Cessna 172 fatal plane crash in SE Michigan

[rottydaddy]

Weight alone isn't a big deal. CG is the killer.

CG out of limits is definitely bad at any weight, but the big problem with overloading is that pilots forget that the V-speeds all increase with weight, and going above max gross takes you out of the realm of published V-speeds for the airplane. It becomes a test flight.
This one looks classic: poor climb due to the weight, pilot tries to make it climb with elevator, then tries to turn (and of course the bank bumps the stall speed up even more). All too common.

 

[wabower]

Were they afraid you were going to climb in for the trip?

BTDT. In my case, I saw two big guys preflighting a 152 at KAPA in Denver. It was early morning, summer, temps already in the 80's and expected to go well into the 90's.

Went over and asked where they were headed. "Pueblo" was the answer. To go to the aircraft museum, have lunch, and come back.

"Sounds great," I said. "We're you thinking of taxiing the whole way back?" And walked away.

They were last seen re-tying down the airplane.

 

[wabower]

I have "non-published" (to the GA public) overweight ops charts for some airplanes. Speeds actually change very little, but runway required and climb gradients do. Without obstructions, most of the flights actually have a decent chance of success. When learning to fly in COS during the summer, we knew the 65-hp trainers would use much more runway than anybody would ever think necessary, then finally get light on the wheels and finally fly and eventually reach the 600' pattern altitude just in time for the base-leg turn.

CG out of limits is definitely bad at any weight, but the big problem with overloading is that pilots forget that the V-speeds all increase with weight, and going above max gross takes you out of the realm of published V-speeds for the airplane. It becomes a test flight.
This one looks classic: poor climb due to the weight, pilot tries to make it climb with elevator, then tries to turn (and of course the bank bumps the stall speed up even more). All too common.

 

[gismo]

I have "non-published" (to the GA public) overweight ops charts for some airplanes. Speeds actually change very little, but runway required and climb gradients do. Without obstructions, most of the flights actually have a decent chance of success. When learning to fly in COS during the summer, we knew the 65-hp trainers would use much more runway than anybody would ever think necessary, then finally get light on the wheels and finally fly and eventually reach the 600' pattern altitude just in time for the base-leg turn.

That makes perfect sense. Speed goes up with the square root of the weight but takeoff distance can increase with something between the square and the cube of the weight (it's even worse over an obstacle. More weight means slower acceleration which requires more distance to reach a given speed, higher liftoff speed which increases that distance even more, and a climb gradient that's reduced by both the higher required climb speed and the reduced climb rate. The climb rate itself is hit with a triple whammy as well. Climb rate is directly proportional to the excess power produced beyond what's needed to maintain level flight divided by the gross weight. With a higher weight, more power is required to maintain level flight at the same airspeed, a higher airspeed is needed which leaves even less power for climbing, and the significantly reduced excess power has to lift more weight.

To put that into numbers, a 10% increase in weight would increase liftoff and climb speeds by 4.9% but the takeoff roll could increase by 33% or more if any significant climb is required after liftoff.

 

[skidoo]

Once, when training, I leaned the mix for ground ops and forgot to go full before takeoff. Apparently, it wasn't leaned so much to give me a rough engine at full throttle. With just me and the instructor on board, it took off and climbed, but much slower than normal. So, I quickly scanned the panel and noticed the mixture significantly out. Immediately, I pushed it in and power seemed to about double and it resumed normal climb characteristics.

If the same thing happened at gross weight, I can imagine not being able to climb out, and I wonder is something like this could have occurred.

 

[dmspilot]

But it's very unlikely he got stuck near stall speed for the whole two or three minutes he was aloft. For one thing, the stall horn would be blaring. But in his final radio transmission, there's no such sound (there is an periodic beep, but its intervals sound too regular for it to be a stall warning).

More importantly, near stall speed at 100' AGL, the nose would be so high that there'd be no forward visibility. But two minutes out, the pilot managed to turn the plane around and return to the runway, crashing on short final--an implausible feat to perform blind.

You are right that forcing the aircraft aloft would likely result in a much shorter flight than this one. I don't wish to speculate on the cause of the accident, as I believe there is not enough information to do so. CG out of limits (in addition to weight) or engine trouble as discussed by other members sound like plausible reasons.

