CGF crash

****, I think that was one of my club's planes.
 

Attachments

  • N4207P.JPG
    N4207P.JPG
    1,018.3 KB · Views: 167
  • Bv7sYLECYAA10tv.jpg
    Bv7sYLECYAA10tv.jpg
    46.1 KB · Views: 167
Rwy 06/24, 5100' X 100', the weather looked good, if as posted above.

Even when a plane is within CG limits and below max weight for density altitude it may take gentle control inputs to get going, mostly pitch.

The wrong fuel can ruin the night too.

Not saying what may of happened, engines are rather reliable while receiving proper fuel. The term 'engine failure' often covers scenarios where there is nothing wrong with the engine.

Sad indeed, can't imagine what the families are dealing with.
 
NTSB is supposed to be there at 1:00pm today. RIP to everyone on board.
 
This is so sad. I have no idea how I will react "when" an emergency happens. I hope I revert to my training. My instructor asks me about 20 times per flight, "if your engine quits right now, where are you landing"? From a student standpoint, I ask, is this the young mans home airport, does he know it and the terrain? You gotta have quite a bit of altitude to make the U turn, with 4 up in a 172, the stall speed would be significantly higher I would think. The departure end of 27 at the home drome is wooded and rising, I know that I am landing in the trees until I get 1000'. Again, I am not sure how I would react, I am sure my gut would say "runway", I just hope my training overrides my gut. RIP to these young people.
 
Heavy (over gross?), night, over trees, 4 college guys (maybe a lax preflight?)… just no margin for error there. RIP :(
 
I land there frequently (and boy am I going to get grief from the South Euclid branch of the Steingar clan). 5K foot strip with few obstructions. But something goes wrong with the mill and you've one big huge problem. At night that golf course looks no different than the nearby woods.

I bet a Skyhawk can lift four skinny college students, and with a strip that long they should have been well airborne before they ran out of runway. I could see them turning with too little uumpf. I'd be mighty tempted in that situation.
 
Who knows what happened, Well find out but long and short of it was they were so damn young! So sad.:(
 
I was tempted to say something about the "4 people 4 hour rental in a 172" thing myself but we just don't know what happened. I am sure I'm not the only one that will be looking for the NTSB report.
 
mikeinbama said:
. . . You gotta have quite a bit of altitude to make the U turn, with 4 up in a 172, the stall speed would be significantly higher I would think . . .
Click to expand...

Why would stall speed be higher than listed at max gross? Unless they were over gross, I don't think the stall speed would be higher than published in the POH.
 
Unit74 said:
That's not the way it reads. It basically says they dont know. May have been over grow and may have had an aft CG. Or in otherwords, "we at the NTSB don't know what caused this crash, but we have to say something"
Click to expand...

The NTSB report states at least 90 lbs overweight and estimating 165 lbs overweight after accounting for weight lost in the fire. They were well over gross.


Weight and Balance

Two sets of weight and balance calculations, using different variables, were performed for the airplane. The airplane's weight and balance paperwork showed the maximum gross weight for the airplane was 2,457 pounds, the maximum useful load was 787.4 pounds, and the maximum aft center of gravity (CG) was 116 inches aft of datum.

The occupant weights provided by the medical examiner were: pilot - 130 pounds; right front passenger - 200 pounds; left rear passenger - 172 pounds; and right rear passenger - 166 pounds.

The first calculation used the occupant weights that were provided by the medical examiner's office, 10 pound of baggage, and 35 gallons of fuel. These calculations showed the airplane had a takeoff weight of 2,550.6 pounds with a CG of 112.957 inches.

The second calculation increased the occupant's body weights by 10% to account for the weight lost by the thermal injuries and increased the baggage to 15 pounds. These calculations resulted in the airplane at a gross weight of 2,622.6 pounds, which is 165.6 pounds over gross weight and with a CG of 117.127 inches.

Witnesses who were with the pilot and passengers before the flight stated the pilot asked two of the passengers how much they weighed. One witness recalled that the passenger who would become the right front seat passenger stated he weighed 200 pounds. The witness stated the pilot performed some calculations in his head and indicated that he believed they would be below the weight limit for the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Stingray Don said:
The NTSB report states at least 90 lbs overweight and estimating 165 lbs overweight after accounting for weight lost in the fire. They were well over gross.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the report, only went off the article linked. My bad.


