Mike5250
Line Up and Wait
Here is w/b. The 180hp conversion on a lighter airframe, and pretty basic interior. 38 Gal fuel isn't a big deal because I don't know 3 other people that would want to go more than 2-3 hrs without a break.
Cessna 172 fatal plane crash in SE Michigan
- Thread starter tangopapa
- Start date
Here is w/b. The 180hp conversion on a lighter airframe, and pretty basic interior. 38 Gal fuel isn't a big deal because I don't know 3 other people that would want to go more than 2-3 hrs without a break.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
There's a big difference between student solo and real solo.
You go from not being able to fly more than 50 miles from home to being able to go anywhere in the Americas.
BIG difference.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
This kid was trying to impress his older friends. I've BTDT - usually we don't have the same idea of impressive. In my 172 after I had about 400 hours in it I realized that with the STOL kit, 180hp, and 30 degrees of flaps I could get off the ground in about 250 feet. I liked showing people that - perhaps this guy was doing a short field takeoff and botched it.
danhagan
En-Route
I think you're correct
snoboy
Pre-takeoff checklist
IMHO adding a useful load only conversion increase does not provide more horsepower, thrust, lift or necessarily provide broader CG limits. This plane was almost assuredly overloaded. IMHO an airplane can be configured well within POH standards for CG and gross weight but still be "mission overloaded" regarding DA.
redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
Probably not all that unlikely to a new guy if he chopped the power on short final and began to stall. Maybe he panicked and dropped full flaps thinking he'd arrest the stall
snoboy
Pre-takeoff checklist
That seems very reasonable. Got 'er turned around but with all that weight he wasn't ready for the landing. If he was trying to use his normal power settings and speeds he would've been screwed with a really heavy airplane.
dell30rb
Final Approach
You got to be careful with those turf landings.
I think the plane was flyable at 2500 DA I can't imagine he was more than 200lbs or so over weight. More likely he had never flown the airplane that heavy before, felt something was wrong and did not think clearly through his plan to return to earth.
I have made several trips in the warrior II's with four people, 80lbs bags, partial fuel and loaded to max gross and near the aft CG limit. Usually aft CG is the kicker as girls always bring lots of stuff. The plane flies very differently. On final you have to be careful not to get too slow, with that CG the plane is much more neutral in longitudinal stability.
As another note I actually carried a printed W&B on those flights in case someone asked me about it. I wouldn't mind if they were polite.
Last edited:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
There's a huge difference. Could any student ever get themselves in the position this guy managed to create?
Yep...29 years ago I few a C-172 with four adults from KFAR to KABQ and back with luggage for the Balloon Fiesta.
We were slimmer then, and traveled light!
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
No, not only are student solos permitted to go more than 50 miles from home, at least one student solo flight is *required* to go more than 50 miles from home (or rather, more than 50 miles between two stops).
They were his family.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
If you mean "permitted" by completely filling out a flight plan and then getting a logbook endorsement from a CFI, then yes, they are "permitted."
I'm more aware of the student pilot limitations than most on this board probably - without a logbook endorsement for a specific airport that says you have had training with the area, then you cannot even land at other airports.
signu127
Pre-takeoff checklist
Question...What do you think happened for him to call in and report being overweight? I am new to this so I am wondering if you guys ever had a plane give you an indication that it was overweight and if so what was it? What happened to the plane at 100', why did he even make it off the ground?
thanks!
thanks!
Probably not all that unlikely to a new guy if he chopped the power on short final and began to stall. Maybe he panicked and dropped full flaps thinking he'd arrest the stall
Using that same logic.... What if the new pilot thought full flaps would give additional lift for his overweight takeoff...
...Like most crashes... it would be great if we could just ask them one more question on why they did what they did...
..
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
My .02.
He knew he was overweight, but obviously thought it would fly anyway and he could get by with it. He had flown the plane enough to know how it should accelerate and climb, knew it wasn't happening but continued on because he hoped it would get better or didn't want to face the consequences of screwing up, aborting the takeoff or bending the plane. Once airborne, he realized his predicament and quickly 'fessed up to the load issue as a cry for help. If in fact he took off with full flaps, he may not have accumulated enough experience and problem-solving skill to recognize and correct the problem. As things continued to "go to hell in a basket" he simply became a passenger and rode to the scene of the crash with the others. Has anybody heard the tape to determine if the stall horn is activated?