That might be true; I really don't know. That's why I'm hoping someone can point me to definitive data on the question. I'd like to know not only how much over gross a 172M (or similar) has sometimes successfully taken off at 2000-3000' DA or higher, but also how LITTLE over gross a (properly functioning) 172M has sometimes UNsuccessfully taken off at similar DA (with such poor climb performance that the plane had to abort takeoff or immediately return for landing).

One could simulate the condition by noting climb performance at various bank angles. A 172M at maximum allowable gross weight in a 45 degree bank would simulate being overweight by 950 pounds. Do you think it's impossible to maintain altitude above 3000 feet in a steep turn?

 

[acrophile]

One could simulate the condition by noting climb performance at various bank angles. A 172M at maximum allowable gross weight in a 45 degree bank would simulate being overweight by 950 pounds. Do you think it's impossible to maintain altitude above 3000 feet in a steep turn?

Thanks, that's an excellent point. Clearly a 172M could indeed maintain altitude in that situation.

I do wonder what its climb performance would be, though. Is it much more than 100 fpm? Such a climb rate would have kept the accident plane from gaining much more than 100' before turning around 2 minutes after takeoff clearance was issued.

The steep-turn experiment may be precluded by the 172's "no acrobatic maneuvers" placard for normal-category weight. (It depends on how to interpret "acrobatic"; but the placard does go on to list "steep turns" as one of the "acrobatic maneuvers" that is permitted for utility-category weight.) But it would certainly be possible to do a modified version of the experiment using utility-category weight and balance.

 

[Mike5250]

The 172 I fly holds 820# with full (38gal) fuel. I did a similar w/b scenario to David and getting it loaded aft of cg was impossible unless you loaded up luggage and the heaviest passengers in the back seat.

I have flown the 172m 4 adults, a few lbs under gross and was lucky to get 400 ft/min. Performance was similar to a c150 near gross. I wouldn't think of going over, especially this time of year.

Rip, hopefully people learn from each accident like this.

 

[rainsux]

> ... many pilots who insist it's safe to launch when "a little > over the limit. If that was the culture at KPTK ... PTK is a large GA operation. 554 planes based here. There are many cultures on the field. Flight 101 has a good reputation. Seems that he had waaay too much flap deployed for the situation at hand.

 

[acrophile]

Seems that he had waaay too much flap deployed for the situation at hand.

I just noticed in the wreckage images that the flaps look fully deployed. Assuming that wasn't somehow a result of the crash, I wonder if he took off that way. Do you know if anyone observed the takeoff?

Flaps wouldn't be called for at all in that situation (not a short or soft field takeoff), let alone full flaps. I wonder if he might have neglected to retract them after the pre-flight inspection. Seems like it would be hard not to notice, though.

Maybe he just deployed flaps for the landing (the plane was on short final when it stalled), and he overdid it. But flaps on takeoff would help explain the plane's limited climb performance, as well as the eventual stall.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

RIP

I see people who normally fly solo, then take 3 friends, bags up etc, planes handle noticeably different when heavily loaded, especially to a pilot who doesnt fly "full" gross often.

 

[Warrior]

RIP

I see people who normally fly solo, then take 3 friends, bags up etc, planes handle noticeably different when heavily loaded, especially to a pilot who doesnt fly "full" gross often.

I noticed that on a hot day, and after a 27 year break from flying with a bfr that wasn't possibly as thorough as it could have been when I flew a fully loaded PA 28-160 hp that the climbout was pretty sluggish! It was "noticeably different" like you said. Thankfully I had a nice long runway and was more or less taking off from 60 feet above sea level.

 

[mondtster]

Alternatively, has anyone here ever had to abort a takeoff in a 172 because it was overweight and barely climbing? If so, how far over gross was it (and at what density altitude)? (If you'd rather not acknowledge such an event, perhaps you know of a "friend" that it happened to. )

I've never seen a takeoff aborted, and I've seen a 172N that gets overloaded on at least 50% of its flights. There have been times that it looked like the landing gear would break off it was so heavy and times that the tail would fall on the ground if someone wasn't hanging on the prop while the last person crawled in. The pilots have occasionally come back and said they were out of trim as well, so that might be an indicator where the CG was.

