C172 crash at Coney Island

[Gary Drescher]

Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.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

[Ben Hallert]

The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
terrain/water.

Most unfortunate, my best wishes to the families affected.

[Pacer Pilot]

Or was showing off, hope that wasn't the case. But it does show the
dangers of low, slow steep turns.

[Gary Drescher]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
> airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
> way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
> terrain/water.

It's a twelve-mile-stretch of the Long Island shore, just a few miles south
of JFK. It's actually quite fun to fly there at that altitude--I've done it
several times. An engine failure wouldn't be especially bad because there's
a beach to land on (or you can ditch just offshore if the beach is too
crowded). You do, of course, need to avoid stalling (or especially
spinning).

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
> airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
> way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
> terrain/water.

Actually over Coney Island the floor of Class B space is at 1500 ft
(I'm looking at my NY chart). It's hard to tell from the ground how
high the airplane is. Unfortunately it sounds like a classic
stall/spin.

You can see the tail number in the NYT photo..

>
> Most unfortunate, my best wishes to the families affected.

Yes. Very sad :(

....richie

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually over Coney Island the floor of Class B space is at 1500 ft
> (I'm looking at my NY chart).

Right, but just nearby the Class B is 500'(+). If the plane came from there,
it might still have been quite low (or it might've been low anyway just to
get a better view).

--Gary

[Ernest C. Evans]

I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???

i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! :o(


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Actually over Coney Island the floor of Class B space is at 1500 ft
>> (I'm looking at my NY chart).
>
> Right, but just nearby the Class B is 500'(+). If the plane came from
> there, it might still have been quite low (or it might've been low anyway
> just to get a better view).
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Ernest C. Evans" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
> ??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???
>
> i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
> quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
> happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! :o(

Actually, having an engine quit would *not* cause a plane to fall. As you
say, it would just glide instead.

What does cause a plane to fall--whether the engine is running or not--is
pulling back too far on the control wheel, which causes the plane to slow
down too much (at least, that's the simplified explanation). When that
happens, witnesses who are not familiar with aerodynamic principles often
perceive the incident as an engine failure, which is then how the press
reports it initially.

You're right too that when a plane stops flying (the technical term is
"stalling", but that's confusing because it has nothing to do with the
*engine* stalling), you can recover if you have enough altitude, but being
lower makes recovery harder. Stall recovery shouldn't take much more than
100 feet, but there's a particularly bad type of stall--called a spin--that
can take more than 1000 feet to recover from.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

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

[Ron Natalie]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
> airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
> way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
> terrain/water.
>
The airspace below is over open water. It's perfectly reasonable.

[Matt Whiting]

Ernest C. Evans wrote:
> I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
> ??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???
>
> i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
> quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
> happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! :o(

Are you sure the engine quit?


Matt

[George Patterson]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
> airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
> way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
> terrain/water.

Why? Do you think that there are many pilots out there who can't fly straight
and level and control their altitude within 500'? IMO, anyone who can't fly
safely in that airspace shouldn't be in the left seat.

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'.

[George Patterson]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.html?hp).

I find it interesting that this is dated tomorrow.

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'.

[Ben Hallert]

You're right, I forgot that the FARs excepted water from the 500ft
minimum. My mistake!

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kVRje.15312$_f7.8831@trndny01...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
> > (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.html?hp).
>
> I find it interesting that this is dated tomorrow.

Perhaps it is past the deadline for this morning's paper, and will be in
tomorrow morning's paper? Just a guess. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Ben Hallert wrote:
> > The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
> > airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
> > way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
> > terrain/water.
> >
> The airspace below is over open water. It's perfectly reasonable.

Actually, significant parts of the 500' floor are over densely populated
areas of New Jersey. (Wow, what a hairy-assed chunk of airspace.
There's a teeny weeny triangle of 500' floor wedged in between a section
with an 800' floor and the EWR central core. That's gotta be the
smallest separately charted chunk of controlled airspace in the world.)

rg

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
> Are you sure the engine quit?


Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.


Montblack

[aluckyguess]

4 in a 172 if they were adults that would be a full load.
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:kVRje.15312$_f7.8831@trndny01...
>> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> > Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
>> > (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.html?hp).
>>
>> I find it interesting that this is dated tomorrow.
>
> Perhaps it is past the deadline for this morning's paper, and will be in
> tomorrow morning's paper? Just a guess. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> Are you sure the engine quit?
>
>
>Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.
>

That in itself is good reason to suspect something else!
It appears the initial investigators told the press something about
stall/spin, which though preliminary appears to be the most likely
scenario.

The brief report I read said "The engine satlled and the plane went into
a tailspin". I assume they can determine this from measuring the rubber
marks in the clouds!

G Faris

[Patrick Mayer]

Hi,

> You're right, I forgot that the FARs excepted water from the 500ft
> minimum. My mistake!
>

IIRC there's a "+" behind the "500" -meaning you're perfectly legal to fly
at exactly 500ft. I've done it before, it's perfectly safe if you keep up
your airspeed. Once the fan quits, you just land on the beach straight
ahead, or in the water

Patrick

[Gary Drescher]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> Are you sure the engine quit?
>
> Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.

That's not really helpful evidence unless they said how they reached that
conclusion.

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>
>> Are you sure the engine quit?
>
>
>
> Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.

Ha, ha, ha. Yep, I'd sure take a CBS News report to the bank ... NOT.

It will be interesting to see what the real investigation turns up.


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Gary Drescher" wrote:

> Subsequent updates are emphasizing witness reports that the engine
> sounded like it was sputtering,

Witnesses often say that, particularly if the airplane was spinning.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Gary Drescher]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" wrote:
>
>> Subsequent updates are emphasizing witness reports that the engine
>> sounded like it was sputtering,
>
> Witnesses often say that, particularly if the airplane was spinning.

Yup. At least one witness was quoted as saying that the engine sputtered
while the plane "circled", but he could've been referring to spinning. Also,
if the plane entered a spin, the proper response would've included retarding
the throttle, which might be what the witnesses heard.

It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.

--Gary

[nrp]

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.

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Ben Hallert]

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.

[Guillermo]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" wrote:
> >
> >> Subsequent updates are emphasizing witness reports that the engine
> >> sounded like it was sputtering,
> >
> > Witnesses often say that, particularly if the airplane was spinning.
>
> Yup. At least one witness was quoted as saying that the engine sputtered
> while the plane "circled", but he could've been referring to spinning.
Also,
> if the plane entered a spin, the proper response would've included
retarding
> the throttle, which might be what the witnesses heard.
>
> It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
> sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.

I was going to say that.
He is also CFII, MEI

[Guillermo]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

CFII, MEI

[Guillermo]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Ernest C. Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose
first"
> > ??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???
> >
> > i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an
engine
> > quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you
just
> > happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! :o(
>
> Actually, having an engine quit would *not* cause a plane to fall. As you
> say, it would just glide instead.

Speaking about common misconceptions, yea, unfortunately a chunk of people
seem to believe that the airplane is being held in the air by the propeller
itself.
I remember I once saw a movie (a few years ago; I thought the name was
"trapped", about a girl who gets kidnapped, but I cannot find it with that
name).
In this movie there was a scene where some people were flying in a seaplane,
and for some reason they needed to turn off the engine of the plane for a
few minutes. This was a ridiculous scene because once they shutdown the
engine the airplane just started falling off the sky. There was a shot of
the altimeter and it showed a descent of about 500 ft/SECOND!!!! (the pilot
tells the passenger that they have about 2 minutes to make a phone call, but
this means that they needed to be at about 30000 ft at that descent rate).
Then when they are done, he turns on the engine about 200 ft from the ground
and the airplane immediately goes into straight and level flight. The movie
was being pretty bad, but after that, I just started laughing, concerned
though, that it'll feed common misconceptions that people have about engine
failures in airplanes.
Has anyone seen that stupid movie or remembers the name ?

