A Plane Crash I don't Get...

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
K

KennyFlys

Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
well kenny, apparently an ATP and CFI doesnt exempt you from dumb or just plain stupid.
 
Well, assuming that the cg limits and stations are the same on the 172S as on the 172N, I put the NTSB's numbers into the spreadsheet I use and came up with over gross (big surprise, there :no: ) and a cg about 2 inches forward of the forward limit. Not a good recipe for a safe flight. Oh, and the over gross is over the limit for the S as specified by the NTSB and for our N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion. Either way, he shouldn't have done it.

ATP, he should have known better. Student pilot and he should have known better.

Sad.
 
Ghery said:
Well, assuming that the cg limits and stations are the same on the 172S as on the 172N, I put the NTSB's numbers into the spreadsheet I use and came up with over gross (big surprise, there :no: ) and a cg about 2 inches forward of the forward limit. Not a good recipe for a safe flight. Oh, and the over gross is over the limit for the S as specified by the NTSB and for our N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion. Either way, he shouldn't have done it.

ATP, he should have known better. Student pilot and he should have known better.

Sad.
Click to expand...

I will be the first to say that flying outside of the published W&B is stupid unless you have a really good reason and the FAA's approval. But in this incident I'm not sure that being within the approved W&B would have changed anything.

The accident had more to do with poor stick skills. He pushed it too far and bit the dust as a result. You can push it too far in or out of the published W&B limits. Either way will kill you.
 
jesse said:
The accident had more to do with poor stick skills. He pushed it too far and bit the dust as a result. You can push it too far in or out of the published W&B limits. Either way will kill you.
Click to expand...

But, it's a lot easier when you're over gross and/or out of CG.
 
Ghery said:
Well, assuming that the cg limits and stations are the same on the 172S as on the 172N, I put the NTSB's numbers into the spreadsheet I use and came up with over gross (big surprise, there :no: ) and a cg about 2 inches forward of the forward limit. Not a good recipe for a safe flight. Oh, and the over gross is over the limit for the S as specified by the NTSB and for our N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion. Either way, he shouldn't have done it.

ATP, he should have known better. Student pilot and he should have known better.

Sad.
Click to expand...

172S: Aft limit is 47.3, forward limit is 35 inches at 1950 pounds or less, up to 41 inches at gross.
 
jesse said:
I will be the first to say that flying outside of the published W&B is stupid unless you have a really good reason and the FAA's approval. But in this incident I'm not sure that being within the approved W&B would have changed anything.

The accident had more to do with poor stick skills. He pushed it too far and bit the dust as a result. You can push it too far in or out of the published W&B limits. Either way will kill you.
Click to expand...
Having a "really good reason" constitutes a waiver from stupid? FWIW, FAA approval only aids in the legality...something which does not affect a plane's ability to fly or not.

Loading within the W&B has everything to do with it.

What part of the article leads you to conclude he had "poor stick skills" and/or had pushed it too far?
 
It's articles like this that make me glad that I had my better half stay home when I took my mom to lunch a few weeks back. We would have only been < 50 lbs over gross, and we would have been within the extrapolated CG range, but I really didn't feel like becoming a test pilot - or more accurately, the topic in a discussion like this - that day or ever.
 
Richard said:
Having a "really good reason" constitutes a waiver from stupid? FWIW, FAA approval only aids in the legality...something which does not affect a plane's ability to fly or not.
Click to expand...
You'll find *MANY* aircraft operating as restricted that have flown almost their entire life outside of the published weight limitations. Sometimes this is the only way to get the job done.
Richard said:
What part of the article leads you to conclude he had "poor stick skills" and/or had pushed it too far?
Click to expand...
The plane took off. It obviously could fly the way it was. He pushed the airplane too far after that. You can push it too far no matter how you are loaded. If he would have had better stick skills he wouldn't have spun into the ground as he would have been aware of the increasing angle of attack.

What I am saying is pretty simple. He was stupid for flying outside of the W&B as he didn't have a reason to be doing it. Some people *DO* have a reason. He crashed because he had poor stick skills and the way the airplane was loaded just made it more obvious. Unfortunately it made it obvious enough to kill him.
 
Last edited:
It's really disturbing to see someone claiming to be a pilot dismissing this accident as 'poor stick skills', and saying that 'he didn't have a reason' to fly outside the envelope of the airplane.

As far as I'm concerned this pilot murdered three people. Yes, on a 15C day you probably can get a 172 to stagger off the ground when you are 282 pounds over gross. Just that is criminal stupidity, anyone knows the Skyhawk is not a four adult airplane.