The closest thing I saw to an aborted takeoff was one time when they had the plane loaded with two average sized adult males (180-200lbs) in the back and one 350lb (or more) passenger up front plus the pilot. The plane got off the ground and remained in ground effect for a while as they built up speed and climbed out. The plane nearly stalled and pancaked right after they lifted off but the pilot managed to keep it under control and made a successful flight. The pilot was an ag pilot and I have a feeling that had a lot to do with why he was able to keep it under control.

Thankfully I've never been asked to fly one of those trips yet, I think I'd refuse it.

I don't think it sounds like the accident plane was that far overloaded, so I suspect it would fly ok. My guess is that there was a lack of experience with flying the plane at or over gross weight. I remember being quite surprised with how differently a 172 handled with 3 people in the plane instead of the usual two i flew with the first time I tried it. It might have caught this guy by surprise if be just passed his checkride and it was the first time he carried that much weight.

 

[cocolos]

I do believe 4 adults would probably put you overgross since 172M probably had a useful load of ~900lbs. However, I think the biggest issue would be a foward CG. I've been at gross with a cherokee 180 with a useful load of about 1060lbs and it definitely handles differently and I was a lot more weary for stalls in the pattern. This is all speculation. My condolences go out to all the family members.


As an aside do you guys leave a X% margin for the weight or cg?

 

[RV10flyer]

As an aside do you guys leave a X% margin for the weight or cg?

No, I take it right to the limits in both directions and practice a lot. My family knows the importance of slow flight, stalls, accelerated stalls. We go above 3,000 AGL over trees or pasture and practice until I feel good and recovery is instinctive. The manufacturer has already provided us with a little margin. Yes, our RV-10 is a totally different animal at gross and aft limit. Practice before that next burger run.

 

[cocolos]

No, I take it right to the limits in both directions and practice a lot. My family knows the importance of slow flight, stalls, accelerated stalls. We go above 3,000 AGL over trees or pasture and practice until I feel good and recovery is instinctive. The manufacturer has already provided us with a little margin. Yes, our RV-10 is a totally different animal at gross and aft limit. Practice before that next burger run.

Not to digress too much but I like to plan on at least once a month going up and doing some of the maneuvers from PTS. However with older airplanes it wouldn't hurt to add a little more cushion to make up for the older engine and old paint.

 

[Geico266]

I am just starting my flight training, but for the record, if you see me doing something potentially deadly on the ground, please feel free to let me know.

I'm pushing 3,000 hours, been to 49 of 50 states. If you see me doing something stupid let me know too.

 

[RV10flyer]

I'm pushing 3,000 hours, been to 49 of 50 states. If you see me doing something stupid let me know too.

Pushing 275, same goes for me. I'll do the same for you guys.

 

[gismo]

The 172 I fly holds 820# with full (38gal) fuel. I did a similar w/b scenario to David and getting it loaded aft of cg was impossible unless you loaded up luggage and the heaviest passengers in the back seat.

I have flown the 172m 4 adults, a few lbs under gross and was lucky to get 400 ft/min. Performance was similar to a c150 near gross. I wouldn't think of going over, especially this time of year.

Rip, hopefully people learn from each accident like this.

I'm surprised that your 172 (m?) has a useful load of almost 1050 lbs. I've seen a few older models that were close to 1000 lb but they had a much mroe spartan interior and almost nothing in the panel (i.e. one navcom and a transponder). The 172Ms I used to fly had a useful load around 875 lb but that did include dual navcoms and an ADF plus transponder.

