Narrative:

Before taking the active runway 28 for takeoff at selma, an uncontrolled airport, I noted that the checklist provided in the airplane called for a vr of 55 KTS. I failed, however, to notice the asterisk that referred to a note saying that 55 KTS required 2 notches of flaps (or 25 degrees). This procedure is consistent with a short field takeoff. Selma's runway is 2490 X 50 ft, which may call for a short field takeoff procedure. However, prior experience taking off from selma proved that a normal takeoff at maximum gross weight could be accomplished without the use of flaps, but at a vr of 60- 65 KTS. I calculated the weight to be 2288 pounds at takeoff (gross weight for this airplane is 2400 pounds). The center of gravity was calculated to be 91.4 inches aft of datum (allowable range of center of gravity for the weight was 89.2 - 95.2 inches, being slightly forward in this case). After lining up with the centerline of runway 28 for takeoff, I applied the brakes. I then advanced the throttle to full power, verifying full power by watching the RPM gauge reach 2500 RPM. I released the brakes and rolled approximately 700 ft down the runway before reaching 55 KTS, at which point I rotated the airplane to 5-7 degrees pitch up. The stall light came on so I reduced pitch slightly. By this time, I had reached the windsock (about 2/3 of the way down the runway) and had climbed no higher than 5 ft. I attempted to abort by landing, reducing all power, and applying maximum braking. The end of the runway was quickly approaching and I knew I could either continue braking and possibly put the plane over a 2-3 ft bank and into a canal or a grapevine field (thereby risking damage to the plane and also fatal injuries), or I could add full power and attempt to climb and avoid the obstacles, considering I still had sufficient airspeed to do so. I chose to do the latter, because it seemed to be the best possible solution at the time. However, there are power lines as low as 12-15 ft high at the departure end of runway 28. I applied full power, climbed over the bank and canal, maintained 1-2 ft clearance over the grapevines, and avoided the power lines approximately 3 ft above me. As I saw the power line pass overhead, I noted the airspeed at 65 KTS (vx), sufficient enough to establish a climb to a safe operating altitude. In my opinion, the main cause of this incident was my failure to use the correct airspeed for rotation. Contributing to this event were my lack of reliance on previous experiences for the correct rotation airspeed, misinterping the airspeed shown on the aircraft's checklist, and attempting to abort the takeoff so close to the end of the runway. My course of action may not have been the best one, but in my case the gamble paid off. In retrospect, it would have been better to continue the takeoff without attempting an abort, because eventually the aircraft would have accelerated to 65 KTS, best angle of climb speed. From this experience, I have learned to review the speeds critical to proper rotation and climb out as noted in the aircraft's poh, not the checklist, and to have a predetermined point on the airport at which to attempt a safe abort.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 PVT PLT USES THE WRONG ROTATION SPD FOR A NO FLAP TKOF. REALIZING POOR CLB PERFORMANCE PLT ATTEMPTS AN INITIAL ABORT, THEN CONTINUES TKOF SO AS TO AVOID RUNNING OFF THE END OF THE RWY. HE MANAGES TO FLY 3 FT UNDER THE PWR LINES NEAR THE END OF THE RWY DURING DEP.

