NTSB Info from Recent 172 crash

[JEP]

NTSB preliminary report: Florida flight school plane was flying too slow before crash
Associated Press

Last update: March 22, 2008 - 11:43 PM

LANTANA, Fla. - A small plane that crashed last week in South Florida, killing all four people aboard, was apparently flying too slow and might have been overloaded, according to a National Transportation Safety Board preliminary report released Saturday.

The Cessna 172S was carrying four men weighing a total of 768 pounds, 40 pounds of baggage and a substantial load of fuel, the report said. The plane was permitted to hold up to 862 pounds in occupants, baggage and fuel.

Kemper Aviation co-owner Jeffrey Rozelle, who was the pilot, two Florida Atlantic University students and a bird expert were killed in the March 13 crash, which remains under investigation.

The crash came less than six months after two other fatal crashes involving planes owned by Kemper, a flight school. Company co-owner Akshay Mohan has said the school suspended operations the same day as the crash.

Witnesses saw the single-engine plane make several passes. During one of the "real low" passes, at about 200 to 250 feet, "the nose dropped and the tail went straight up," the report quoted witnesses as saying.

The plane spun into the ground even as the pilot apparently tried to recover by adding full power, the report said. After inspecting the wreckage, investigators found the throttle at the highest power setting, the report said.

The plane came to rest on its back, with the airframe smashed. Witnesses were able to extinguish an engine fire, the report said.

Rozelle held an airline transport pilot certificate as well as a flight instructor license.

The Federal Aviation Administration has launched an investigation into the company's operations and maintenance procedures.

Both telephone numbers listed on the Kemper Web site rang unanswered after hours Saturday and no one responded to an e-mail.

[MarkE]

So if they had full fuel that would have put them at roughly 230lbs over gross.

[Sidious]

Its sad no matter what way you look at it, however it is especially scary knowing that the OWNER was at the controls.

I feel bad for the pax, Im sure they felt at ease knowing he was there and not even knowing what was going to happen.

[Old Pete]

Originally Posted by MarkE

So if they had full fuel that would have put them at roughly 230lbs over gross.

If thats true, then if they only had 3 on board and full fuel they would still have been over gross.

[KC Jake]

Originally Posted by MarkE

So if they had full fuel that would have put them at roughly 230lbs over gross.

Not that it's really important, but a 172 holds 38 gallons of fuel doesn't it. By my math, they would be about 175 over gross with a full fuel load.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen.

[tobaknight]

Originally Posted by KC Jake

Not that it's really important, but a 172 holds 38 gallons of fuel doesn't it. By my math, they would be about 175 over gross with a full fuel load.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen.

53 Usable (56 Total) would put them @ 264 over.

[bLizZuE]

This is just stupid.

When I saw this accident I asked myself over and over how it could happen. I know I wasn't there and nobody will ever know what really happened inside the aircraft. But dammit it just pisses me off. A flight instructor, let alone an ATP should know better!

I originally thought it was an engine failure, but I couldn't imagine how an engine failure in the 172 could even be an emergency for someone of that experience level. It really made me rethink my opinion of the single engine airplane engine out scenario.

Now that it seems it was an overweight/out of CG problem, I'm even more upset. This life we live doesn't have room for carelessness. Especially when it comes to taking an airplane outside of it's design limits.

I'm most upset that lives were lost, but I hope we all learn from this. Weight and balance isn't some mundane detail. It's REQUIRED. It's essential.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by bLizZuE

A flight instructor, let alone an ATP should know better!

I'll play devil's advocate here for a minute.

It's ridiculous that a CFI/ATP overloaded a plane and got in to an accident, but I believe there is a lot more to the accident than a simple, "The plane was overweight and fell out of the sky."

Although I've never flown a Cessna over gross weight, I know they are extremely stable, forgiving platforms. I have no doubt a 172S could stay in the air with an extra 250 pounds in it. I'm betting the CFI/ATP at the controls knew it, too.

