Pilot, 2 passengers survive plane crash shortly after takeoff, NC sheriff says

Dang, time for them to buy lotto tickets.
 
That was shortly after takeoff if the address is right. Radin Rd is the Field Boundary. Looks like trees get another save
 
Grum.Man said:
O-300 powered 172 on a really hot day taking off up hill with two passenger and what looks like a lot of camping gear. Obviously mechanical issues are always a possibility but..
Click to expand...

Could be wrong but I have the same train of thought ... it has been very hot in the Carolinas the last few days.

Many years ago my instructor, at that time, offered me to be the fourth passenger in a C-172 heading from Carolina to Sun-N-Fun. Not sure whether he was testing my judgement or was serious. I knew that there would be about 950 lbs. to work with.

The pilot wasn't a large man but my instructor and the plane owner together were likely 550 lbs. between them. I know my weight, guessed the pilot's weight, gear for four people for a three day stay and wondered how it was going to fly with zero fuel in it.

I politely replied in my best Al Borland voice, "I don't think so Tim!"
 
Daleandee said:
Could be wrong but I have the same train of thought ... it has been very hot in the Carolinas the last few days.

Many years ago my instructor, at that time, offered me to be the fourth passenger in a C-172 heading from Carolina to Sun-N-Fun. Not sure whether he was testing my judgement or was serious. I knew that there would be about 950 lbs. to work with.

The pilot wasn't a large man but my instructor and the plane owner together were likely 550 lbs. between them. I know my weight, guessed the pilot's weight, gear for four people for a three day stay and wondered how it was going to fly with zero fuel in it.

I politely replied in my best Al Borland voice, "I don't think so Tim!"
Click to expand...
I made someone at a flight school, and a Cessna Citation owner very angry one time for refusing to fly or take their baggage...
 
"The plane experienced mechanical problems shortly after taking off from Jungle Aviation and Radio Service, the Sheriff’s Office said."

Well, I'm not too sure about that, but I agree with Grum.Man that the PIC may have been stretching the performance envelope of the airplane just a bit too far.
 
I flew this plane for 2.9 hours the morning of the crash. I'm so very grateful no one was seriously injured. The accident rattled me as my son was with me on my flight.

I experienced no engine/mechanical issues during my flight. The plane was flown for an hour after me for two takeoffs and landings also with no issues. The accident happened on the 4th takeoff of the day. The DA during my flight was 1600. The pilot is an experienced CFI and A&P who did a remarkable job putting down in a 150' area before impacting the trees while rolling. The plane was 280 lbs under gross. Initial inspection identified no mechanical failures. It will likely be a year before we know for sure, but the current theory is high DA in combination with a possible wind shear.
 
"The DA during my flight was 1600."

What was the DA around 1:30 that afternoon?
 
MICHAEL MAHN said:
The plane was 280 lbs under gross.
Click to expand...

Let me preface my comments by stating that I have no experience with Cessna 172 aircraft.

A quick internet search reveals that the useful load of a generic C-172 is about 760 pounds. Assuming an occupant weight of 170 lbs. each (I know, the reality these days is significantly higher), that gives us an occupant load of 510 lb. leaving about 250 lbs. for other stuff such as fuel and baggage; however, if the aircraft was 280 lbs under gross, that would have left no capacity for either fuel or baggage.

What am I missing here?

That still does not rule out the possibility of mechanical problems or things such as wind shear.
 
Capngrog said:
What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
Useful load for this aircraft was 911 lbs, the pilot isn't a big guy, the two passengers were children and there wasn't full fuel.
 
MICHAEL MAHN said:
Useful load for this aircraft was 911 lbs, the pilot isn't a big guy, the two passengers were children and there wasn't full fuel.
Click to expand...

That looks a whole lot better then. As I said, I'm not familiar with the C-172 and got my information from the ol' interweb. I saw useful loads ranging from my cited useful load of 760 lbs. up to a little over the 900 lbs. that you cited. I chose the lower limit of 760 lbs due to the older aircraft (C-170E) using the 145 hp IO-300. Cessna lists on their website the useful load of the new Skyhawk with the 180 hp IO-360 as 878 pounds.

Thanks for the clarification.

Have you heard anything more on the circumstances surrounding this crash?
 
Capngrog said:
That looks a whole lot better then. As I said, I'm not familiar with the C-172 and got my information from the ol' interweb. I saw useful loads ranging from my cited useful load of 760 lbs. up to a little over the 900 lbs. that you cited. I chose the lower limit of 760 lbs due to the older aircraft (C-170E) using the 145 hp IO-300. Cessna lists on their website the useful load of the new Skyhawk with the 180 hp IO-360 as 878 pounds.

Thanks for the clarification.

Have you heard anything more on the circumstances surrounding this crash?
Click to expand...
I think the empty weight of the older 172s is lower.
 
Capngrog said:
Have you heard anything more on the circumstances surrounding this crash?
Click to expand...
Only the PIC and the program surrounding the flight (a camp introducing children to aviation) were/are extremely professional. These people know what they are doing. Other than that, I have no additional information. The engine will be disassembled over the next year and examined to determine if there was some kind of internal failure which might produce additional information. I have no idea how the NTSB determines if a wind shear was a contributing factor. Sure seems like it was but I don't know how they can determine that.
 
Mahneuvers said:
NTSB report published 9/27/23.
Click to expand...
To save everyone the trouble:

Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The pilot’s failure to abort the takeoff in sufficient time to stop the airplane on the runway remaining. Contributing to the accident was the lack of airplane takeoff performance due to the pilot’s failure to assure that the carburetor heat control was in the off position and the elevated density altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top