know the performance capabilities of this one. But even I saw this coming in the takeoff roll. I'm guessing by the total silence of the passengers and pilot they did as well. Not a single word like... "we're not climbing", "hold on we're going into the tree", etc.

Any Stinson pilots who can comment on this video? At standard pressure, the density altitude was about 7,000 feet. I think the Stinson should have been airborne in less than 800 feet. Before the first bounce, the takeoff roll had been 40 seconds, which means they covered at least 1,200 feet, but I think it was more. It seems there was a performance problem other than weight and density altitude. We single engine pilots absolutely must calculate the abort point in advance, then delete wishful thinking and pull the throttle if you don't make it. It seems the throttle should have been pulled long before the first bounce.

What I find weird is I didn't hear anyone shouting expletives before, during or after the crash in fact they don't seem to say anything. It's as if they are in some kind of trance.

Even if the passengers were non-pilots you would think that they would have had a sense of their impending doom and expressed concern to the pilot.

Just from the start the pilot should have abandoned takeoff, if it is taking that long to get airborne and it is obviously because of density altitude and temperature then you should know it is going to be incredibly hard plus with 4 grown men inside. Sorry but this is the pilot's error and he put his passengers in great danger.

Definately pilot error and incompetance! After lift off, he had plenty of warning that things weren't going well. He ignored that and wound up in the trees instead of putting it down on flat ground when he had the chance.

I posted the NTSB data (preliminary) and my comment on the video page (badgyro1). The Stinson may not have been overloaded but there were some definite errors that, luckily, did not exact as high a price as might have been.

The YouTube video comments mentioned "air pocket"? Really? How about downdraft. But it appears the aircraft was too heavy, high density altitude conditions and marginal piloting common sense/skills.

Man...132 Member Comments! This situation obviously hit a nerve with a lot of people...including me! Let's not beat a dead horse. Everything is good and there was a lot of great input and theories about the mishap. Let's put it to bed.

Sad, hope no one was hurt. David Fisher, Western Aviation, Inc.

Looks like the pilot was in a state of denial. When the plane had such a long take off roll he should have settled down and reassessed the weight.

lot we can learn here, I think.

1). get current weather, calculate density altitude, runway needed to takeoff, and Weight and Balance BEFORE you load the plane!

2). set a RTO point visually down the runway, plane not off the ground by then, stop the takeoff!

3). set 10 degrees of flaps

4). plane not climbing, put it back down STRAIGHT ahead.

really looks like he shouldn't have gotten past number 1

To Mr. Farr's stall warning question - small planes generally use one of two means to detect stall - a vane (tab) or reed opening. I believe the Stinson uses the vane type (Stinson pilots-comment?). Neither actually detect a stall but rather are designed to detect the angle of attack where a stall is expected. Icing is a common condition where there is inadequate lift in spite of appropriate AOA. Being overloaded / relatively overloaded for density altitude is another.

I started watching this without sound - immediately thought "overloaded" but was confused so I started listening, expecting to hear comments regarding "tree top flying" to get some good camera shots (noting the video equipment on board). Started listening - bothersome silence in the cabin. Looks like things got ugly during the turn - shows you how close to the margin of lift they were at, only took a little loss of lift of the inside wing to seal their fate. Not that (as pretty much everyone saw right away) it wasn't clear from the beginning that the plane could hardly get out of the ground effect. I think Mr. Stagg got it just right - it is unusual (?unheard of) that an accident happens because of only one factor / error / failure. It is usually a series of events that leads to a failure (and maybe the turn was the nail in the ...)

Agreed. The pilot made a series of horrible decisions which could have been avoided. It's downright pathetic that the pilot would put his passengers in harms way. What's worse is he had the chance to stop it all before it began.

If you watch the video, it is clear that the pilot had several chances, and should have, aborted the takeoff. Why didn't he?

(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Video of Crash Into the Trees - Idaho Wilderness

Any Stinson pilots who can comment on this video? At standard pressure, the density altitude was about 7,000 feet. I think the Stinson should have been airborne in less than 800 feet. Before the first bounce, the takeoff roll had been 40 seconds, which means they covered at least 1,200 feet, but I think it was more. It seems there was a performance problem other than weight and density altitude. We single engine pilots absolutely must calculate the abort point in advance, then delete wishful thinking and pull the throttle if you don't make it. It seems the throttle should have been pulled long before the first bounce.

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Amazing-first-person-video-of-a-plane-crash-in-Idaho-wilderness-165483276.html

Thank God they are all alive.