The extra weight certainly started the accident chain, but I can almost guarantee that distractions and maybe pressure to complete whatever mission they were on were also contributing factors.

My point is that the solution for aspiring pilots is not a clear cut "don't overload a plane and you won't get in to an accident." Even if they had been within weight limits, the accident still might have happened, given the same distractions and pressures on the pilot. I hope people see the bigger picture of problems here beyond a simple carelessness with weight and balance computations.

[JDMcFly]

"I hope people see the bigger picture of problems here beyond a simple carelessness with weight and balance computations."

Right. This school has been mentioned numerous times for safety issues. This time it led back to the owner. It's an extremely unfortunate accident, maybe it will stop people more people from dieing.

[wrxpilot]

Originally Posted by bLizZuE

I originally thought it was an engine failure, but I couldn't imagine how an engine failure in the 172 could even be an emergency for someone of that experience level. It really made me rethink my opinion of the single engine airplane engine out scenario.

I've had more than my fair share of run ins with that flight school (and even that particular airplane). But to not think of an engine failure in a SE airplane as an emergency is bizarre... I'd consider losing an engine in the twin engine turbine airplane I fly to be an emergency (and declare it as such), even though it can can hold altitude at 18,000 ft on one engine easily!

[wrxpilot]

Originally Posted by jrh

The extra weight certainly started the accident chain, but I can almost guarantee that distractions and maybe pressure to complete whatever mission they were on were also contributing factors.

Exactly. I've got close to 1,000 hrs flying around Cessnas, and this has been a wakeup call for me to not become complacent. After teaching in them for a few hundred hours, it's easy to do. But even a great airplane like the C172 can bite. Always be careful!

[jrh]

Originally Posted by JDMcFly

Right. This school has been mentioned numerous times for safety issues. This time it led back to the owner. It's an extremely unfortunate accident, maybe it will stop people more people from dieing.

I'm not sure that the school can be held directly responsible. I think this accident could have happened at many places with great safety records....but no doubt, it still reflects poorly on the organization.

[LoadMasterC141]

Last summer I flew a 172 with 4 people and enough bags for us to overnight on the Texas coast. I asked for advice on JC and within the flight school I rented from. Most JC'ers sensibly said to always fly it within limits. A few mentioned they had flown it a bit overweight and had no issues. The flight school manager said the plane will fly with whatever you put in it.

After my time in the Air Force as a weight and balance expert, I decided the right thing to do was plan for nothing more than the rated max weight of the airplane. I made the 1 hour flight with barely 2 hours of fuel onboard.

The plane was performing noticeably poor on climbout, but climbing fine nonetheless. Upon landing, I kept an approach speed of 80 knots and only slowed to 75 near the threshold. Everything was fine.

I have no doubt the Kemper accident was not caused by an overweight aircraft. Rather, it was a factor, but shear complacency killed the pilot and crew.

[JDMcFly]

Originally Posted by jrh

I'm not sure that the school can be held directly responsible. I think this accident could have happened at many places with great safety records....but no doubt, it still reflects poorly on the organization.

My point isn't safety record, but attitude.

[surreal1221]

I don't know guys.

Even if you KNOW that a plane can fly overgross, it's obviously NOT a good idea or practice to get into the habit of.

The trouble is, the plane MAY fly overgross, but what happens when you take away the standard conditions that you're use to flying in, put the plane into a different environment / flight regime that it obviously isn't certified for.

That whole knowing the plane can fly overgross goes right out the engine exhaust, and you find yourself in the ground.

Don't mess around with your numbers, and fly the damn thing by the POH.

Shouldn't be too difficult.

[moxiepilot]

Originally Posted by wrxpilot

Exactly. I've got close to 1,000 hrs flying around Cessnas, and this has been a wakeup call for me to not become complacent. After teaching in them for a few hundred hours, it's easy to do. But even a great airplane like the C172 can bite. Always be careful!

yeah it seems everytime i let my guard down a little something reminds me to review the bold face oh like, engine fires, too much ice or somethings like that

[JEP]

Originally Posted by jrh

I'll play devil's advocate here for a minute.

