FAA Accident Report discrepancy.

On Jul 18, 6:30*am, GC wrote:
On 17/07/2011 19:09, Bruce Hoult wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172

Empty: 1691 lb
Gross: 2450 lb
Rate of climb: 721 fpm (at gross as these things are)

Useful load: 759 lb.
Fuel: 56 USgal, 212 litres ~= 170 kg, 374 lb

Four adults and golf clubs? Maybe 800 lb?

Come on! *Each man AND his golf clubs (up to 14 clubs, bag, balls, etc)
weighs only 200lbs total??

Four sets of gold clubs? OK, sure, that's a big difference. I read it
as four people and one set of clubs.

I do the maths differently. *It was probably overloaded by between 25 -
40% and the density altitude was probably significantly above the MSL
from which it will climb at 721fpm (I love that "1").

Yup, that's getting to be extremely dodgy unless you've got a runway
suitable for a 747, at sea level. I sure wouldn't try it.

I absolutely agree that you've got to take the limitations seriously,
but I do get annoyed at people who say "we'd be 10 lbs over gross
weight so we can't fly". Which I've been told multiple times, at
different places.

A lot of pilots don't seem to realize that published specifications
are huge compromises. Sure, manufacturers like to be able to advertise
high payloads, but they like to be able to quote short takeoff
distance and high rates of climb even more –*far above what is
actually necessary for many flights. Those things can be traded off
against each other, over some limited range of values.

(and of course cruise speed, service ceiling, allowed maneuvers all
come into it too)

At 04:52 16 July 2011, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Locally, we have a discrepancy between the coroner and the NTSB on
whether a particular crash was a suicide.

Unless the pilot left a note, I can see how that would easily come down to
being a matter of opinion.

Jim Beckman