Stingray Don said:
Weight and Balance

Two sets of weight and balance calculations, using different variables, were performed for the airplane. The airplane's weight and balance paperwork showed the maximum gross weight for the airplane was 2,457 pounds, the maximum useful load was 787.4 pounds, and the maximum aft center of gravity (CG) was 116 inches aft of datum.

The occupant weights provided by the medical examiner were: pilot - 130 pounds; right front passenger - 200 pounds; left rear passenger - 172 pounds; and right rear passenger - 166 pounds.

The first calculation used the occupant weights that were provided by the medical examiner's office, 10 pound of baggage, and 35 gallons of fuel. These calculations showed the airplane had a takeoff weight of 2,550.6 pounds with a CG of 112.957 inches.

The second calculation increased the occupant's body weights by 10% to account for the weight lost by the thermal injuries and increased the baggage to 15 pounds. These calculations resulted in the airplane at a gross weight of 2,622.6 pounds, which is 165.6 pounds over gross weight and with a CG of 117.127 inches.

Witnesses who were with the pilot and passengers before the flight stated the pilot asked two of the passengers how much they weighed. One witness recalled that the passenger who would become the right front seat passenger stated he weighed 200 pounds. The witness stated the pilot performed some calculations in his head and indicated that he believed they would be below the weight limit for the airplane.
Click to expand...

In my business, we call this type of interpolation a SWAG. Scientific Wild Asz Guess. Or in other words, they really don't know fact, but make conclusions based on marginal and unverifiable information. Is it prolly close to right? Maybe. Does it belong in a factual report? Wouldn't fly off my desk. (Pun intended, albeit in bad taste.)

But everyone knows NTSB makes conclusion in most cases where the "facts" are not facts at all. Mere guesses becuase only one person typically knows, and they are dead now.
 
At 60 hours, I went from hauling my lightweight CFI to hauling my family in this same model (172R). What a surprise going to full gross and near the aft limit. My surprise was on a beautiful sunny Saturday afternoon. I can't imagine what I would have thought upon lift-off at night. If he was prepared and had experienced this flight during the day, I believe those four young men would be here today. Now, I always recommend experiencing full gross/aft limit conditions during flight training.
 
Unit74 said:
In my business, we call this type of interpolation a SWAG. Scientific Wild Asz Guess. Or in other words, they really don't know fact, but make conclusions based on marginal and unverifiable information. Is it prolly close to right? Maybe. Does it belong in a factual report? Wouldn't fly off my desk. (Pun intended, albeit in bad taste.)

But everyone knows NTSB makes conclusion in most cases where the "facts" are not facts at all. Mere guesses becuase only one person typically knows, and they are dead now.
Click to expand...

You are not the first one to notice and it has become increasingly more frequent in recent NTSB reports. I wonder whether it is caused by a sweeping policy change within the whole agency/board or whether it is attributed to only a handful of investigators. I would be curious to know.
 
Unit74 said:
I didn't read the report, only went off the article linked. My bad.




In my business, we call this type of interpolation a SWAG. Scientific Wild Asz Guess. Or in other words, they really don't know fact, but make conclusions based on marginal and unverifiable information. Is it prolly close to right? Maybe. Does it belong in a factual report? Wouldn't fly off my desk. (Pun intended, albeit in bad taste.)

But everyone knows NTSB makes conclusion in most cases where the "facts" are not facts at all. Mere guesses becuase only one person typically knows, and they are dead now.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I've got this straight: you criticize the NTSB for stating that based on the evidence available that in both cases (whether you use the straight coroner weights or the adjusted weights) the aircraft was over gross without identifying that was the explicit cause of the accident, but in another recent thread YOU personally assess based on a video that another forum member busted VFR mins????

Just trying to figure out how your brain works. :dunno: I suspect you are confusing a factual narrative with a probably cause determination which (as already pointed out) has not been made in this case.

Then again, maybe it would help if you actually read the report.
 