It's ridiculous that a CFI/ATP overloaded a plane and got in to an accident, but I believe there is a lot more to the accident than a simple, "The plane was overweight and fell out of the sky."

Although I've never flown a Cessna over gross weight, I know they are extremely stable, forgiving platforms. I have no doubt a 172S could stay in the air with an extra 250 pounds in it. I'm betting the CFI/ATP at the controls knew it, too.

The extra weight certainly started the accident chain, but I can almost guarantee that distractions and maybe pressure to complete whatever mission they were on were also contributing factors.

My point is that the solution for aspiring pilots is not a clear cut "don't overload a plane and you won't get in to an accident." Even if they had been within weight limits, the accident still might have happened, given the same distractions and pressures on the pilot. I hope people see the bigger picture of problems here beyond a simple carelessness with weight and balance computations.

True indeed, we know that accidents are almost always a chain of events. Not to oversimplify it, but had the flight been scrapped becuase of the extra weight, there would not have been 4 deaths.

It only takes one step to break the chain and that did not happen here. If they left within weight/cg an accident MAY have still occurred, but this exact incident would not have happened.

[chrisdahut1]

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

The flight school manager said the plane will fly with whatever you put in it.

I couldn't help but let this quote bother me...did he/she really say that? That would cause me to shake my head in disbelief coming from a regular pilot...but from someone who is in charge of training others, it's particularly disturbing.

As far as this accident goes, flying overweight alone wouldn't have caused this. However, flying low, slow (which I'm sure they were doing if trying to get a good look at something on the ground) AND overweight usually leads to these predictable results.

[LoadMasterC141]

PM Sent

[Murdoughnut]

My flying club had an interesting conversation with a Cessna Rep not long after our aircraft crashed. One of our pilots who regularly exceeds max gross by less than a 100 pounds or so made the comment that it essentially "isn't a big deal". The Cessna rep was quick to respond by pointing out that any time you fly the a/c outside of the envelope, you become a test pilot - that they can't tell you how the plane is going to fly outside of the envelope. It was pretty interesting.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

I don't know guys.

Even if you KNOW that a plane can fly overgross, it's obviously NOT a good idea or practice to get into the habit of.

The trouble is, the plane MAY fly overgross, but what happens when you take away the standard conditions that you're use to flying in, put the plane into a different environment / flight regime that it obviously isn't certified for.

That whole knowing the plane can fly overgross goes right out the engine exhaust, and you find yourself in the ground.

Don't mess around with your numbers, and fly the damn thing by the POH.

Shouldn't be too difficult.

I completely agree. I would never advocate that it's acceptable to exceed limitations clearly established by the manufacturer.

As has been said, anyone who does so becomes a test pilot.

HOWEVER, I want people to understand flying is not a black and white activity, it's full of shades of grey.

Can we fly 1 pound over gross? Yep, in fact I bet a lot of people have done so by mistake. How about 10? I won't lie, I'd do it in a pinch. 100? That's pushing it. 1000? That's nuts. There will come a point when the plane won't get off the ground, but we don't know exactly when. Personally, I don't want to be the guy who finds out.

I wish this could be a clear cut case of "Don't overload your planes, boys and girls," but it's not. There are numerous factors involved and nobody is talking about anything except the extra weight.

How about the fact that the plane stalled? Planes don't drop out of the sky for no reason. The pilot stalled the plane because he exceeded the critical angle of attack. Why he exceeded the critical AoA is anybody's guess, but I can guarantee the extra weight was only one factor of many.

Why was he maneuving too low to recover? Why did he ignore the stall horn? Did he get distracted? What other pressures was he under to complete the flight? When was the last time he flew that plane under similar conditions?

The list could go on and on.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by JEP

True indeed, we know that accidents are almost always a chain of events. Not to oversimplify it, but had the flight been scrapped becuase of the extra weight, there would not have been 4 deaths.