 

[el con]

RIP to all on board and to those left behind.
At our field a few years ago another new young pilot that just received his license, decided to take 3 of his(big) buddies flying ,full fuel ,warm day. He was seen loading all into the Warrior( 160 hp,but tired like a 120 hp).
Nobody Stopped Them!!!
Lucky for them he was seen taxi-ing ,excited, talking ,waving his arms ,yakking it up with the passengers not paying attention and ran the wingtip into the plane owners truck.
That probably saved their lives.
He has not been seen at the airport since.
I wonder how many times people(pilots and passengers) are just that close to seeing their maker?
Unfortunate for the recent ones at PTK that they were just a little past "just that close"

 

[wabower]

We can teach degraded performance due to weight and DA, but CG issues not so much. My first (and only) lesson came after a friend decided to load all our wet camping gear in the nose compartment of his Colemill B-58 Baron rather than in the back of the plane that was fresh out of a fine interior job by Rose in Mena. We then departed OSH with full fuel and two XL's in the front seats.

His first landing in St Louis was the worst I have ever experienced, and the nose gear hit so hard I thought he broke it. I flew the next leg to MKC and my landing was equally bad or worse. After checking W&B I discovered our severe forward CG problem, but too late to save the NLG parts that were bent.

I still swear that he did it, he still blames me.

 

[Warrior]

We can teach degraded performance due to weight and DA, but CG issues not so much. My first (and only) lesson came after a friend decided to load all our wet camping gear in the nose compartment of his Colemill B-58 Baron rather than in the back of the plane that was fresh out of a fine interior job by Rose in Mena. We then departed OSH with full fuel and two XL's in the front seats.

His first landing in St Louis was the worst I have ever experienced, and the nose gear hit so hard I thought he broke it. I flew the next leg to MKC and my landing was equally bad or worse. After checking W&B I discovered our severe forward CG problem, but too late to save the NLG parts that were bent.

I still swear that he did it, he still blames me.

as far as the blame and the probably significant financial damage, did you lose your friend over this?

 

[steingar]

I still swear that he did it, he still blames me.

If you were both flying then you were both right. Pilot's job to make certain CG is within limits.

 

[wabower]

Nah, we both know what happened. He screwed up. No my yob, mon.

as far as the blame and the probably significant financial damage, did you lose your friend over this?

 

[wabower]

He was PIC for all legs.

If you were both flying then you were both right. Pilot's job to make certain CG is within limits.

 

[rainsux]

> appears to have successfully executed the U-turn before stalling on
> short final.

I concur. Seems to be a lot (too much) flaps deployed for the situation.
I'm wondering how high he dropped it in from ...

>> ... if a more experienced pilot had pulled him aside ...

I concur. I've lost too many acquaintances ... and no longer hold my
tongue whenever I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with another pilot. I'm
polite, but I speak my mind. If there are pax/innocents, I make certain
they hear.

I don't recall anything in the regs that require specific training for max
gross weight ops & aft-CG ops. Perhaps PPL training sylabus should
specifically require such flight experience.

Also confirmed today that the mother is a co-worker. Our paths have
not crossed in years. I remember her as being one of the "good one's,"
not a member of the Nod Squad. RIP, Sandy.

 

[acrophile]

The preliminary NTSB report is out.

Control tower personnel saw the airplane lift off from runway 09L and attain an altitude of about 100 feet. The pilot then reported he was "slightly overweight." He was cleared to land straight ahead on the grass. The airplane impacted the ground and burst into flames.

The on-scene investigation revealed no evidence of pre-impact airframe, powerplant, or propeller malfunction or failure. Control continuity was established. The flaps were found fully extended.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130621X52631&key=1

I think it's plausible to guess that the flaps were extended for the whole flight (perhaps never retracted after the preflight inspection), since that (in addition to possibly being overweight) would account for the plane's poor climb performance.

 

[dmspilot]

So there was no 180 degree turn and 2-minute flight back to the airport?

 

[acrophile]

So there was no 180 degree turn and 2-minute flight back to the airport?

I think there was a turn and a flight back to the airport. The tower tape, and the orientation of the wreckage, seem to establish that clearly. The NTSB report doesn't contradict that account; it just omits some details that they may have deemed inessential to understanding what caused the crash.

 

[N801BH]

A full flap takeoff with 4 people on board and full fuel and it being rather warm = Just what happened...

 

[redtail]

The preliminary NTSB report is out.



http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130621X52631&key=1

I think it's plausible to guess that the flaps were extended for the whole flight (perhaps never retracted after the preflight inspection), since that (in addition to possibly being overweight) would account for the plane's poor climb performance.

