Four Case Western Students Killed in 172 Crash

It's entirely reasonable to put 4 average sized adults in a 172. You just need to be careful there's not too much gas (run your numbers) make sure you've got plenty of runway and power available for takeoff (run your numbers), verify you still have enough fuel to make the trip or plan to land somewhere within reserves (run your numbers), and ensure enough runway is available for landing (run your numbers).

I guess the moral of the story, is if you're gonna do it, as long as you do pilot stuff, it can be made perfectly safe.
 
JEP said:
Could engine trouble have been a problem? possibly

Could W&B have been a problem? possibly

Any accident is a chain of events that could have been broken at any time with different results. Nobody is arguing it is a simple discussion. If you don't like or choose not to contribute to the discussion, then move along. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Oh okay. Let's take a random C172R weight and balance sheet that google has provided. Empty, 1629.3. Gross, 2450.0. Useful 820.7. For reference, the standard 172R poh states useful load 818.

Load it up. Pilot 170lbs, 3 passengers of 170 lbs. These were all kids between 18-20. If they were normal healthy kids, that's not out of the question. They may have been lighter. Add 22 gallons of fuel. You've got 1.5hrs + reserve. Basically at gross weight, and well within CG range.

Let's say they were bigger kids, and were over gross. It was 75 degrees at their time of take off. Airport Elevation 879'. I still don't think they would have had an issue climbing.

I've personally had 4 adults in 172s 5+ times. All were within weight/cg, all flew fine.
 
"Tyler Evans was driving down Bishop Road when he saw the crash.

"It took off, it stalled, went up hooked and then it went down and crashed over here," he said."

""We heard the propeller, like you could here that something was wrong with it," said Ruzanna Tovmasyan who then heard the crash. "

"Another neighbor Mark Gerald also heard the engine sputtering.

"Kind of like a backfiring sound, like the engine was trying to quit," he said. "You knew there was something wrong with the motor no question. We hear these planes all day long.""

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-lake/plane-crashes-in-willoughby-hills-in-lake-county
 
KKochan said:
"Tyler Evans was driving down Bishop Road when he saw the crash.

"It took off, it stalled, went up hooked and then it went down and crashed over here," he said."

""We heard the propeller, like you could here that something was wrong with it," said Ruzanna Tovmasyan who then heard the crash. "

"Another neighbor Mark Gerald also heard the engine sputtering.

"Kind of like a backfiring sound, like the engine was trying to quit," he said. "You knew there was something wrong with the motor no question. We hear these planes all day long.""

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-lake/plane-crashes-in-willoughby-hills-in-lake-county
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, those witnesses may as well have said a flying saucer came down and fired lasers at the Cessna. I have zero faith in witness statements from the general public.
 
GypsyPilot said:
As far as I'm concerned, those witnesses may as well have said a flying saucer came down and fired lasers at the Cessna. I have zero faith in witness statements from the general public.
Click to expand...


Seems to happen :)
images.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentich_disappearance
 
Just flew up to 7k' with two other decent sized gents and pretty full tanks on an 85 degree day (it was still 70 degrees at 7k') with no problem. I could see full tanks, another big dude, and 20 degrees warmer being a bit of a problem though.
 
Performance across weights is a broad spectrum, not a black and white "legal or not legal." We all remember how the airplane took off like a rocket on our first solo after the instructor got out. A small amount of weight can make a large difference, especially in climb rate. Have I loaded up 4 people in a C172, calculated a careful W&B, and been perfectly legal? Yes. Have I scared myself half to death in that very same legal airplane by hearing the stall warning horn go off in what I thought was a reasonable pitch attitude for climb based on my experience at a much lower weight? Yep, done that too.
 
flyinguitar said:
Performance across weights is a broad spectrum, not a black and white "legal or not legal." We all remember how the airplane took off like a rocket on our first solo after the instructor got out. A small amount of weight can make a large difference, especially in climb rate. Have I loaded up 4 people in a C172, calculated a careful W&B, and been perfectly legal? Yes. Have I scared myself half to death in that very same legal airplane by hearing the stall warning horn go off in what I thought was a reasonable pitch attitude for climb based on my experience at a much lower weight? Yep, done that too.
Click to expand...
Interesting point. On this flight, I had 3 dudes and a normal sized girl in the plane, weights were legal, did some non-standard flying, listened to my ass(you can totally say ass on here), everything was groovy. You bring up a good point with the experience at lower weight comment, I think it's important that people understand the airplane is going to fly differently depending on many factors including weight and thus you can't always depend on standard pitch attitudes and what not. On departure in a 172, whatever attitude gives me 75knots on the climbout is what I'll fly, because that's what the airplane wants to do. I can see always pitching to the same attitude after rotation leading to bad things, like what you mentioned. But again, if you have the airplane within weight and CG limits, consider runway length and density altitude, then I don't see a problem. Just nurse the plane a bit when you first takeoff to see how it's going to handle, then do that pilot stuff. Thus far, never had an "oh crap" moment that had anything to do with a heavy but legal airplane nor heard a stall horn anytime I wasn't expecting it.
 