But to take this airplane that can barely fly and then do this:

About 0900, a witness saw the airplane make multiple passes over cattle pastures near Indiantown. During one of the "real low" passes, at an estimated altitude of 200 to 250 feet, "the nose dropped and the tail went straight up." The witness then saw the airplane spin to the right with an accompanying increase in engine noise, and subsequently descend into the ground.
Click to expand...
That's just murder-suicide. WTF was this guy thinking? I think the FAA ought to audit every CFI that ever signed the logbook of this moron. This is the kind of thing that ruins General Aviation for everyone.

And Jesse, I strongly suspect your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash. I hope when you crash you don't take innocent people with you, like this idiot did. The FAA needs to include your post in its next update of the hazardous attitudes AC as a prime example of the kind of thought process that leads to fatal accidents.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
well kenny, apparently an ATP and CFI doesnt exempt you from dumb or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, and leap frogs you right straight and directly to Grossly Negligent. He hold 2 professional ratings, He does Know better, he ignored that knowledge. He has no excuses, they all died because he low bid a contract and didn't have or buy an aircraft capable of fulfilling that contract. There is nothin "plain dumb or stupid" about this. This was a calculated deal banking his piloting abilities against a known deficient and illegal situation. The only thing here that is plain is the greed and wreckless disregard which cost him and the three others their lives. The other negligent party is the person who put the bid contract out and accepted the bid from Kemper to fly it with a 172. Now this may be ordinary negligence of not doing due diligence, or it could be gross negligence had they known the deficient situation and allowed it anyway because the bid was lower than that of a company who would have done it with a 182, 206, or better yet when working that close to the ground, a 337.
 
JimNtexas said:
It's really disturbing to see someone claiming to be a pilot dismissing this accident as 'poor stick skills', and saying that 'he didn't have a reason' to fly outside the envelope of the airplane.
Click to expand...
The accident was poor stick skills combined with poor decision making. What is so poor about me saying that? I think you're reading something I'm not writing.

He *did not* have a reason to fly outside the manufactures published weight and balance. It was stupid for him to do it.

JimNtexas said:
As far as I'm concerned this pilot murdered three people. Yes, on a 15C day you probably can get a 172 to stagger off the ground when you are 282 pounds over gross. Just that is criminal stupidity, anyone knows the Skyhawk is not a four adult airplane.
Click to expand...
Yes. He killed three people. I"m not saying otherwise. I'm not defending him. I'm not saying he did a damn thing right.

JimNTexas said:
And Jesse, I strongly suspect your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash. I hope when you crash you don't take innocent people with you, like this idiot did. The FAA needs to include your post in its next update of the hazardous attitudes AC as a prime example of the kind of thought process that leads to fatal accidents.
Click to expand...
You're not making any sense. I'm not defending this pilot. I said that the accident was caused both by him flying outside the published weight and balance and his poor piloting skills. Both were a factor.

Shock. There are people that fly outside the published weight and balance per approval from the FAA. They have a mission that requires it. They also have the skill to back it up. These people that have the legal permission, the skill, and a valid reason are not stupid for flying outside the published weight and balance.

I really wish you would read what I wrote before you claim that I am dangerous. It is just silly to do so. I said the accident was caused by his lack of piloting skills combined with his poor decision to take off outside the published weight and balance. Poor stick skills will cause this accident inside or outside of the weight and balance. The ultimate cause was a pilot pushing an airplane further than the wings would carry it.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Jesse that airplanes can be flown outside the normal W&B envelope (ferry and alaska operators do it all the time) - being overweight isn't an automatic crash, any more than failing to file a flight plan is an automatic crash.

There was no operational reason to fly overweight on this mission (which would then require FAA oversight to be permitted to do so), so the accident is absolutely the responsibility of the pilot in command. Even if he had a mechanical failure, he stacked the deck against himself by deliberately taking on risk he didn't have to - which is the ultimate sin in my eyes.

I also think Jesse was clearly not defending the pilot - he was just making the point that being overweight doesn't neccessarily make an airplane stop flying. Perhaps he didn't rant at the pilot enough in his original post for some folks taste - he certainly did in the follow-on.

