Not 1, but 2 reports

"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message
...
2 reports on the evening news today (Boston area) on small plane crashes. A
C172M crashed at Mansfield, Ma. 4 people on board, 2 fatalities. This was
on Saturday, a day that produced record high temperatures for the area.
Density altitude/overloading problem?

Were those density altitudes higher than they were in July?

Matt Barrow wrote:

Were those density altitudes higher than they were in July?


They may have been. Southern New England seemed seasonally cool this July.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message
...

2 reports on the evening news today (Boston area) on small plane crashes. A
C172M crashed at Mansfield, Ma. 4 people on board, 2 fatalities. This was
on Saturday, a day that produced record high temperatures for the area.
Density altitude/overloading problem?


Were those density altitudes higher than they were in July?




maybe, maybe not. But it is irrelevant. That plane, with that low time
pilot, with that MGTW, on that day was not there in July.

KC

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

Were those density altitudes higher than they were in July?

They may have been. Southern New England seemed seasonally cool this July.

I'm pretty sure we had some hotter days this summer than the 95 or so on
the 8th. In any case, Mansfield is only 122' msl.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Judah" wrote in message

How much, exactly, did each of the 30-something males weigh?

How much fuel was aboard the plane?



I think it is best to reserve judgement until all the facts are available.

Yup. Good advice. Don't even think about what can go wrong. Wait until
everyone forgets about it and someday just read through the NTSB final
reports.

wrote in news:1189391347.721878.4800@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 9, 9:54 pm, Judah wrote:
I think it is best to reserve judgement until all the facts are available.

Sorry you read a judgment somewhere, please re-read - just stating
facts as reported and expressing the tragedy of the scene - I happened
to be there and I am based there. Fly safe.

You're right. I think I responded to the wrong post. I read your post
immediately after one that basically just stated "he was overweight".
Sorry.

"El Maximo" wrote in news:OW9Fi.83068$ax1.73465
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

I think it is best to reserve judgement until all the facts are available.

Yup. Good advice. Don't even think about what can go wrong. Wait until
everyone forgets about it and someday just read through the NTSB final

Or better yet, never fly with 4 people in an airplane because somebody died
yesterday doing so.

(John Clear) wrote in news:fc2bbc$9gj$1
@reader1.panix.com:

In article ,
Judah wrote:
wrote in news:1189382647.136590.257600
:

Four, 30 somethings males + 4 sets of golf clubs (off to play on the
Cape) + 90+F + humidity + ? in a 172M. EAA fly in going on at the

How much, exactly, did each of the 30-something males weigh?

How much fuel was aboard the plane?

Using FAA standard 170 pound passengers, 50 pounds for the golf
clubs (probably way low) and just 20 gallons of fuel, and the W&B
numbers from a 172M I'm familiar with, I calculate the weight to
be just over MGTW, and the CG to be towards the aft end of the
envelope.

Even if the passengers where FAA standard 170 pounders, the golf
clubs likely weighed more, and there was likely more then the bare
minimum of fuel on board.

Your entire theory is based on speculations, though.

For example, it was reported that the flight was destined for Cape Cod. In
a 172, 20 gallons should have been enough even with proper reserves.

I have never met an "FAA Standard Passenger". So the weights of the
passengers could have been more or less than what you described.

The link below represents an example of a Cessna 172M that has a useful
load of 885lbs. The total weight that you described in your example is
850lb, quite a bit below the 885 listed here. So your argument is faulty.

http://www.bordenflyingclub.com/cmqperformance.shtml

Weight & Balance could have been an issue, sure. But it could also have NOT
been the issue.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"El Maximo" wrote in news:OW9Fi.83068$ax1.73465
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

I think it is best to reserve judgement until all the facts are
available.

Yup. Good advice. Don't even think about what can go wrong. Wait until
everyone forgets about it and someday just read through the NTSB final

Or better yet, never fly with 4 people in an airplane because somebody
died
yesterday doing so.

Or better still, give up flying entirely. Somebody died yesterday doing so.

Personally, I'll continue wondering why things happen, and hopefully not
repeat those mistakes myself. You can stick your head in the sand if you
want.

"El Maximo" wrote in news:utaFi.83141$ax1.49182
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Personally, I'll continue wondering why things happen, and hopefully not
repeat those mistakes myself. You can stick your head in the sand if you
want.

Wondering why things happen does nothing to prevent you from repeating a
mistake made by someone else.

Reserving judgement until actual FACTS can be analyzed is a far cry from
sticking one's head in the sand. In fact, your method of assuming you know
anything about an accident because you read a post on the internet that
refers to a news story on television is much closer to sticking your head in
the sand than waiting for geniune information.

You might as well source Wikipedia.


I hear too many "old pilots' tales" that were started because some pilot
assumed that something he saw another pilot do caused hurt to a plane or a
pilot.