A full flap takeoff with 4 people on board and full fuel and it being rather warm = Just what happened...

I find it hard to believe that even a student would takeoff with full flaps extended due to forgetting to retract them after the preflight. Let alone a certificated PPL with four people on board.

Maybe after a T&G....... because I did that once during a solo student flight, but never during an initial takeoff.

I think he deployed full flaps during his landing attempt.

 

[wabower]

I cringe when brand-new pilots fly with anybody else in the plane, especially friends and family. The added demands on the pilot's mental and emotional state are difficult to overestimate. If I were King, some amount of initial operating experience (IOE) as a private pilot would be required before loading up the fam. Just sayin'

I find it hard to believe that even a student would takeoff with full flaps extended due to forgetting to retract them after the preflight. Let alone a certificated PPL with four people on board.

Maybe after a T&G....... because I did that once during a solo student flight, but never during an initial takeoff.

I think he deployed full flaps during his landing attempt.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I cringe when brand-new pilots fly with anybody else in the plane, especially friends and family. The added demands on the pilot's mental and emotional state are difficult to overestimate. If I were King, some amount of initial operating experience (IOE) as a private pilot would be required before loading up the fam. Just sayin'

I agree. That thread written by the gal about to take her checkride, talking about picking up pax on her way home, made me squirm.

I am not giving rides in the -8A until I've got 15 hours in type. And I've been flying for two decades.

 

[acrophile]

I cringe when brand-new pilots fly with anybody else in the plane, especially friends and family. The added demands on the pilot's mental and emotional state are difficult to overestimate. If I were King, some amount of initial operating experience (IOE) as a private pilot would be required before loading up the fam.

That requirement exists, except that it has to be met *before* the certificate is issued.

 

[bbchien]

I concur. I've lost too many acquaintances ... and no longer hold my
tongue whenever I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with another pilot. I'm
polite, but I speak my mind. If there are pax/innocents, I make certain
they hear.
.....I remember her as being one of the "good one's,"
not a member of the Nod Squad. RIP, Sandy.

I will take this as a wakeup call. I have been rather sullen of late, watching GA idiocy happen....usually I turn, shrug my shoulders, and just walk away.

I have "non-published" (to the GA public) overweight ops charts for some airplanes. Speeds actually change very little, but runway required and climb gradients do. Without obstructions, most of the flights actually have a decent chance of success. When learning to fly in COS during the summer, we knew the 65-hp trainers would use much more runway than anybody would ever think necessary, then finally get light on the wheels and finally fly and eventually reach the 600' pattern altitude just in time for the base-leg turn.

This will be no surprise to Wayne, but the E188 tables for civil gross and at Lockheed gross.....will make your eyes water.....

 

[acrophile]

I find it hard to believe that even a student would takeoff with full flaps extended due to forgetting to retract them after the preflight. Let alone a certificated PPL with four people on board.

I think he deployed full flaps during his landing attempt.

That's certainly possible. But deploying full flaps, when the plane had already been struggling for altitude, seems as unlikely as forgetting to retract in the first place. And we'd still need some other explanation for the altitude problem that necessitated turning back to the airport. The NTSB says their examination showed no evidence of aircraft malfunction; and people in this thread have argued persuasively that overloading alone wouldn't have impaired performance to the extent observed.

 

[wabower]

Not really.

That requirement exists, except that it has to be met *before* the certificate is issued.

 

[acrophile]

Not really.

Yes, really. A pilot needs at least ten hours of solo experience before getting their PPL and being allowed to carry passengers.

 

[Skylane81E]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is

 

[MAKG1]

The 172M has a flap switch quirk that may or may not be relevent here.

Unlike later flap switches, the M model is momentary when extending flaps, and persistent when retracting. It's not unusual for the switch to break so that it is momentary in both directions.

While there is no excuse for not looking at the flaps -- and I do this on every high wing airplane I fly -- to positively verify configuration prior to takeoff, it's possible the pilot might have pulled the flap switch momentarily expecting the flaps to retract fully, and they didn't.

It's not a paddle like N and SP models.