Aviation is all about risk management. Risk management is doing everything you can to stack the deck in your favor so that even when you make a mistake or two, you have a safety margin. Stacking the deck against yourself is a betrayal of your duties to yourself, your passengers, and your fellow aviators.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Actually it does, and leap frogs you right straight and directly to Grossly Negligent. He hold 2 professional ratings, He does Know better, he ignored that knowledge.
Click to expand...
I think what Tony was trying to say is that just because you have accumulated the hours and were able to pass a certain test on a certain day doesn't automatically give you an infusion of common sense or anything else.
 
Henning said:
He hold 2 professional ratings, He does Know better
Click to expand...

As time goes on, I'm less and less confident that our system is actually working in this manner. There are people who are frickin' idiots who somehow manage to get commercial, CFI, etc. I think that since being a CFI pays so poorly, CFI's will sign anybody off sooner or later if they think the person might go elsewhere if they don't sign them off. Then, a DPE has to try to figure this out in way too short of a time. The idiots slip through the cracks, and the cracks seem to be substantial.

Really, the "system" is the honor system. Good pilots continue learning even though they don't have to because they have the ratings... Mediocre pilots will do just enough to convince a DPE that they are worthy of a rating, and then go off and do whatever.
 
Everskyward said:
I think what Tony was trying to say is that just because you have accumulated the hours and were able to pass a certain test on a certain day doesn't automatically give you an infusion of common sense or anything else.
Click to expand...

My point is this was not an ommission of common sense, it was a deliberate and knowing act of greed. He would have known that the aircraft was inappropriate when he bid for the contract. This was "pulling a fast one" not a "doh".
 
Henning said:
Actually it does, and leap frogs you right straight and directly to Grossly Negligent. He hold 2 professional ratings, He does Know better, he ignored that knowledge. He has no excuses, they all died because he low bid a contract and didn't have or buy an aircraft capable of fulfilling that contract. There is nothin "plain dumb or stupid" about this. This was a calculated deal banking his piloting abilities against a known deficient and illegal situation. The only thing here that is plain is the greed and wreckless disregard which cost him and the three others their lives. The other negligent party is the person who put the bid contract out and accepted the bid from Kemper to fly it with a 172. Now this may be ordinary negligence of not doing due diligence, or it could be gross negligence had they known the deficient situation and allowed it anyway because the bid was lower than that of a company who would have done it with a 182, 206, or better yet when working that close to the ground, a 337.
Click to expand...
That is what I almost included in my post but you said it better than I.
 
Henning said:
My point is this was not an ommission of common sense, it was a deliberate and knowing act of greed. He would have known that the aircraft was inappropriate when he bid for the contract. This was "pulling a fast one" not a "doh".
Click to expand...
Passing a certain test on a certain day doesn't improve your morals either. I'm certainly not defending this pilot if the facts are actually as depicted in the story, but I think Kenny's point in the thread was that he was wondering how someone with advanced ratings could do something like this. I'm just saying that these ratings are not an antidote to stupidity or greed.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
As time goes on, I'm less and less confident that our system is actually working in this manner. There are people who are frickin' idiots who somehow manage to get commercial, CFI, etc. I think that since being a CFI pays so poorly, CFI's will sign anybody off sooner or later if they think the person might go elsewhere if they don't sign them off. Then, a DPE has to try to figure this out in way too short of a time. The idiots slip through the cracks, and the cracks seem to be substantial.

Really, the "system" is the honor system. Good pilots continue learning even though they don't have to because they have the ratings... Mediocre pilots will do just enough to convince a DPE that they are worthy of a rating, and then go off and do whatever.
Click to expand...

Sorry, W&B is not a slip through the cracks issue. Spins, energy management and stick and rudder skills which may have prevented the accident, I can buy off on slipping through, but not W&B, not at CFI & ATP level, no way no how, he had to know it and prove it multiple times. This was willfull disregard on the criminal end, and gross negligence on the civil. There were several remedies he had available and chose none of them.
 
Everskyward said:
Passing a certain test on a certain day doesn't improve your morals either. I'm certainly not defending this pilot if the facts are actually as depicted in the story, but I think Kenny's point in the thread was that he was wondering how someone with advanced ratings could do something like this. I'm just saying that these ratings are not an antidote to stupidity or greed.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that stupidity and ignorance had nothing to do with this. When he flew the plane overgross, it became an issue of willful disregard. Even if the reasoning would be "I though it would be ok, so I didn't calculate it" by a person holding an ATP, that fact alone would make it willfull disregard because he has been tested on this subject and has proven that he knows the correct proceedure. There are NO mitigating circumstances on this one. Once the fuel records and weight of the passengers became known information, the illegality of the flight was established, and with it the establishment of gross negligence.
 