It only takes one step to break the chain and that did not happen here. If they left within weight/cg an accident MAY have still occurred, but this exact incident would not have happened.

I could list a dozen reasons to cancel a flight. If the pilot had decided to cancel for any reason, there would not have been 4 deaths.

You're right that this *exact* incident would not have happened if they'd left within weight limits, but the same could be said for if they had been flying 500 feet higher or 20 knots faster.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by jrh

I completely agree. I would never advocate that it's acceptable to exceed limitations clearly established by the manufacturer.

As has been said, anyone who does so becomes a test pilot.

HOWEVER, I want people to understand flying is not a black and white activity, it's full of shades of grey.

Can we fly 1 pound over gross? Yep, in fact I bet a lot of people have done so by mistake. How about 10? I won't lie, I'd do it in a pinch. 100? That's pushing it. 1000? That's nuts. There will come a point when the plane won't get off the ground, but we don't know exactly when. Personally, I don't want to be the guy who finds out.

I wish this could be a clear cut case of "Don't overload your planes, boys and girls," but it's not. There are numerous factors involved and nobody is talking about anything except the extra weight.

How about the fact that the plane stalled? Planes don't drop out of the sky for no reason. The pilot stalled the plane because he exceeded the critical angle of attack. Why he exceeded the critical AoA is anybody's guess, but I can guarantee the extra weight was only one factor of many.

Why was he maneuving too low to recover? Why did he ignore the stall horn? Did he get distracted? What other pressures was he under to complete the flight? When was the last time he flew that plane under similar conditions?

The list could go on and on.

Considering the usual visitor here at JC is a young, new, wet behind the ear, private pilot student. . .I can't say I advocate discussing the ways and abilities of an aircraft to fly overgross.

Sure, he could have been flying higher. . .but so what. He still was flying overgross, and who knows where his CG was, perhaps beyond the aft limit - making any stall recovery even more difficult. We can speculate about this all day, all week, all month, all year.

What we shouldn't be doing, here at least, is dictating the different circumstances a 172 can/could be flown overgross. IMHO.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Considering the usual visitor here at JC is a young, new, wet behind the ear, private pilot student. . .I can't say I advocate discussing the ways and abilities of an aircraft to fly overgross.

Fair enough. I guess we have different philosophies about some things. I'm more one of those "knowledge is power, censorship is bad," kind of guys. I'm not going to say it's impossible to fly over gross weight, because it's not. I'm not going to protect inexperienced pilots by telling them something that's exaggerated or untrue.

I want people, regardless of their experience level, to make intelligent decisions and have reasons for doing things the way they do. I want them to have a broad perspective and not blindly follow advice without understanding the deeper issues involved.

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Sure, he could have been flying higher. . .but so what. He still was flying overgross, and who knows where his CG was, perhaps beyond the aft limit - making any stall recovery even more difficult. We can speculate about this all day, all week, all month, all year.

So what??? So maybe this accident was caused by low level maneuvering, coupled with a macho attitude and maybe poor rudder coordination skills on the part of the pilot.

You're right, we are speculating, but I don't see how my speculation that the accident was caused by other factors is any worse than you speculating that it was caused by weight. Let's face it, both are equally speculative and each are equally likely.

Originally Posted by surreal1221

What we shouldn't be doing, here at least, is dictating the different circumstances a 172 can/could be flown overgross. IMHO.

I'm not dictating any circumstances. I've made it clear it *shouldn't* be done, and it's hard to predict what'll happen if it is done. But we're lying if we straight up say it *can't* be done. It can.

[ALSF2]

Originally Posted by Murdoughnut

The Cessna rep was quick to respond by pointing out that any time you fly the a/c outside of the envelope, you become a test pilot - that they can't tell you how the plane is going to fly outside of the envelope. It was pretty interesting.

I've heard this from my flight instructors. I don't want to be a test pilot unless I be gettin paid for dat.