[Gary Drescher]

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
>> sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.
>
> I was going to say that.
> He is also CFII, MEI

If the engine failed, it's conceivable that the right-seat passenger
panicked and grabbed the control wheel or something. Without survivors or a
cockpit voice recorder, it'd be hard to know.

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Gary Drescher" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Subsequent updates are emphasizing witness reports that the engine
>>>sounded like it was sputtering,
>>
>>Witnesses often say that, particularly if the airplane was spinning.
>
>
> Yup. At least one witness was quoted as saying that the engine sputtered
> while the plane "circled", but he could've been referring to spinning. Also,
> if the plane entered a spin, the proper response would've included retarding
> the throttle, which might be what the witnesses heard.
>
> It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
> sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.

Yes, that seems odd. Makes you wonder if something else didn't happen
like a seagull strike or something like that which disabled the pilot.

Matt

[nrp]

That (CFI etc w paying pax) puts a completely different light on this
one. We'll have to wait for the report. THX for the clarifications

[Grumman-581]

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
oups.com...
> The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
> airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
> way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
> terrain/water.

New Orleans has that also... As long as you're over the lake at less than
whatever the floor is (500-600 ft, if I remember correctly), you don't have
to talk to ATC and possibly end up getting routed to BFE (no, I'm not
talking about Terry County Airport in Texas)... I usually flew it at around
200-300 ft... No big deal... If you can't maintain your altitude well enough
to do this, you probably shouldn't be flying anyway... Either that or just
talk to the controllers and you'll get a chance to tour BFE...

[Dave]

Yup!

Was a float plane, he crashed it on the highway...

Wife could not undersatnd why I was laughing... :)

Stupid... no wonder the public thinks that way... :(

Dave


aOn Sun, 22 May 2005 12:32:00 -0400, "Guillermo"
> wrote:

>"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>> "Ernest C. Evans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose
>first"
>> > ??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???
>> >
>> > i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an
>engine
>> > quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you
>just
>> > happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! :o(
>>
>> Actually, having an engine quit would *not* cause a plane to fall. As you
>> say, it would just glide instead.
>
>Speaking about common misconceptions, yea, unfortunately a chunk of people
>seem to believe that the airplane is being held in the air by the propeller
>itself.
>I remember I once saw a movie (a few years ago; I thought the name was
>"trapped", about a girl who gets kidnapped, but I cannot find it with that
>name).
>In this movie there was a scene where some people were flying in a seaplane,
>and for some reason they needed to turn off the engine of the plane for a
>few minutes. This was a ridiculous scene because once they shutdown the
>engine the airplane just started falling off the sky. There was a shot of
>the altimeter and it showed a descent of about 500 ft/SECOND!!!! (the pilot
>tells the passenger that they have about 2 minutes to make a phone call, but
>this means that they needed to be at about 30000 ft at that descent rate).
>Then when they are done, he turns on the engine about 200 ft from the ground
>and the airplane immediately goes into straight and level flight. The movie
>was being pretty bad, but after that, I just started laughing, concerned
>though, that it'll feed common misconceptions that people have about engine
>failures in airplanes.
>Has anyone seen that stupid movie or remembers the name ?
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
...
> He was one of my instructors at Linden back when I was a student pilot.

Wow. My condolences on his death.

--Gary

[Marco Rispoli]

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "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.
>
> CFII, MEI

Yes he was ... he was a good guy.

He was one of my instructors at Linden back when I was a student pilot.

I saw the name of the pilot and I still can't link him to the person.

I talked to him just saturday morning. I was there to drop my plane for a
mechanic at Linden.

I stopped by the school and I talked to him for about half an hour ...
chatting and catching up.

That same day. Saturday. Yesterday morning.

I keep thinking it's just a big mistake. It's somebody else ... not him.

I can't believe it's him. I am still hoping this is a mistake ... and I am
going to go back to the school and there he will be ...