WOW......glad everyone was ok!

Don't forget the prop is biting less air molecules here... just like the wing.
Less air=less flying.

On ABC's Good Morning America today, they interviewed the pilot and two of his PX. They got congratulated for surviving and all, but no one asked why the plane went down and the pilot sure didn't volunteer any reason.

Density altitude, density altitude, density altitude.....READ SPARKY IMESON'S book!
a lesson to all pilots.

A student pilot, early in training, would've realized it was a no go and just settled the plane back down in the flat area beyond the runway.

High and hot will equaled a longer then normal takeoff run- I honestly didn't see anything wrong with the takeoff. He was flyng into rising terrain. 1. 10 degrees of flaps would've helped. 2. A performance evaluation prior to takeoff should've been done.
3. KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, those trees were above his climb gradient. He should've turned around and flown downhill, till establishing enough ALT

I think it started as they took off from that goat trail, masquerading as a runway. Runway was so bumpy that he couldn't get speed up to take off. When you can see the end of the runway, and you're still on the ground, it's time to abort.

Amazing footage!

"This video is private.
Sorry about that."

I'd like to see it, but I get the same thing quoted by Bill Winslow, below

poor piloting.....thank GOD they all survived

Amazing that everyone survived. I'm not a pilot, but it looked like the plane was having trouble gaining altitude the whole time.

I believe its an old Cessna 170, old enough to have a venturi tube on the side of the cowl to run the gyro instruments. It's a tail dragger, so it's not a 152. Also, it holds 4 SOBs, so it's not the Cub. The control yoke looks like what's in the Cessna.

Nope, not a Cessna. It's a Stinson 108-3, according to preacher's comment from Daniel's link.

could've been really tragic..poor decisions. live ya learn

He hit an "air pocket". Now I understand!

Looks like a tiny hint of tailwind too ... from wx history. Moist air over trees sometimes more humid, less lift. Pilot info recommends 230 tkoff, 5 for landing here. Maybe also the fuel grade. It's very hard to watch ... esp due to a very close call (in a 172), the first-time fullgross on the hot day on which I got my PPL

Student question: Why didn't the stall warning sound? I guess the wings never entered a stall but the power wasn't enough to climb into the rising terrain? The turn before the crash reminds me a bit of the fatal crash video from 1984 in Colorado. I knew when I saw it here that it would be bad.

agree with everyone else,as a flight instructor,that flight was overafter the first time it settled back to the runway!

I am not a pilot, but a well travelled passenger. I would have been nervous as hell during that so called take off run and probably said something- but grew up with a pilot in the family who believed you did not question the pilot and i guess that's how you end up in the trees.

No lift...No Takeoff. Just comes down to fundamentals and "Flying 101". He had they opportunatey to abort but chose not to. Definately the guy has a common sense issue...or the lack of. All of the drama could have been avoided.

This adventure ran out of "skill and knowledge" with a lucky outcome......Let us all learm from this.

The Pilot ignored all the (Density Altitude) performance clues... High, Hot, and Humid. High density altitude corresponds to reduced air density and thus to reduced aircraft performance.
There are three important factors that contribute to high density altitude:
1. Altitude. The higher the altitude, the less dense the air. At airports in higher elevations, such as those in the western United States, high temperatures sometimes have such an effect on density altitude that safe operations
are impossible. In such conditions, operations between midmorning and midafternoon can become extremely hazardous. Even at lower elevations, aircraft performance can become marginal and it may be necessary to reduce aircraft gross weight for safe operations.

like I said,,,,everyone should read Sparky's Mountain Flying Bible wether you are are flatlander or not. PERIOD. (your comments on the three H's are right on)

The air was real hot so coupled by this and the runway altitude, they had little air for lift!

And the son said how the pilot was responsible for no one getting hurt badly or killed. I was just as responsible for rolling snake eyes on the AC crap table. Only problem was I was trying to get a seven.

Seems to like he was struggling to gain altitude during the entire flight, which maybe a weight and balance issue.

The accident was 100% due to poor aeronautical decision making.

With a density altitude of 9200, and loaded near or over MGW, N773C should not have attempted take-off from U63 on 2012-06-30 at 14:05 MDT.

Further, when it couldn't get out of ground effect by the end of the 5000' runway, the take-off should have been aborted in the field past the runway, rather than in the trees in ascending terrain.

I'm @ a loss of words for this one. It's sad to see what I believe to be a rational human being make such poor decisions and for what? Maybe ego, maybe not bottom line is that this should have never happened.