The thing most people forget when they fly over gross is that Vy and Vx both increase with gross weight. That means if you are not climbing well enough to get over the trees at Vy and pull back to Vx, you pull yourself further 'behind the power curve' and decrease your climb rather than increase it. If you don't have enough excess HP eventually you will not climb out out of ground effect and run into the first thing that sticks up in your path, try to turn and you instantly stall a wing. If the plane ever doesn't climb on take off, you need to get the nose down and accelerate. If that means you take a skipping bounce off the ground/runway remaining, so be it. You either need speed or to get stopped, one of the two. Watch Lindbergh's take off...
 
NTSB site shows a date of 12/09/15 for complete investigation so we may get more information and a probable cause.
 
If you put four husky guys and full fuel in a 172, you're going to be over gross. Maybe well over gross. That's a no-brainer.

Payload is 759lbs. according to wiki. 56 gallons of 100LL weighs ~336lbs. Four big guys or even average guys are going to weigh 7 or 800lbs. So there's 1200lbs. of people and fuel. ..... 500lbs. over gross.

I'll push the wagon 100lbs. over, but that's it. Only low DA ops. And calculate CG carefully.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Let me see if I've got this straight: you criticize the NTSB for stating that based on the evidence available that in both cases (whether you use the straight coroner weights or the adjusted weights) the aircraft was over gross without identifying that was the explicit cause of the accident, but in another recent thread YOU personally assess based on a video that another forum member busted VFR mins????

Just trying to figure out how your brain works. :dunno: I suspect you are confusing a factual narrative with a probably cause determination which (as already pointed out) has not been made in this case.

Then again, maybe it would help if you actually read the report.
Click to expand...

And I stand by my opinion in the other thread, but don't be a douche..... Keep it in that thread.
 
Really sad that this crash could have been prevented with proper W&B. Whenever I'm even a little bit questionable as go whether I'm within limits I run a full W&B calculation and I make sure to have accurate weights. Was just up at CGF this summer and there are very few options if the fan quits or even if the plane is overloaded and wont climb. Very sad. RIP.
 
txflyer said:
So there's 1200lbs. of people and fuel. ..... 500lbs. over gross.

I'll push the wagon 100lbs. over, but that's it. Only low DA ops. And calculate CG carefully.
Click to expand...

txflyer, this is not directed at you. I will assume you are a competent, informed pilot and have carefully weighed the risks inherent in operating over gross and have chosen to do so. And have made public your intention to do so.

But we have new pilots, pilots-in-training and even potential pilots perusing this forum. I do not want them to get the wrong idea.

Stipulated that no plane should refuse to fly a few pounds over gross. The designers set limits, and those limits include a lot of safety margin - as it should be.

But there's no denying that flying at a few pounds over, much less "100lbs. over" eats into that safety margin to some degree. Most days under most conditions there will not be a problem.

But...

1) If something does go wrong, that lost safety margin could make the difference between an exciting story and a serious or fatal accident.

2) If an accident does occur, even if not directly caused by the over gross condition...

a) If the pilot survives, the over gross condition could easily lead to enforcement action.

b) If the pilot does not survive, you can be sure, like in the case referenced in this thread, the over gross condition will at least be mentioned, and depending on the circumstances be listed as a contributing cause.

It's a very slippery slope from a few pounds over to "100lbs. over" to "500 lbs. over gross".

The Most Conservative Action: never operate over gross, even by one pound*. But we're all adults here, so it's a choice each pilot will have to make for him- or herself.


*Ferry permits notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
I hear ya Eddie and I can't disagree or argue.

If it were anything other than a skywagon ..... ;)

Believe me, I don't make a habit of it. Just being honest.
 
The only SWAG was the pilot who did some mental math for his W&B and guessed he was within limits. Except in this case, it was a Stupid Wild Ass Guess nothing scientific about it. I do not see anything wrong in what the NTSB published. Based upon the investigation and known facts, I would conclude that the aircraft was most certainly overweight and quite possibly with an aft CG.

I wonder if the PIC had any experience flying with anywhere near that much weight and possibly failed to realize that his sluggish climb performance was due to weight. As long as he was high enough to clear any obstacles, his correct course of action would be to fly straight ahead to gain altitude. Making a turn back to the airport especially if he banked hard would have been the absolutely worst thing to do unless he was trying to avoid an obstacle. A quick look at the sectional does not show any obstacles unless he was very very low. There is no indication that there was anything mechanically wrong with the aircraft or engine as the only problem reported by pilot was the slow climb rate.