Henning said:
Sorry, W&B is not a slip through the cracks issue. Spins, energy management and stick and rudder skills which may have prevented the accident, I can buy off on slipping through, but not W&B, not at CFI & ATP level, no way no how, he had to know it and prove it multiple times. This was willfull disregard on the criminal end, and gross negligence on the civil. There were several remedies he had available and chose none of them.
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that there are too many people who are stupid and willing to inflict it on others, who have managed to slip through the cracks and get ratings. I'm certain he knew he was over gross, but he was stupid enough to think he could get away with it, just this once (or more, the article mentioned additional crashes at his school in the last few months).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm simply saying that there are too many people who are stupid and willing to inflict it on others, who have managed to slip through the cracks and get ratings. I'm certain he knew he was over gross, but he was stupid enough to think he could get away with it, just this once (or more, the article mentioned additional crashes at his school in the last few months).
Click to expand...

I am so freaking sick and tired of stupidity being used as a g-d damned excuse for things. Stupidity is no excuse. This was NOT a stupid mistake, it was a willful and criminal act. Mitigating it by saying he was stupid only serves to perpetuate the key issue. What we need to do now is to sterilize his children if he has any to get his genes out of the gene pool.
 
Henning said:
What I'm saying is that stupidity and ignorance had nothing to do with this. When he flew the plane overgross, it became an issue of willful disregard. Even if the reasoning would be "I though it would be ok, so I didn't calculate it" by a person holding an ATP, that fact alone would make it willfull disregard because he has been tested on this subject and has proven that he knows the correct proceedure. There are NO mitigating circumstances on this one. Once the fuel records and weight of the passengers became known information, the illegality of the flight was established, and with it the establishment of gross negligence.
Click to expand...
If what is published is true I agree with what you say. All I'm saying is that being a CFI and an ATP doesn't automatically prevent someone from making these kinds of decisions even if it should. There are plenty of example of this.
 
I have to agree with Jesse. I have personally done the calculations to allow a ferry flight at 17% overgross (with 1000 litres of fuel in the cabin). It was flown in restricted category. An engineer (me) said it was probably ok, then we did a test flight, then the aviation authority in the country of registration of the aircraft signed it off as good to go. It can be done safely and well.

I also agree that it sounds like the pilot screwed up and stalled the aircraft close to the ground. It didn't stall because it was overloaded or else it wouldn't have flown in the first place. It just stalled at a different speed/g-loading than the pilot was expecting because it was overloaded and out of its CG envelope and GA aircraft don't usually have angle of attack sensors (which would be a big safety enhancement imho).

I don't think anything Jesse said was unreasonable at all. I agree with him.
 
JimNtexas said:
It's really disturbing to see someone claiming to be a pilot dismissing this accident as 'poor stick skills', and saying that 'he didn't have a reason' to fly outside the envelope of the airplane.

As far as I'm concerned this pilot murdered three people. Yes, on a 15C day you probably can get a 172 to stagger off the ground when you are 282 pounds over gross. Just that is criminal stupidity, anyone knows the Skyhawk is not a four adult airplane.

But to take this airplane that can barely fly and then do this:

That's just murder-suicide. WTF was this guy thinking? I think the FAA ought to audit every CFI that ever signed the logbook of this moron. This is the kind of thing that ruins General Aviation for everyone.

And Jesse, I strongly suspect your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash. I hope when you crash you don't take innocent people with you, like this idiot did. The FAA needs to include your post in its next update of the hazardous attitudes AC as a prime example of the kind of thought process that leads to fatal accidents.
Click to expand...

Well first off Jess IS a pilot second where does this comment about his ego come in? Go back and read the post. Jess wasn't defending the pilot he was making an assesment of what caused the accident. You disagree, thats great thats what these forums are for to discuss and debate. I'm sure you recall your primary training where you were taught that aviation accidents are not caused necessiarly by one thing but a chain of things or bad decisions. Seemed clear to me that Jess was pointing out that based upon the description of the accident the W&B issue alone wasn't the cause it was as are so many things one in a chain of things that caused the bad accident. The chain here consisted of at least the following:

1) Pilot ingoring W&B issues
2) Pilots poor decision making skills
3) Pilots lack of knowledge of the aircrafts capabilites
4) Pilots decision to manuver at low alt perhaps in violation of FARs
5) Pilots stick skills in handing the plane in the manner he chose to fly it.

