Plane down in PTK

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not adding to speculation, but throwing out a "what if" to those that automatically assume there was negligence.

Fair enough. Let's say he was only close to MTOW on a hot summer day. For those not comfortable with negligence, can I get any votes for bad judgement?

Is there a 172 that wouldn't be overweight with three average men, one average woman, and a full fuel load (yes, this case could have used a partial fuel load)?
 
Fair enough. Let's say he was only close to MTOW on a hot summer day. For those not comfortable with negligence, can I get any votes for bad judgement?

Is there a 172 that wouldn't be overweight with three average men, one average woman, and a full fuel load (yes, this case could have used a partial fuel load).
Yes, old 172s with minimal avionics and a 2550 lb max gross STC with 180 HP.
 
Fair enough. Let's say he was only close to MTOW on a hot summer day. For those not comfortable with negligence, can I get any votes for bad judgement?

Is there a 172 that wouldn't be overweight with three average men, one average woman, and a full fuel load (yes, this case could have used a partial fuel load).

We don't know enough about his experience or how he was trained to know. Perhaps he was trained poorly? Maybe he just didn't really understand density altitude, and didn't have the experience to shore up that lack of knowledge.

To have negligence and/or bad judgement, you must fully understand the action and outcomes, and proceed anyway.

We don't know enough about his mental state or training to make those assumptions here.
 
How many times have I had a passenger and I have to ask.

"how much do you weigh, and I need an honest answer"

Rip to these people.

That being said, I flew one load of jumpers one day, me plus 5 meat bombs in a 182s, and I'm not a small guy, W&B was over by 80 pounds, I made that cocky decision once, never again, needless to say a 3000' runway at +25C was not something I wish to repeat
 
Maybe they were heavy, maybe it was too hot, humid, whatever. By the way, anyone have the METAR at the time of the accident?


In any case, I've spent enough time trying to squeeze maximum power out of internal combustion engines to say this:

Just because an engine is rated at a given power output, and it checks out that all systems are functioning normally.... that means absolutely nothing regarding how much power you are actually making. ESPECIALLY with carbureted equipped engines. Even MORE so with large-bore engines with high combustion chamber volume. That's probably the least efficient configuration possible. All performance numbers are predicated on power output, and it is most certainly a variable. It's variable due to density altitude, sure. But it's variable just on it's own for a whole host of factors.

If you've ever spent time tuning all available parameters on a car or motorcycle engine, you'll realize quickly that the few engine controls a piston airplane is equipped with are more antiquated and less precise than trying to sync carburetors by holding a piece of cardboard over the butterfly valves.

I'd be doubly suspicious of a rental vehicle of any kind.








In any case... what a sad situation. Every time something like this happens I'm reminded of all the dumb-ass mistakes I've made, how badly it could have gone, and how lucky I am to be here.
 
While I, of course, strictly follow any and all FAA regulations, being in Alaska I've spent a fair amount of time around old timers who have all kinds of stories about flying anywhere from slightly to ludicrously heavy. As I understand it, most of our aircraft will fly just fine heavy, though obviously with reduced performance. I would have a hard time seeing a simple overload causing an accident like this. What does catch some people by surprise (so I've heard) is the difference in handling characteristics that an aircraft loaded to or over gross and even at the aft CG limit will exhibit. Whether that was a factor in this case, we may never know for sure.

I know that probably the closest I've come to balling up an airplane involved a heavy load and maneuvering down low.
 
No, this is the type of accident we should all be immune from.

Except for that we don't know what happened yet and jumping to conclusions is just talking out of our asses at this point.

Yes the pilot mentioned something about weight, but maybe the engine was actually making partial power and he hadn't noticed that. He was a new guy and anyone who thinks they knew everything as a newly minted private pilot is kidding themselves. I have over 4,000 hours and I still make mistakes that have me shaking my head. That is one of the best benefits of a two person environment, redundancy.
 
Factual Report is out
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/GenPDF.aspx?id=CEN13FA364&rpt=fa

Looks like it could have been over weight, but the estimated weight done for the investigation shows it just barely under MTOW.

It suggests that the pilot was not familiar enough on this aircraft as most of his time was most of time was DUAL in a SR20
Sounds like the flaps may have been full down too unless I read that incorrectly, and maybe engine trouble as well? Bad day
 
Sounds like the flaps may have been full down too unless I read that incorrectly, and maybe engine trouble as well? Bad day

Yes the flaps were at 40 degrees. He may not have noticed this and the flaps operate differently between the sr20 and 172. I would have swore the flaps in that plane had the preselectable switch for flap position vs the toggle switch they describe. Could be wrong I flew a lot of 172 models.

The engine trouble couldn't not be confirmed and the engine was making power when it hit the ground. It could have sputtered if the primer was not locked in also he was used to fuel injected engines.

A lot went wrong that day. I was in the plane getting a clearance when it happened.
 
Yes the flaps were at 40 degrees. He may not have noticed this and the flaps operate differently between the sr20 and 172. I would have swore the flaps in that plane had the preselectable switch for flap position vs the toggle switch they describe. Could be wrong I flew a lot of 172 models.

The engine trouble couldn't not be confirmed and the engine was making power when it hit the ground. It could have sputtered if the primer was not locked in also he was used to fuel injected engines.

A lot went wrong that day. I was in the plane getting a clearance when it happened.
Sad man... Yeah some of the 172s had the preselects others didn't. Too hard to keep track.
 
Pilot Fighter and chrisreedrules - this is what 99.5% of your comments make me do:
tumblr_m44m4nC3XD1r3qz8j.jpg




.

Fixed it for you
 
Yes the flaps were at 40 degrees. He may not have noticed this and the flaps operate differently between the sr20 and 172. I would have swore the flaps in that plane had the preselectable switch for flap position vs the toggle switch they describe. Could be wrong I flew a lot of 172 models.

The engine trouble couldn't not be confirmed and the engine was making power when it hit the ground. It could have sputtered if the primer was not locked in also he was used to fuel injected engines.

A lot went wrong that day. I was in the plane getting a clearance when it happened.

The M model just has an up/neutral/down switch for the the flaps. It's very possible that the switch fell or was bumped into the down position. Ive had that switch fall into the down position on climb out before...you don't exactly climb well with 40 degrees of flaps in a 172.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top