My probable cause: Aircraft was overweight with an aft CG due to pilot error in calculating W&B correctly or at all. Then pilot committed another error when he failed to take the appropriate action upon noticing slow climb which would have been to continuing climbing straight ahead or with very shallow bank angles as necessary for collision avoidance. Pilot most likely initiated an 180 degree turn at too steep of a bank angle and most likely with a high angle of pitch resulting in a stall and with insufficient altitude to recover.

But then again, I am not an accident investigator so my thoughts or conclusions are just my opinions and are irrelevant as are those of others.
 
Probable cause is now posted. As most expected…....RIP young men.

"The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane while returning to the airport immediately after takeoff, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and entering an aerodynamic stall during the turn. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s inadequate preflight planning, which resulted in the airplane being over maximum gross weight and its subsequent decrease in takeoff climb performance."

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140825X32653&key=1
 
Last edited:
FlyingTiger said:
Probable cause is now posted. As most expected…....RIP young men.

"The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane while returning to the airport immediately after takeoff, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and entering an aerodynamic stall during the turn. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s inadequate preflight plannhing, which resulted in the airplane being over maximum gross weight and its subsequent decrease in takeoff climb performance."

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140825X32653&key=1
Click to expand...


It's kinda sad how often this repeats itself. Whenever you hear of a 4 up 172 accident, this is the paragraph at the bottom. 4 seats under 225hp is going to require careful fuel & peformance planning.
 
That strip is 5000 feet long. A Skyhawk 100 lbs over gross could make it out of there just fine. They're tough things, made that way by their makers. If they just fell out of the sky from being 100 pounds over gross there'd be a lot more of them pancaking than actually do.

Like I said, if I took off from that strip in the dark of night and my engine took a dump I'd probably try and get back into the airport environment. The only places I could think of where I KNOW there's open fields of grass. Would I make it, and would I make it at night? Harder to see stuff in the cockpit, harder to fly in the first place.

Yeah, the pilot shouldn't have overloaded the airplane. Find me someone who's' flown a Skyhawk who hasn't.
 
steingar said:
That strip is 5000 feet long. A Skyhawk 100 lbs over gross could make it out of there just fine. They're tough things, made that way by their makers. If they just fell out of the sky from being 100 pounds over gross there'd be a lot more of them pancaking than actually do.

Like I said, if I took off from that strip in the dark of night and my engine took a dump I'd probably try and get back into the airport environment. The only places I could think of where I KNOW there's open fields of grass. Would I make it, and would I make it at night? Harder to see stuff in the cockpit, harder to fly in the first place.

Yeah, the pilot shouldn't have overloaded the airplane. Find me someone who's' flown a Skyhawk who hasn't.
Click to expand...


Can it, Yes, however the pilot has to make the correct adjustments in flying technique to compensate. The whole expontial drag increase with weight affects take FF as well as landing, and as I pointed out, if you don't adjust the numbers for Vx and Vy for the higher weight, you can cost yourself the ability to climb by operating on the back side of the power curve. If you try to fly book Vx over gross, you run the severe chance of not being able to accelerate out of ground effect.
 
It was not the 150lb over that did him in. It was the inadequate response.
 
weilke said:
It was not the 150lb over that did him in. It was the inadequate response.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he held it behind the power curve and couldn't climb. He needed to respond by getting the nose down to the modified Vx/Vy speeds, which he likely failed to calculate during his preflight regime.
 
Henning said:
It's kinda sad how often this repeats itself. Whenever you hear of a 4 up 172 accident, this is the paragraph at the bottom. 4 seats under 225hp is going to require careful fuel & performance planning.
Click to expand...
At least one needs to be familiar with near gross, near rear CG operations.

Despite being fully prepared for it, I can still remember the first time I flew a Skyhawk with 4 people. A completely different airplane even within limits.

One good thing with my old 180hp Maule - 4 people and full fuel wasn't really an issue. Off load 10 gallons and you could even carry a decent amount of baggage, more if you moved it forward. Bad news was it was slow no matter what. Trade-offs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top