Narrative: BEFORE TAKING THE ACTIVE RWY 28 FOR TKOF AT SELMA, AN UNCTLED ARPT, I NOTED THAT THE CHKLIST PROVIDED IN THE AIRPLANE CALLED FOR A VR OF 55 KTS. I FAILED, HOWEVER, TO NOTICE THE ASTERISK THAT REFERRED TO A NOTE SAYING THAT 55 KTS REQUIRED 2 NOTCHES OF FLAPS (OR 25 DEGS). THIS PROC IS CONSISTENT WITH A SHORT FIELD TKOF. SELMA'S RWY IS 2490 X 50 FT, WHICH MAY CALL FOR A SHORT FIELD TKOF PROC. HOWEVER, PRIOR EXPERIENCE TAKING OFF FROM SELMA PROVED THAT A NORMAL TKOF AT MAX GROSS WT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT THE USE OF FLAPS, BUT AT A VR OF 60- 65 KTS. I CALCULATED THE WT TO BE 2288 LBS AT TKOF (GROSS WT FOR THIS AIRPLANE IS 2400 LBS). THE CTR OF GRAVITY WAS CALCULATED TO BE 91.4 INCHES AFT OF DATUM (ALLOWABLE RANGE OF CTR OF GRAVITY FOR THE WT WAS 89.2 - 95.2 INCHES, BEING SLIGHTLY FORWARD IN THIS CASE). AFTER LINING UP WITH THE CTRLINE OF RWY 28 FOR TKOF, I APPLIED THE BRAKES. I THEN ADVANCED THE THROTTLE TO FULL PWR, VERIFYING FULL PWR BY WATCHING THE RPM GAUGE REACH 2500 RPM. I RELEASED THE BRAKES AND ROLLED APPROX 700 FT DOWN THE RWY BEFORE REACHING 55 KTS, AT WHICH POINT I ROTATED THE AIRPLANE TO 5-7 DEGS PITCH UP. THE STALL LIGHT CAME ON SO I REDUCED PITCH SLIGHTLY. BY THIS TIME, I HAD REACHED THE WINDSOCK (ABOUT 2/3 OF THE WAY DOWN THE RWY) AND HAD CLBED NO HIGHER THAN 5 FT. I ATTEMPTED TO ABORT BY LNDG, REDUCING ALL PWR, AND APPLYING MAX BRAKING. THE END OF THE RWY WAS QUICKLY APCHING AND I KNEW I COULD EITHER CONTINUE BRAKING AND POSSIBLY PUT THE PLANE OVER A 2-3 FT BANK AND INTO A CANAL OR A GRAPEVINE FIELD (THEREBY RISKING DAMAGE TO THE PLANE AND ALSO FATAL INJURIES), OR I COULD ADD FULL PWR AND ATTEMPT TO CLB AND AVOID THE OBSTACLES, CONSIDERING I STILL HAD SUFFICIENT AIRSPD TO DO SO. I CHOSE TO DO THE LATTER, BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION AT THE TIME. HOWEVER, THERE ARE PWR LINES AS LOW AS 12-15 FT HIGH AT THE DEP END OF RWY 28. I APPLIED FULL PWR, CLBED OVER THE BANK AND CANAL, MAINTAINED 1-2 FT CLRNC OVER THE GRAPEVINES, AND AVOIDED THE PWR LINES APPROX 3 FT ABOVE ME. AS I SAW THE PWR LINE PASS OVERHEAD, I NOTED THE AIRSPD AT 65 KTS (VX), SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH A CLB TO A SAFE OPERATING ALT. IN MY OPINION, THE MAIN CAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT WAS MY FAILURE TO USE THE CORRECT AIRSPD FOR ROTATION. CONTRIBUTING TO THIS EVENT WERE MY LACK OF RELIANCE ON PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES FOR THE CORRECT ROTATION AIRSPD, MISINTERPING THE AIRSPD SHOWN ON THE ACFT'S CHKLIST, AND ATTEMPTING TO ABORT THE TKOF SO CLOSE TO THE END OF THE RWY. MY COURSE OF ACTION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE BEST ONE, BUT IN MY CASE THE GAMBLE PAID OFF. IN RETROSPECT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO CONTINUE THE TKOF WITHOUT ATTEMPTING AN ABORT, BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THE ACFT WOULD HAVE ACCELERATED TO 65 KTS, BEST ANGLE OF CLB SPD. FROM THIS EXPERIENCE, I HAVE LEARNED TO REVIEW THE SPDS CRITICAL TO PROPER ROTATION AND CLBOUT AS NOTED IN THE ACFT'S POH, NOT THE CHKLIST, AND TO HAVE A PREDETERMINED POINT ON THE ARPT AT WHICH TO ATTEMPT A SAFE ABORT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.