At gross weight even with a good engine they'd already be low & slow, and not have enough of one to swap for the other. Turn that good engine to bad and they're in serious trouble. Try to turn the airplane around - which increases stall speed - and they're done.

I just looked at the airport & crash location on Google Earth, and they apparently took off to the NE on RWY 06, 5,102' x 100'. A golf course is under the immediate flight path. If I flew out of that airport I'd know that, and it would become my dead engine primary landing objective. Why didn't he go for it? Perhaps because his engine was sick - not dead - and he though he could make a 180 to the airport. Perhaps because it was dark (sunset at 8:08, takeoff at 10:00) and he knew that he couldn't see the trees on the golf course.

One other thought: Do we know for sure that the engine wasn't performing correctly? With a young, relatively inexperienced pilot, this may have been the first time he's flown at gross weight. I wonder if he misinterpreted nominal, sluggish climb performance for a sick engine, turned, stalled and crashed. The NTSB final may answer that.

I'm not being critical: I'm just trying to understand what happened and why the pilot did what he did.
 
Murdoughnut said:
This. I've done it in a 160 horse 172P at 82-degrees. Made sure the last guy didn't refill and took fuel 50lbs shy of max t/o weight and was well within margins. Plane performed just fine.
Click to expand...
I have legally flown a lot of over gross light aircraft - it is surprising what the FAA grants waivers for when no passengers are carried.

Given enough runway, an overweight 172 will fly just fine, with a long takeoff roll and bad climb performance, but given it got off the ground, it is unlikely that weight with the CG in range would cause loss of control.

An engine out, at night, close to the ground? Well, that is just about the worst case scenario I can imagine. Perhaps only a fire could make it worse.

Personally, my biggest fear is not taking enough fuel. Being 10 lbs under Max gross and running the tanks dry is a far more likely accident scenario - being 10 lbs over with fuel is where I would prefer a rounding error in the math.
 
The only thing weight likely has to do with this is stall speed calculation and glide ratios.

Anyone have the full N #? I believe I have flown this aircraft.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Interesting point. On this flight, I had 3 dudes and a normal sized girl in the plane, weights were legal, did some non-standard flying, listened to my ass(you can totally say ass on here), everything was groovy. You bring up a good point with the experience at lower weight comment, I think it's important that people understand the airplane is going to fly differently depending on many factors including weight and thus you can't always depend on standard pitch attitudes and what not. On departure in a 172, whatever attitude gives me 75knots on the climbout is what I'll fly, because that's what the airplane wants to do. I can see always pitching to the same attitude after rotation leading to bad things, like what you mentioned. But again, if you have the airplane within weight and CG limits, consider runway length and density altitude, then I don't see a problem. Just nurse the plane a bit when you first takeoff to see how it's going to handle, then do that pilot stuff. Thus far, never had an "oh crap" moment that had anything to do with a heavy but legal airplane nor heard a stall horn anytime I wasn't expecting it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was a fresh private pilot and distracted at the time. You are 100% correct, one should always re-evaluate their pitch attitude in climb based on what the airspeed is doing - and adjust accordingly. I was distracted (climbing out of Teterboro, VFR, with 3 friends in the summer, after a departure delayed by fog, with residual haze, the radio chatter constant, trying to find landmarks off the side of the nose, and worried about busting airspace or missing a radio call), inexperienced, and my scan was poor. It was a good learning experience.
 
I wish instructors would stop teaching kids to turn back 180 for the runway if an engine quits. Even if you're 700 feet, no matter what you've practiced, in real life, your first engine failure will definitely be a "oh ****" moment. Yes you can do your engine out A-B-Cs but at the end of the day, your heart is going to be pumping strong with adrenaline. All it takes is a drop in airspeed as you make a 180 back, and the rest is history. Most likely a stall/spin will ensue. You are far better off throwing out flaps and bringing it down at an appropriate speed straight ahead or maybe a couple degrees left/right of course. There are youtube videos of guys literally flying into trees and living because they controlled their airplane the entire time, had full flaps, and hit at a minimum speed just above stall. They basically "landed" into trees and lived. Many more have done so on grass fields, roads, etc.

************* I'm not saying an engine out, turn back, stall/spin is the reason for this accident. Time will tell what the cause was with a thorough investigation.
 
@Cherokee_Cruiser I agree with you. The 180 back to a runway is always a tempting choice for most and most want to save the plane. The only way to drive home the point the 180 isn't the best option is for CFI's to throw this at students without warning and let them screw it up and see they would have been short or would have stalled if you the CFI didn't intervene. I was always taught save yourself not the plane in the event of this scenario or having to land off field.

This along with many other things this needs to be practice in training....
 
gotWXdagain said:
Have we thought about the possibility of partial power loss? Nobody teaches partial power loss on climbout it seems like.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was also wondering about partial power loss. Binary issues are pretty simple to deal with, whether engine power, vacuum system in IMC, lights at night, gear fully extended or retracted, etc. But when system partially or slowly fail - that's when experience and judgment save the day.

Direct link to the prelim is here: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140825X32653&key=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top