C172 crash at Coney Island

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.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.

Montblack

Haha .. yeh .. like THAT sure makes it true. And See BS had done
exactly what related to aviation to have this integrity?

Maybe that was AFTER the spin break when he instinctlively pullted
back the throttle.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
oups.com...
I suspect that the plane stalled (aerodynamically), a witness reported
it as such to the media, and the media rep, upon hearing the word
'stalled' assumed that they must be talking about the engine. One guy
reports that the engine stalled, then all the other reporters
immediately chime in with the same stuff because person A spoke with
such authority.

One witness did say that the engine sputtered two or three times, before
going silent. I think that would be a definite stall.
--
Jim in NC

Almost every crash report I've read where witnesses were involved
they said the engine stalled and was sputtering.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Subsequent updates are emphasizing witness reports that the engine sounded
like it was sputtering, so perhaps an engine failure did contribute to the
crash.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
It's not rare for an 1800-hour CFI to have a stall/spin crash in good VFR
weather? How often does that occur, according to your data?

Thanks,
Gary


I don't care if you have 50 hrs or 10,000 hrs .. you still have to fly the
airplane within it's limitations.

Does it mention what the lottery result will be also? LOL

Bryan

"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

On 22 May 2005 07:56:12 -0700, "Ben Hallert"
wrote:

I suspect that the plane stalled (aerodynamically), a witness reported
it as such to the media, and the media rep, upon hearing the word
'stalled' assumed that they must be talking about the engine. One guy
reports that the engine stalled, then all the other reporters
immediately chime in with the same stuff because person A spoke with
such authority.

The term is very difficult for non aviators to understand. All their
lives the term "stall" refers to their auto engine quiting, for
whatever reason. They are indoctrinated from the time they first
nervously turn on the ignition switch in Driver's Ed.

The word "stall" in aviation has so totally different a connotation
that just explaining it a non aviator is very difficult, let alone
expecting them to understand it when they see it for themselves or
hear about it.

The explanations are so different (for the same word) that I've always
felt that aviators should coin a new word to describe an aerodynamic
stall. We actually had this conversation here in this group some
three or four years ago. Among the suggestions was LOL for "Loss Of
Lift". I always liked that not only for the acronym but because loss
of lift comes easily off the tongue and says exactly what is happening
rather than referring to a word that does not actually describe what
is happening. At least not without a huge amount of necessary
explanation for lay people. My wife walked around the house for days
after the discussion shaking her head and saying: "LOL, LOL".

We had an off airport incident up here at the time of the last
discussion in which the pilot decided to make a precautionary landing
due to deteriorating weather (I think). He had a non pilot passenger
who panicked as the ground approached, grabbed the yoke and pulled
back. The airplane stalled some number of feet above the ground and
dropped it's nose into what should be described as a VERY hard
landing, busting the landing gear.

I heard about it on the morning news when the female talking head
described what had happened. She was reading off the copy and said
"when the passenger grabbed the yoke and pulled back, the engine
stalled"

I actually called the station and asked them if they understood that
there was a difference between the aerodynamic understanding of the
word "stall" as opposed to the automotive meaning. They did not, of
course. I explained and the person I was talking to sounded pleased
to know the difference but he's just one person and he did not read
the copy on air. It's entirely possible that the TV news woman added
"the engine stalled" on her own because that's how everyone
understands the use of the word.

We really shouldn't be surprised that the media gets wrong so often,
it's the only explanation of the word they know.

We should call it "Loss of Lift" instead. Or something else
appropriate, but NOT the word "stall".

Corky Scott