C172 crash at Coney Island

I get suspicious about these - a low time pilot, no experience or
instruction with aft CG, maybe a little show-off to the many friends on
board. I shouldn't speculate until the NTSB gets done.

But why is it that a disproportionate number of crashes happen with all
the seats filled? Do instructors cover that situation (both technical
and psycological(sp?)) in a private pilot course? They should.

"nrp" wrote in message
oups.com...
I get suspicious about these - a low time pilot, no experience or
instruction with aft CG, maybe a little show-off to the many friends on
board.

This was an 1800-hour CFI with paying customers on board.

--Gary

nrp wrote:
I get suspicious about these - a low time pilot, no experience or
instruction with aft CG, maybe a little show-off to the many friends on
board.

None of this is true, so you can quit being suspicious.

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'.

nrp,
That's like driving a car loaded with people. Someone is always
talking and/or the driver is listening to someone else in the car. My
attention would not be even near 90% unfortunately. That's why
sometimes I hate driving with people in the car on long road trips.
Always distractions of some sort.

I am not a pilot but I would imagine there would be some kind of
parallel here.

"nrp" wrote in message news:1116771237.
I get suspicious about these - a low time pilot, no experience or
instruction with aft CG, maybe a little show-off to the many friends on
board. I shouldn't speculate until the NTSB gets done.

No need to specutale. You're simply wrong. One minute with a search engine
would spare you this ignominy.

But why is it that a disproportionate number of crashes happen with all
the seats filled? Do instructors cover that situation (both technical
and psycological(sp?)) in a private pilot course? They should.

You have any stats on this?

moo

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

Bryan

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