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Milen Lazarov]

Guillermo wrote:
> Speaking about common misconceptions, yea, unfortunately a chunk of people
> seem to believe that the airplane is being held in the air by the propeller
> itself.
> I remember I once saw a movie (a few years ago; I thought the name was
> "trapped", about a girl who gets kidnapped, but I cannot find it with that
> name).
> Has anyone seen that stupid movie or remembers the name ?
>

Yes, "Trapped" it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280380/combined
Look at the user comments at the bottom of the page:

"The father (Stuart Townsend) drives an airplane (to a convention he can
drive to, no less) once, and then, right when he needs one to escape, he
finds one and flies it perfectly! If he's supposed to be a young father,
how could he have gone through all of medical school, settled down and
gotten married, AND gotten his pilot's license? " :)

[Mutts]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:24:38 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"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
>


In my flying club we have had military trained pilots run out of fuel
and also get themselves and passenger killed in GA aircarft.
Commercially rated and citation pilots have banged up aircraft too.

I have read NTSB reports where a CFI was on board and should have
known better. One local example was stuffing too many people in a
Cadet and flying out of high density altitude airport in the
mountains.

Complacency kills too. Its always surprising to see experienced
professionals overlook basics. But it happens. No question. Anyone
human is not immune to it.

We will have to see what the NTSB says in this case.
It could be no fault of the pilot at all also.
So sad two 18 year old girls on board.

[R.L.]

Sure they can. But then if the engine quits, you're at the limits of w&b
(four occupants, nearly full fuel, and who knows how many fat guys are on
board)), 500' AGL/MSL, in a slow turn AND THEN YOU FLY BY THE BOOK AND TRY
TO PULL BACK AND GET TO MAX GLIDE SPEED @ 69K WHEN BEACH WINDS ARE
SLOPPY-VARIABLE -- that's a killer recipe. Notice the sky pic in the NYT
article. Doesn't look like stable air to me.

From what I know of Coney Island, if the guy eating an eggplant sandwich
at Nathan's saw the whole show, it must mean the pilot was turning to set up
a landing on the Brighton Beach side of Coney Island where there was likely
more unoccupied open space.

In my opinion, you're being dumb trying to duck under the class B floor at
500' MSL along a beach with perhaps a strong on-shore wind unless you're
solo with half-tanks in a C172S.




> Why? Do you think that there are many pilots out there who can't fly
straight
> and level and control their altitude within 500'? IMO, anyone who can't
fly
> safely in that airspace shouldn't be in the left seat.
>
> 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'.

[A.Coleman]

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/nyregion/22crash.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
>
>

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
>sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.
>


Perplexing - maybe. Disturbing - certainly. Rare - NOT.

G Faris

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
>>sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.
>
> Perplexing - maybe. Disturbing - certainly. Rare - NOT.

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

[Grumman-581]

"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?

Usually not more than once per pilot...

[Peter R.]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Montblack wrote:
>
>> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>>
>>> Are you sure the engine quit?
>>
>> Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.
>
> Ha, ha, ha. Yep, I'd sure take a CBS News report to the bank ... NOT.
>
> It will be interesting to see what the real investigation turns up.

The sarcasm in his post seemed pretty obvious to me.

--
Peter

















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[LWG]

Yeah, but both Newsweek *and* Dan Rather's C-BS news are saying it. Gotta be
true, doesn't it?




"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Montblack wrote:
>>
>>> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>>>
>>>> Are you sure the engine quit?
>>>
>>> Yes. CBS Evening news (Saturday evening) said the engine stalled.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha. Yep, I'd sure take a CBS News report to the bank ... NOT.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see what the real investigation turns up.
>
> The sarcasm in his post seemed pretty obvious to me.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[George Patterson]

R.L. wrote:
> Sure they can. But then if the engine quits, you're at the limits of w&b
> (four occupants, nearly full fuel, and who knows how many fat guys are on
> board)), 500' AGL/MSL, in a slow turn AND THEN YOU FLY BY THE BOOK AND TRY
> TO PULL BACK AND GET TO MAX GLIDE SPEED @ 69K WHEN BEACH WINDS ARE
> SLOPPY-VARIABLE -- that's a killer recipe.