Personally I think your comments about Jess's ego and putting his post in the FAA database are really unwarranted. If you could post your thoughts without the personal attacks one might be more likely to give credibility toyour arguments which may be very valid .
 
Henning said:
I am so freaking sick and tired of stupidity being used as a g-d damned excuse for things. Stupidity is no excuse. This was NOT a stupid mistake, it was a willful and criminal act. Mitigating it by saying he was stupid only serves to perpetuate the key issue. What we need to do now is to sterilize his children if he has any to get his genes out of the gene pool.
Click to expand...

Ya know I think you are violently agreeing with eachother. The word "Stupid" or "Idiot" has really been over used. How many times do people say things like " That freaking idiot cut me off at the intersection" or That Stupid moron just ran the red light" The driver did it on purpose so techinally he is not stupid but an agressive Alpha Hotel. But we call him stupid or an idiot. Why:dunno: I dunno.

I could call this pilot an idiot a moron, an arrogant sob, a schumck , a killer, oh so many words.
 
AdamZ said:
Ya know I think you are violently agreeing with eachother. The word "Stupid" or "Idiot" has really been over used. How many times do people say things like " That freaking idiot cut me off at the intersection" or That Stupid moron just ran the red light" The driver did it on purpose so techinally he is not stupid but an agressive Alpha Hotel. But we call him stupid or an idiot.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Adam - I don't mean "lack of knowledge" stupid, I mean that the guy knew what he needed to know, and made a decision that was, well, stupid. :yes:
 
Henning said:
I am so freaking sick and tired of stupidity being used as a g-d damned excuse for things. Stupidity is no excuse. This was NOT a stupid mistake, it was a willful and criminal act. Mitigating it by saying he was stupid only serves to perpetuate the key issue. What we need to do now is to sterilize his children if he has any to get his genes out of the gene pool.
Click to expand...

Henning, I agree with most of what you are saying here but you're confusing stupidity with ignorance. The fact that the pilot had the knowledge that this was a bad idea means he wasn't ignorant, but since he went ahead anyway is consistent with stupidity.
 
I stand by my post. Jessie's post exhibits several classic hazardous attitudes, and I pity his passengers.
 
to each his own.

Jesse is one of the few pilots with which I would sleep in the back while he flew.
 
JimNtexas said:
I stand by my post. Jessie's post exhibits several classic hazardous attitudes, and I pity his passengers.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse his posting style with his piloting skills, and don't assume you can tell ANYONE's attitude(s) by what you read in a forum like this. Meet some of the folks at Gastons or the Fly-B-Q, and then you can form a decent opinion.
 
JimNtexas said:
I stand by my post. Jessie's post exhibits several classic hazardous attitudes, and I pity his passengers.
Click to expand...

Eh? I didn't see anything that he wrote that was incorrect. If the story as presented is true, the pilot was foolish.

If you know more about the story, please enlighten us.
 
JimNtexas said:
And Jesse, I strongly suspect your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash. I hope when you crash you don't take innocent people with you, like this idiot did. The FAA needs to include your post in its next update of the hazardous attitudes AC as a prime example of the kind of thought process that leads to fatal accidents.
Click to expand...
JimNtexas said:
I stand by my post. Jessie's post exhibits several classic hazardous attitudes, and I pity his passengers.
Click to expand...

Jim--you're either a week early on April 1st--or just an ass. Either way I suggest we both move onto other threads.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
I stand by my post. Jessie's post exhibits several classic hazardous attitudes, and I pity his passengers.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't see that at all in his posts. I see him being very critical and spot on with his analysis of this particular situation. I think you must be misreading or seeing something that is not there. I hope you go back and reread what he wrote.
 
Egos aside, common sense on planning this flight went out the window with the baby and the bath water. I may keep this report as an extreme example of knowing why the pilot must understand the aircraft's limitations.
 
I'm with the others, Jim. I think your perceptions of Jesse have heavily clouded your perception of what he wrote. He very clearly said that the accident was caused by the pilot's inability to control the aircraft throughout the flight. While W&B was obviously a contributing factor, Jesse's point is that the plane could have safely been flown in the accident configuration (with the proper paperwork and approvals). He was neither supporting the pilot's decision to depart nor advocating anybody else make such poor decisions.

You crossed a line when you turned to personal attacks on Jesse's judgment and abilities. IMO, Jesse is owed an apology.

tonycondon said:
to each his own.

Jesse is one of the few pilots with which I would sleep in the back while he flew.
Click to expand...

I concur. I've flown with him as much as anybody on this board and I think he's one hell of a stick.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top