C172 crash at Coney Island

Corky Scott wrote:

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. [..]
The word "stall" in aviation has so totally different a connotation
that just explaining it a non aviator is very difficult, [..]
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.

Yes, that might help. Then again, it might not. As a counter-example, the
German language uses two totally different words for these conditions:
engine failure = Motorausfall (same word as with cars)
aerodynamic stall = Strömungsabriss

Notwithstanding this, there is a widespread misunderstanding in the German
general public (and their media) that planes cannot fly anymore when the
engine stops.


Greetings,
Markus

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

I like the report that says the plane's engine stalled, and then it went
into a tailspin! I suppose the same reporter would say it did a
"wheelie" on takeoff!

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?

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
I like the report that says the plane's engine stalled, and then it went
into a tailspin! I suppose the same reporter would say it did a
"wheelie" on takeoff!

Yea, a tailspin is an interesting maneuver.
I think that means that the tail of the airplane went into a spin, whereas
the rest of the plane was still on level flight. Which is a logical reason
for going down, given that probably the tail wasn't attached to the airplane
anymore.
Anybody has a better insight about tailspins?

Anybody has a better insight about tailspins?

Isn't that how Beechcraft promoted it's ruddevator?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:41:00 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

I like the report that says the plane's engine stalled, and then it went
into a tailspin! I suppose the same reporter would say it did a
"wheelie" on takeoff!

I'm not absolutely sure about this but I kind of thought there was a
time when "tailspin" was what a spin was called, by everyone.

This might have been around the first WW or during the barnstorming
period afterward, but I believe it was part of the popular vocabulary.

Corky Scott

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)

I understand the motivation for the suggested change, but I
doubt it would help the general public to understand stall
accidents.

Just call it a Wing Stall (or a Wingstall).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.