I've posted before about a similar situation on my first trip to Gastons as a right seat pax in 1968. The doc who had recently bought a new Cherokee 180 made a decent approach over the trees at the east end, then pulled the power to idle, raised the nose and prepared to land from tree-top high. I watched in disbelief for a few seconds before shoving his hand and the throttle forward, pushing the yoke to regain profile and then releasing both and telling him "now land it" when we were at the appropriate HAT.
I thought at the time I might be looking for a ride home from the fishing trip, but after shut-down he apologized profusely, thanked me many times for saving the day and confessed that he had never flown into such a field before and had simply lost his altitude awareness. Not saying this situation was identical, but having seen a guy zone out while trying to land I'm aware that it can happen to an otherwise (or seemingly so) competent pilot.
He knew he was overweight, but obviously thought it would fly anyway and he could get by with it. He had flown the plane enough to know how it should accelerate and climb, knew it wasn't happening but continued on because he hoped it would get better or didn't want to face the consequences of screwing up, aborting the takeoff or bending the plane. Once airborne, he realized his predicament and quickly 'fessed up to the load issue as a cry for help. If in fact he took off with full flaps, he may not have accumulated enough experience and problem-solving skill to recognize and correct the problem. As things continued to "go to hell in a basket" he simply became a passenger and rode to the scene of the crash with the others. Has anybody heard the tape to determine if the stall horn is activated?
I've posted before about a similar situation on my first trip to Gastons as a right seat pax in 1968. The doc who had recently bought a new Cherokee 180 made a decent approach over the trees at the east end, then pulled the power to idle, raised the nose and prepared to land from tree-top high. I watched in disbelief for a few seconds before shoving his hand and the throttle forward, pushing the yoke to regain profile and then releasing both and telling him "now land it" when we were at the appropriate HAT.
I thought at the time I might be looking for a ride home from the fishing trip, but after shut-down he apologized profusely, thanked me many times for saving the day and confessed that he had never flown into such a field before and had simply lost his altitude awareness. Not saying this situation was identical, but having seen a guy zone out while trying to land I'm aware that it can happen to an otherwise (or seemingly so) competent pilot.
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
Lots of discussion of the tape (and other evidence) earlier in this thread.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
Using that same logic.... What if the new pilot thought full flaps would give additional lift for his overweight takeoff...
Like most crashes... it would be great if we could just ask them one more question on why they did what they did...
I always fly around with full flaps for more lift.
I also agree. He took off from 9L (shorter and ends sooner than 9R at KPTK), realized he was in trouble, and had based on my interpretation of the tower tape and the NTSB summary, he had enough distance to attempt for a very short final to land on 9R or the grass (in other words, I don't think he tried to go around in the pattern or turn around since he was given immediately given permission for 9R, not 27L or 27R). May have made it down with power and no flaps, but he probably extended flaps and chopped power for the landing as he probably did for most of his training. My interpretation of the tape is there was a stall warning when he radioed the tower after take-off. Once flaps extended and tried to land short without enough power and/or pushing the nose down he stalled and pancaked. Really tragic.
The passengers/victims were his mom, step dad, and brother in law, and he was leaving this week for the Naval Academy, so this was a last hurrah before leaving for school. Unfortunately, he probably did not want to leave anyone behind and not taking into account W&B and density altitude, the tragedy happened. The FBO that rented to him the plane probably could have unloaded fuel for him had he realized how much weight he was trying to carry and still be able to make a shorter flight and refuel for a return.
First post............. Welcome to POA..
Since you seem to be familier withe the situation.... How big /large/heavy were these people..
JoeSelch
Pattern Altitude
Not particularly big. There are plenty of photos available online - you can judge for yourself.
flytime
Pre-takeoff checklist
I found this thread (and this forum) after Google searching "cessna 172 overweight", because I regularly fly 172's, and I have a family of 4 that puts us over gross with full fuel (I won't fly that way, just so you know). So I read this discussion with much interest.
