C172 crash at Coney Island

Four people with full fuel? Aft CG in a slow turn with a maybe wind-shear?
Or a seagull prop strike? If he was at the height of the parachute jump,
that's only 250'!!!




"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/ny...2crash.html?hp).

According to witness descriptions, the plane approached the shore at low
altitude, turned sharply, and then plummeted vertically. The witnesses had
the usual confusion about "stalling" and interpreted the crash as a loss
of
power, but it sounds like it may have been a classic stall resulting from
inadequate airspeed during a steep turn. Coney Island is close to a
section
of airspace where the Class B has a floor just above 500', so it may be
that
the plane hadn't climbed much above that altitude, and tried to turn
abruptly away from the shore in order to avoid overflying a built-up area
too low.

--Gary

As the saying goes : "Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean people are NOT
out to get me."

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.

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
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.

Um, I do. First of all, according to the FAA registry, N778LP is a 172S, not
SP. According to the 172S POH, the basic empty weight is 1650 pounds. Add 50
pounds or so for avionics, 318 pounds for full fuel (53 gallons), and
there's 540 pounds left for the two 18-year-old females (say, 125 pounds
each) and two older males (say, 145 pounds each). That's an entirely
plausible scenario, even in America.

--Gary

Two older males at *145* pounds each? A scenario more plausible in
southeast Asia, perhaps.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
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.

Um, I do. First of all, according to the FAA registry, N778LP is a 172S,
not SP. According to the 172S POH, the basic empty weight is 1650 pounds.
Add 50 pounds or so for avionics, 318 pounds for full fuel (53 gallons),
and there's 540 pounds left for the two 18-year-old females (say, 125
pounds each) and two older males (say, 145 pounds each). That's an
entirely plausible scenario, even in America.

--Gary

"H.P." wrote in message
. ..
Two older males at *145* pounds each? A scenario more plausible in
southeast Asia, perhaps.

A person who's 5'8" with a BMI of 22 (in the upper half of the BMI range
that's designated "normal") would weigh 145 pounds. So it's the weight of a
male who's fit and slightly short (for an American).

The actual height and weight of the Coney Island passengers hasn't been
reported yet, to my knowledge. My point is just that it would not be
difficult to find four adults who could fit into a 172 with full fuel, and
be within the weight and balance limits. I've certainly done that.

--Gary

H.P. wrote:
Two older males at *145* pounds each? A scenario more plausible in
southeast Asia, perhaps.

I weighed 145 *or less* until I was in my late 40s. I'm 5'9" tall. Not uncommon
at all in America even today.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

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

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

This is probably the only time I'm willing to speculate here, because I
fly a 172SP

According to the FAA database, was a 172S. Does that change your
comments any?

Nah, not really... the place I rent the 172SP from uses the 172S POH. I
don't think there is much difference in weights.

One other tidbit that I read just a little while ago was that the plane
initially took off with 3 girls + the CFII, then returned to drop one
of them off after she became ill. A father (I believe) of one of the
girls took her place. Perhaps this could be a contributing factor
toward the theory of fuel exhaustion. (pilot didn't check fuel after
the diversion).

Anyway, enough speculating on my part... hopefully the NTSB will be
able to determine what happened.

James Robinson wrote:
Guy Elden Jr wrote:

This is probably the only time I'm willing to speculate here,
because I
fly a 172SP

According to the FAA database, was a 172S. Does that change your
comments any?

Aren't the 172S and 172SP the same plane? I believe the official
model number is 172S, and SP is the name Cessna puts on it.

The 172R was the new version 172 introduced in '96 or '97 with the
derated IO-360 at 160 hp. The follow on was the 172S with less derated
IO-360 at 180 hp. I think those are the only two current models of
the 172.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)