Well, if that's what you would do and if that's a killer recipe for you, then
you should definitely not fly there.

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'.

[George Patterson]

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'.

[Morgans]

"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

[Morgans]

"nrp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> That (CFI etc w paying pax) puts a completely different light on this
> one. We'll have to wait for the report. THX for the clarifications

A report I read said the engine sputtered a couple times, then the plane
turned sharply, as to go out to sea. Was the pilot trying to ditch, and not
kill people on the beach, and it instead spun in? All speculation, of
course.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

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.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> 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.

While that might be true for you driving your friends, this case is more like a
limo driver carrying clients somewhere.

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'.

[Guillermo]

okay, so I was remembering right.
Yahoo Movies played a dirty trick on me and showed me a different trailer
for the movie (for other movie)
weird.


"Milen Lazarov" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Guillermo wrote:
> > Speaking about common misconceptions, yea, unfortunately a chunk of
people
> > seem to believe that the airplane is being held in the air by the
propeller
> > itself.
> > I remember I once saw a movie (a few years ago; I thought the name was
> > "trapped", about a girl who gets kidnapped, but I cannot find it with
that
> > name).
> > Has anyone seen that stupid movie or remembers the name ?
> >
>
> Yes, "Trapped" it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280380/combined
> Look at the user comments at the bottom of the page:
>
> "The father (Stuart Townsend) drives an airplane (to a convention he can
> drive to, no less) once, and then, right when he needs one to escape, he
> finds one and flies it perfectly! If he's supposed to be a young father,
> how could he have gone through all of medical school, settled down and
> gotten married, AND gotten his pilot's license? " :)

[[email protected]]

"It started going up," said Roberto Paredes, 10. "Then it stopped [for]
a . . . second. Then it went down fast."
(http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/44449.htm)

I'm inclined to trust the 10-year-old kid's matter-of-fact report more
than those of reporters or adult witnesses who like to "interpret."

So, this 1800-hour instructor -- who reportedly overflew his
girlfriend's apartment at less than 500' AGL "to impress her," a clear
violation even under Part 91 -- definitely stalled the plane.

An unintentional stall, with or without a running engine, almost
certainly points to pilot error.

Almost all general-aviation "tragedies" are preventable. Too bad.

- Miles

[Happy Dog]

"R.L." > wrote in message
om...
> Sure they can. But then if the engine quits, you're at the limits of w&b
> (four occupants, nearly full fuel, and who knows how many fat guys are on
> board)), 500' AGL/MSL, in a slow turn AND THEN YOU FLY BY THE BOOK AND
> TRY
> TO PULL BACK AND GET TO MAX GLIDE SPEED @ 69K WHEN BEACH WINDS ARE
> SLOPPY-VARIABLE -- that's a killer recipe. Notice the sky pic in the NYT
> article. Doesn't look like stable air to me.
>
> From what I know of Coney Island, if the guy eating an eggplant
> sandwich
> at Nathan's saw the whole show, it must mean the pilot was turning to set
> up
> a landing on the Brighton Beach side of Coney Island where there was
> likely
> more unoccupied open space.
>
> In my opinion, you're being dumb trying to duck under the class B floor at
> 500' MSL along a beach with perhaps a strong on-shore wind unless you're
> solo with half-tanks in a C172S.

Are you talkiing about a gale force wind? I doubt it. The wind has no
appreciable effect.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>>It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
>>>sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.
>>
>> Perplexing - maybe. Disturbing - certainly. Rare - NOT.
>
>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?
>

Not my data - that's the job of the NTSB.
Check out these two, which I just pulled out or recent memory, off the top
of my head. High time, high-class pilots. Thousands of hours. ATPs. Lives
lost after stalling by exceeding allowable angle of attack in low-altitude
manoeuvers. Admittedly, there is a medical "factor" in one of these tragic
accidents, which by some accounts may have been more important than the
simple "factor" status allowed by the NTSB, but even if you strike this one
out, it's only one of dozens you'll find in the NTSB database.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20030415X00505&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC03FA173&rpt=fi

It is disturbing that seemingly no amount of time or experience will put us
completely out of danger from this type of misjudgement. The two cited here
are complex aircraft, with crew coordination considerations, however you'll
find dozens of "stall turning final" kinds of accident reports by ATP's in
Cessna singles.