I went and read the NTSB report on this accident, which is now final. And one thing in particular struck me: everyone on this forum, and even the pilot of the accident aircraft who was killed (based on his final radio call), made an assumption that turned out to not be true. The NTSB concluded that the aircraft was within weight and balance limits. What caused the crash was the pilot's attempt to take off at near max gross weight with full flaps, which should make perfect sense to anyone who has experience flying an older model 172.
The accident airplane, a 1976 C-172M, has electric flaps that extend to 40 degrees. Later models (those with a 180HP IO-360) have flaps that extend to 30 degrees, and although it won't climb well with full flaps, it will climb. But the older 150HP models such as the 172M will barely climb at all with full power and full flaps. When I was checked out in the M model recently (after having flown the 180HP SP model exclusively), my instructor made certain that I understood this important difference. From a slow flight configuration with full flaps he asked me to try to climb. Full throttle got me to MAYBE 50 FPM....after about 30 seconds trying to gain speed without losing altitude.
Not to take anything away from the importance of operating within weight and balance limits, but if that was the lesson learned from this accident (based on assumptions), we would be no wiser for it.
I went and read the NTSB report on this accident, which is now final. And one thing in particular struck me: everyone on this forum, and even the pilot of the accident aircraft who was killed (based on his final radio call), made an assumption that turned out to not be true. The NTSB concluded that the aircraft was within weight and balance limits. What caused the crash was the pilot's attempt to take off at near max gross weight with full flaps, which should make perfect sense to anyone who has experience flying an older model 172.
The accident airplane, a 1976 C-172M, has electric flaps that extend to 40 degrees. Later models (those with a 180HP IO-360) have flaps that extend to 30 degrees, and although it won't climb well with full flaps, it will climb. But the older 150HP models such as the 172M will barely climb at all with full power and full flaps. When I was checked out in the M model recently (after having flown the 180HP SP model exclusively), my instructor made certain that I understood this important difference. From a slow flight configuration with full flaps he asked me to try to climb. Full throttle got me to MAYBE 50 FPM....after about 30 seconds trying to gain speed without losing altitude.
Not to take anything away from the importance of operating within weight and balance limits, but if that was the lesson learned from this accident (based on assumptions), we would be no wiser for it.
Last edited:
I also followed this saga because I'm a low time pilot who has flown with 4 adults in a 172. (One of the old 145hp models, even) My calculations showed I was under the W&B limit but climb was sluggish. Didn't affect my flight other than longer than usual takeoff roll and slow climbout. I simply kept the speed at Vy and all was well.
I am surprised the pilot didn't notice a different sight picture during climbout with full flaps deployed. I know a pilot <ahem> who took off with 10 degrees of flaps, by mistake, and noticed right away somethnig wasn't quite normal.
I am surprised the pilot didn't notice a different sight picture during climbout with full flaps deployed. I know a pilot <ahem> who took off with 10 degrees of flaps, by mistake, and noticed right away somethnig wasn't quite normal.
flytime
Pre-takeoff checklist
According to the accident report, the pilot was relatively low-time and had most of his experience in a Cirrus SR-20, though he did have some experience in a 172 as well. The recommended take-off configuration in a Cirrus is flaps at 50%. The recommended take-off configuration for a 172 is zero to 10 degrees.
The NTSB makes an assumption in the contributing factors that I don't entirely agree with. They say the pilot likely made this mistake due to his relative unfamiliarity with the 172, and may have thought that what works in the Cirrus also applies to the 172. Maybe, but how would they know what the pilot was thinking? Whether or not he knew that a 172 should be taken off with no more than 10 degrees of flaps we will never know, but if he was checked out in that plane and had read the POH he SHOULD have known.
There is another possibility that I think is just as likely. The pilot could have been distracted by a plane full of passengers and as a result may have skipped or misread the take-off checklist. When I fly the 172 I always lower the flaps for the pre-flight inspection, then raise them after engine start. Forget to do that and then skip the checklist....and you are in for a mighty struggle to get out of ground effect.
