Greg Farris wrote:
We know that eyewitnesses tend to say the engine sputtered, and news
reporters, when they hear the word "stall" they assume the engine
quit. We
should not take this to mean the engine did not sputter and quit.
Maybe it
did. At 500AGL, and well out of W/B limitations* it could quickly
become a
difficult situation to manage.


*This is not to level unfair accusations, but I do not know how to
put four
adults in a 172SP and any reasonable amount of fuel without being
overweight
and aft loaded. Some contributors here are saying "full fuel" - I
don't know
if that's known, factual information or conjecture, (or simply
incorrect) but
if it's substantiated in some way then the plane is way out of
limits.

This is probably the only time I'm willing to speculate here, because I
fly a 172SP all the time. In my experience with the particular plane I
fly, I am very close to the weight limit with full fuel, myself, my
wife, and a couple of bags in the baggage compartment (plus the other
sundry items, like my flight bag, her purse, etc).

It is certainly possible that the CFII + 3 pax put the plane over the
weight limit with full fuel. In that case, he'd opt to go with less
fuel if he wanted to accomodate the 3 pax and stay legal. I've done it,
it's not a problem, especially in an SP where the fuel gauges are very
usable in straight / level flight. If this is the scenario that played
out, then it's conceivable that he ran out of fuel... hence, the
witnesses claiming the engine "stalled"... maybe it actually did
sputter and quit. Too bad there weren't any pilot witnesses on the
beach that day.

--
jr