G Faris

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>>It's perplexing that an 1800-hour CFI would have a stall/spin crash on a
>>>>sightseeing flight, with or without an engine failure.
>>>
>>> Perplexing - maybe. Disturbing - certainly. Rare - NOT.
>>
>>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?
>
> Not my data - that's the job of the NTSB.
> Check out these two, which I just pulled out or recent memory, off the top
> of my head. High time, high-class pilots. Thousands of hours. ATPs. Lives
> lost after stalling by exceeding allowable angle of attack in low-altitude
> manoeuvers. Admittedly, there is a medical "factor" in one of these tragic
> accidents, which by some accounts may have been more important than the
> simple "factor" status allowed by the NTSB, but even if you strike this
> one
> out, it's only one of dozens you'll find in the NTSB database.

Both of these accidents occurred in poor visibility (1100', 3sm in the case
with the medical factor; in the other, a witness described the plane
"reappearing" from clouds at 200' on a *visual* base leg). Thus, neither is
an example of the sort I was asking about.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/44449.htm)
> So, this 1800-hour instructor -- who reportedly overflew his
> girlfriend's apartment at less than 500' AGL "to impress her," a clear
> violation even under Part 91 -- definitely stalled the plane.

What report are you referring to? The article you cite says nothing about
the plane's altitude at that point. (Also, as the article points out, the
girlfriend's house was along the beach, a common sightseeing route for small
planes, so it wouldn't have taken any special effort to overfly it).

> An unintentional stall, with or without a running engine, almost
> certainly points to pilot error.

This report also says, for the first time, that the plane was "trailing
black smoke" while it descended and circled. If there was a fire onboard, it
becomes much less clear that there was any pilot error (and it would make
any such error more comprehensible).

--Gary

[OtisWinslow]

Full gross. Tight turn with sightseers. I doubt a "stalled" engine
had much play in this one. You have to maintain enough airspeed
for the wing to keep flying. Very sad deal innocent people had
to die.



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Ernest C. Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
>> ??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???
>>
>> i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
>> quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
>> happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! :o(
>
> Actually, having an engine quit would *not* cause a plane to fall. As you
> say, it would just glide instead.
>
> What does cause a plane to fall--whether the engine is running or not--is
> pulling back too far on the control wheel, which causes the plane to slow
> down too much (at least, that's the simplified explanation). When that
> happens, witnesses who are not familiar with aerodynamic principles often
> perceive the incident as an engine failure, which is then how the press
> reports it initially.
>
> You're right too that when a plane stops flying (the technical term is
> "stalling", but that's confusing because it has nothing to do with the
> *engine* stalling), you can recover if you have enough altitude, but being
> lower makes recovery harder. Stall recovery shouldn't take much more than
> 100 feet, but there's a particularly bad type of stall--called a
> spin--that can take more than 1000 feet to recover from.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Greg Farris]

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.

[OtisWinslow]

"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?

[OtisWinslow]

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
>

[OtisWinslow]

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
>
>

[OtisWinslow]

"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.

[Flyingmonk]

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

Bryan

[Gary Drescher]

"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.]

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
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Corky Scott]

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

[Markus Voget]

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

[Guy Elden Jr]

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

[Greg Farris]

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!

[James Robinson]

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?

[Guillermo]

"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?

[Jose]

> 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.

[Guy Elden Jr]

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.

[Corky Scott]

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

[John Galban]

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)

[Jose]

> 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.

[Peter R.]

LWG wrote:

> Yeah, but both Newsweek *and* Dan Rather's C-BS news are saying it.
Gotta be
> true, doesn't it?

Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
:)

--
Peter

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:11:35 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>
>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.

See:

http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801a/Tailspin.htm

Don
(it shouldn't have been necessary to point this out to someone named
after a character in Gasoline Alley. <|;^} 8 )

[George Patterson]

Don Tuite wrote:
>
> See:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801a/Tailspin.htm

I didn't see anything in there about the origination of the term "tailspin." If
you inferred from the article that the author made it up to aquire a name for
his character, this is certainly not true. The term "tailspin" was used during
WWI to describe some sort of spin, and French (at least) pilots were required to
demonstrate recovery from one before being assigned to combat. Nodhoff & Hall
state that "the tailspin had a bad reputation in those days" when writing about
their flight training in "Falcons of France." Both flew for France during the
Great War, and Norhoff was one of the top French aces.

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'.

[George Patterson]

H.P. wrote:
> Two older males at *145* pounds each? A scenario more plausible in
> southeast Asia, perhaps.

I weighed 145 *or less* until I was in my late 40s. I'm 5'9" tall. Not uncommon
at all in America even today.

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'.

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:46:44 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801a/Tailspin.htm
>
>I didn't see anything in there about the origination of the term "tailspin." If
>you inferred from the article that the author made it up to aquire a name for
>his character, this is certainly not true.

I was establishing a provenance for the term dating back to at least
1928.

Don

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>
>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.

I think so too. Not only are they the only two current, but I don't
think there ever was an "S" that was not an "SP". It's often called
"172S - Skyhawk SP". The useful load for the "SP" is a bit higher than
the "R", but both, with all their creature comfort and tech goodies,
are significantly lower than the older series, "M" etc. I often fly
older and newer - I wiould check W/B very carefully, using real weights
of the individuals, before putting four in an older 172. I would not
even consider putting four adults in a newer 172.

G Faris

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:13:26 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

>By using LOL, we'd be substituting a word that IMHO
>perpetuates the misunderstanding of what happens at the
>aerodynamic stall AOA. Many pilots seem to think that lift
>somehow "disappears" when the plane stalls. It doesn't.
>Above the stall angle of attack lift begins to decrease with
>AOA, while below that angle, it increases with AOA.
>Nonetheless, it's quite possible to fly with a wing fully
>stalled, and less lift than at the lower AOA. Airshow
>performers do it often, and we do it with one wing or both
>wings in a spin.

But Todd, aren't you playing a bit with semantics here? After all,
not many of us fly tiny extreme performance airplanes that have a
power to weight ratio that allows them to literally hang vertically on
their prop. In that case, the prop has taken over as the wing, and
it's obvious that it isn't suffering from LOL. ;-)

As to the spin, which way is the airplane going in the spin: up, down
or staying level? If the airplane is going down, isn't that an
indication that the airplane has suffered an overall loss of lift?

I'm not lobbying for LOL as THE proper and only term to use, "Wing
Stall" seems pretty accurate too.

Corky Scott

[John T Lowry]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.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
>
>
My Off-the-Wall Guess:

1. Engine quit (fuel exhaustion?)
2. Pilot lowered nose to maintain airspeed, glide to beach landing
3. Male passenger in right front seat panicked, grabbed controls and
pulled back.
4. In ensuing struggle, airspeed bled off, aerodynamic stall.
5. Crash.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

[Ross Richardson]

John T Lowry wrote:

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
>>(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.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
>>
>>
>
> My Off-the-Wall Guess:
>
> 1. Engine quit (fuel exhaustion?)
> 2. Pilot lowered nose to maintain airspeed, glide to beach landing
> 3. Male passenger in right front seat panicked, grabbed controls and
> pulled back.
> 4. In ensuing struggle, airspeed bled off, aerodynamic stall.
> 5. Crash.
>
> John Lowry
> Flight Physics
>
>
What about and accelerated stall. No fuel exhaustion, but just an un
coordinated tight turn?