Regardless, I'm sure the issue of weight and balance was on the pilot's mind before he took off, probably aware that with 4 on board the plane would be right at its limit. And when the plane wouldn't climb, he convinced himself right away that he had a weight problem when in fact he did not. That probably caused him to not even consider other reasons for the plane not climbing.
The NTSB makes an assumption in the contributing factors that I don't entirely agree with. They say the pilot likely made this mistake due to his relative unfamiliarity with the 172, and may have thought that what works in the Cirrus also applies to the 172. Maybe, but how would they know what the pilot was thinking? Whether or not he knew that a 172 should be taken off with no more than 10 degrees of flaps we will never know, but if he was checked out in that plane and had read the POH he SHOULD have known.
There is another possibility that I think is just as likely. The pilot could have been distracted by a plane full of passengers and as a result may have skipped or misread the take-off checklist. When I fly the 172 I always lower the flaps for the pre-flight inspection, then raise them after engine start. Forget to do that and then skip the checklist....and you are in for a mighty struggle to get out of ground effect.
Regardless, I'm sure the issue of weight and balance was on the pilot's mind before he took off, probably aware that with 4 on board the plane would be right at its limit. And when the plane wouldn't climb, he convinced himself right away that he had a weight problem when in fact he did not. That probably caused him to not even consider other reasons for the plane not climbing.
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
Nope, not all of us. I wrote (on 2013-06-27, after some discussion), "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.".
The NTSB calculated that the plane was 1.5 pounds under maximum gross weight. But their calculation assumed that the passengers' weight had not increased since their last driver's license issuance, and the calculation ignored their clothing. So it is likely that the plane was indeed, as the pilot reported over the radio, "slightly overweight".
And when does a person give an accurate weight to the Drivers License office......
..My guess it was more then " slightly" overweight...
sourdough44
En-Route
One enters a grey area when you get to the edges of the envelope with weight limits or performance. What I mean, the plane may be flyable, or not, depending on techniques and how flown.
There was one accident I read where the NTSB came up with the plane being 50 lbs under gross weight for conditions. The plane crashed after takeoff when the pilot went into an early turn at relatively slow speed, observed from the ground.
If the runway allows, a little extra speed & a very slow rotation puts a little more energy in your corner. Follow that up with a wings level climb, then a slight turn into the wind for best angle.
No, not saying to push the limits, just saying to fly smart & keep your wits.
There was one accident I read where the NTSB came up with the plane being 50 lbs under gross weight for conditions. The plane crashed after takeoff when the pilot went into an early turn at relatively slow speed, observed from the ground.
If the runway allows, a little extra speed & a very slow rotation puts a little more energy in your corner. Follow that up with a wings level climb, then a slight turn into the wind for best angle.
No, not saying to push the limits, just saying to fly smart & keep your wits.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
Yup.
Although if he did only get to 100' he would have had to be WAYYYYYYYY over gross in a 172. Like 500 pounds over gross.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
Just read the rest of the thread. 40 degrees of flaps would do it. Damn.
RIP.
RIP.
Hocky
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 213
- Display Name
Display name:
Hocky
So how much over gross can you be in a 172 before you really start to get into trouble? A couple of hundred pounds?
Cpt_Kirk
En-Route
No. 200 pounds will not kill you, but it will struggle.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
Depends on a lot of things. Ask me at a fly-in
Something like that. Again, it depends on a lot of things.
dell30rb
Final Approach
it will probably takeoff and climb out safely a couple hundred pounds over gross. At sea level with a 5000 foot runway.
The answer is... it depends. Stay at gross or under and use the readily available performance charts in the POH. Consider terrain if you are in the mountains and climb performance..also listed in POH
Out of CG will get you too. W&B is not just about gross weight.
Last edited:
Properly flown and a long enough runway to take off from... You would be amazed at what can happen....
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-...-eaaer-sets-unofficial-flight-distance-record
Personally, I think the 40 degrees of flaps did that poor pilot and passengers in.... Kinda like pulling a drag chute from the start..