The "air" was as dense as this guys brain...not to mention weight...and he didn't have the "brain matter" to Pull the Plug on the throttle after he hit the runway again after rotating! "Full Stop"! He had a lot of room to recover! Obviously, it didn't register. Flying into the trees? It's a given, you go nose up and cushion the impact with the belly but he was too low, too slow and too heavy to accomplish that maneuver. Forgive me but I don't have compassion for stupity.

I'm pretty sure that I heard the stall warning as I posted previously. Pretty faint but I think it is there.

Eagle, the pilot didn't volunteer information because he knew he wasn't being responsible and he almost killed his pax..."friends", onboard! He is trying to protect his "&*%" to compensate for the several mistakes that he made.

No eagle. He didn't have the power or the altitude to do that. Just put "her" down...after the first bounce with the gear and everything would have been "peachy". Where's "Curiosity" when you need him?

Beautiful scenery...kind of an unusual way to become one with it.

AOPA has an article that includes some additional details from an interview with the pilot -- http://www.aopa.org/training/articles/2012/120814youtube-crash-pilot-was-going-to-abort.html

The aircraft was making it pretty clear to the pilot that it didn't want to climb for some time before the crash. Would 10-15 deg. flap have made any difference?

I'm not sure that flaps would have made much of a difference. The plane was probably well over it's gross weight with 4 good sized guys in it. Too many bad things going against it.

If I'm not mistaken, the so called downdraft was the stall. I thought I heard the warning horn. If I'm wrong about this ignore my comment. However, turning around would have been worse. Too low... Too slow. Straight ahead landing (crash) best decision. My opinion is an overloaded plane. I mean if the plane settles to the ground and he continued takeoff then this is definitely pilot error. Anyway you cut this NTSB will attribute the crash to pilot error. I smell lawsuit also.

Thank God they are lived. This video should be required viewing for every student pilot, and even for high time pilots.

Flying in high temperatures/terrain/mountains, with obstructions, etc.: If, at takeoff, you don't immediately climb at 300'/min (a good safety margin), abort the takeoff if possible.... Density altitude miscalculations or ignorance can kill you, sometimes seriously!

Extremely poor piloting, he had all indications that he did not have enough power right from the beginning but he chose to continue.

Its amazing how few of the people commenting even know what kind of AC it is, Cessna 180s dont have two struts on the wing only one, also look at the cowl and ventury neither are cessna, the venturi on cessnas is lower and further to the back.Its a Stinson like was finally pointed out. Also at low airspeed one does not turn back as then it will stall and spin in. Another thing most misse it became airborn,listen to the sound of the wheels on the ground, it stops whle still over the dirt and then starts again on the grass finally stops indicating it finally stayed in the air untill it ran out of airspeed and altitude. Some of you should not even comment just look at those who know the kind of AC and what really happned, 10 degrees wouldnt have helped get anything done as it didnt have enough power to make it happen other than the final outcome which ment the dumb pilot killed a good airplane and no a 108 isnt really a four place airplane either, just has four seat.

That little plane was struggle to gain altitude....overweight

WHAT THE HELL!! 4 people in the decathlon with max fuel. The pilot was WAY over his weight limit!!

Seems to me that flying it straight into the trees was the only good choice that was made here... Just sayin...

Wow!

Field elevation 6300 feet....Temperature 82f...density altitude 8900 feet........mixture full rich...taking off with a tail wind.....overloaded plane.....using the published nonfavored runway......crash....priceless......pilot an idiot.

Dumb Ass

It's back! Wow what a ride. Sure glad everyone survived. Did you happen to notice the extensive pine beetle damage forest they were attempting to fly over.

What sort of explanation is that? How about, aircraft overloaded and dangerous low flying?

If DA is already 8900 at zero AGL, what's the chance the pilot is also still under some effect of high altitude hypoxia since the DA over the mountains is much higher on his trip in to Bruce Meadows from Boise for pickup.

8900 plus .....

I watched it, no problem..try again.

Maybe someone can tell me the type of aircraft. Looks like a 152 or Piper Cub to me.

Did anyone notice there is at the very beginning of the film a another person in the rear seat holding a second camera. My thoughts are OVER WEIGHT!! That may be the reason he could not acquire altitude. I had a PA28 near maximum weight and it takes time to climb to altitude. Put trees in the way and you may have problems being overweight, especially with stalling if you try to climb too fast.

I just watched the video. I had no problems.

Do you have a YouTube account?

Perfect example, of the failure, of the law of natural selection by nature to weed out the inferior.