--
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[John T Lowry]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> John T Lowry wrote:
>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
>>>(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/nyregion/22crash.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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My Off-the-Wall Guess:
>>
>> 1. Engine quit (fuel exhaustion?)
>> 2. Pilot lowered nose to maintain airspeed, glide to beach landing
>> 3. Male passenger in right front seat panicked, grabbed controls and
>> pulled back.
>> 4. In ensuing struggle, airspeed bled off, aerodynamic stall.
>> 5. Crash.
>>
>> John Lowry
>> Flight Physics
>>
>>
> What about and accelerated stall. No fuel exhaustion, but just an un
> coordinated tight turn?
>
> --
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

Your guess is as good, or as poor, as mine. But one report I read
mentioned the nose coming up once or twice just before the airplane took
that final dive.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

[Gary Drescher]

The preliminary NTSB report is online now.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20050526X00678&key=1

There appears to be no indication of engine failure, fuel exhaustion, fire,
or control malfunction. The fuel controls (throttle idle and bent; mixture
rich; both tanks selected) are consistent with spin recovery procedures.
Weather was benign. The weights of the persons on board are not mentioned.

--Gary

[Steve S]

But 30 degree flap deployment is not what I would use for spin recovery.

Sounds more like a spin following an approach to landing.

Note that the report states that "the crankshaft flange that the propeller
assembly was attached to, was separated from the engine"

Perhaps the engine was running but not turning the prop.



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> The preliminary NTSB report is online now.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20050526X00678&key=1
>
> There appears to be no indication of engine failure, fuel exhaustion,
> fire, or control malfunction. The fuel controls (throttle idle and bent;
> mixture rich; both tanks selected) are consistent with spin recovery
> procedures. Weather was benign. The weights of the persons on board are
> not mentioned.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Ben Hallert]

....or that could be impact damage. 500 feet seems low, but that's what
the corridor allows. 30 degrees of flaps... I speculate that slow
flight was being demonstrated. For some reason, the plane slowed past
the stall point at an angle and entered a spin, then had insufficient
altitude to recover.

I'm no expert, but it seems like one plausible scenario that could fit
the evidence.

I wonder if... what if he was working to avoid busting into Class
Bravo, and the maneuvering to do so resulted in an inadvertent loss of
lift?

[Gary Drescher]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I wonder if... what if he was working to avoid busting into Class
> Bravo, and the maneuvering to do so resulted in an inadvertent loss of
> lift?

He was apparently circling at 500', but the Class B at Coney Island begins
at 1500'.

--Gary

[RjL]

Sorry - Sounds to me like C172 with 4 adults + full fuel in slow flight with
too much bank angle = aggravated stall....

RjL




"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I wonder if... what if he was working to avoid busting into Class
>> Bravo, and the maneuvering to do so resulted in an inadvertent loss of
>> lift?
>
> He was apparently circling at 500', but the Class B at Coney Island begins
> at 1500'.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
> ...or that could be impact damage. 500 feet seems low, but that's what
> the corridor allows. 30 degrees of flaps... I speculate that slow
> flight was being demonstrated. For some reason, the plane slowed past
> the stall point at an angle and entered a spin, then had insufficient
> altitude to recover.

Maybe not slow flight. An instructor would, probably, not do this on a
sightseeing tour and without sufficient recovery altitude. But, speculation
on that aside, I often use a notch or two of flaps when doing a sightseeing
tour. Gives a bit more nose down attitude. Maybe it was that.

moo

[Blueskies]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message ...
> "Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
>> ...or that could be impact damage. 500 feet seems low, but that's what
>> the corridor allows. 30 degrees of flaps... I speculate that slow
>> flight was being demonstrated. For some reason, the plane slowed past
>> the stall point at an angle and entered a spin, then had insufficient
>> altitude to recover.
>
> Maybe not slow flight. An instructor would, probably, not do this on a sightseeing tour and without sufficient
> recovery altitude. But, speculation on that aside, I often use a notch or two of flaps when doing a sightseeing tour.
> Gives a bit more nose down attitude. Maybe it was that.
>
> moo
>

Yup 10° flaps for that sort of flying...