F******* another Utah plane down. Four on board

woodchucker

woodchucker

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
1,840
Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
Looks like this will be another overloaded 172 mishap.

Guy went down in American Fork Canyon. I have not flown in this canyon as it’s too narrow for my tastes. There is no room to 180 out I don’t think.

Hot and gusty today. Terrain is around 7000-7500 at the canyon floor where he went down. Witness reported seeing the plane in a spin or a spiral. Ughhhhh.
 
You're right. Four adults in a 172 on a hot, summer day in the mountains. Recipe for a disaster. When will they learn?
 
Unfortunately the lesson learned is too late...
 
Sad ... looks like it hit very hard.

Filling the seats and the tanks will put many small airplanes over gross. Even if you don't fill the tanks if you fill the seats on a hot day and mix in some density altitude it can make for a very bad day. It will be interesting to see what the cause of the crash is said to be.
 
Story made Yahoo news. Ex MLB player. Sounds like a flat stall. Witnesses saw the plane "start to turn and then spiral downward". Which is what it sounds like also happened to the 235 in St Louis last month.
 
FlySince9 said:
Box Elder Peak area above Granite Flat Campground ... sounds pretty unforgiving.
Click to expand...

It really is. If he was trying to transition to the east with a maxed out 172 ... there just is not much room for error in that canyon. I live and fly out of this area. If you want to transition east in a GA airplane you need to do your research. There is a canyon just south, Provo Canyon, which gives more room for altitude gain and is wider. That is my preferred entry and exit for flights south and east of salt lake.
 
Departure point U42 South Valley (per news) likely his home base as news also reports him being from SLC.
5800' runway
before 8:00am departure, have to give him credit for that
Temps at that time of day 23C, one day later (today)
Would like to know the winds.
What is the elevation of the crash site?

Any indication of the purpose of the flight? Wondering if they were sightseeing in the hills or trying to get somewhere ie crossing the range.

I suppose we won't get W&B til the NTSB reports but yes 4 people in a 172...they would have to be lightweights, with minimum fuel for me to even look at the flight.
 
Many moons ago I was invited to fly into Sun-N-Fun with a group of guys ... I would be the fourth one onboard. It was in a C172.

I was about 200 lbs at that time and the pilot looked to be FAA weight or slightly less. But the plane owner was a fairly large man and my flight instructor was not a lightweight guy either. By guessing at their weights, the fuel need for a reasonable leg of flight, and minimum baggage for four people in the heat of a Florida summer it didn't take long to say, "I appreciate the offer but I'll take my truck."

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but somethings aren't that hard to figure out ...
 
saddletramp said:
You're right. Four adults in a 172 on a hot, summer day in the mountains. Recipe for a disaster. When will they learn?
Click to expand...

Hot summer day, and crazy high! Heber Valley is 7,500'MSL and Box Elder Peak has gotta be over 10,000', judging from the sectional.
 
172M (150 hp). Not an airplane to be challenging the mountains with four aboard, unless it had the 180 hp modification - and even then only with great caution.

Unknown whether this airplane had the 180 hp upgrade. FAA registry says “O-320 series”; but then it says the same about my 172N, even though it has had an O-360 for more than 20 years.
 
Last edited:
No smell of fuel? No flames? Bad enough that they're 4 people in a 172 and a tight canyon...
 
Doesn't take a genius to realize a C172 isn't safe for 4 full sized (2020 standards) adults. Unfortunate for those involved. Pilot should have known better.
 
I'd be very careful before flying my Dakota (235hp) with 3 adults and would not even consider 4 in a 172. How does thins keep happening - do CFIs not talk about DA anymore?
 
DesertNomad said:
I'd be very careful before flying my Dakota (235hp) with 3 adults and would not even consider 4 in a 172. How does thins keep happening - do CFIs not talk about DA anymore?
Click to expand...
3 medium adults with full tanks is the most I'll do in a C172, and even then I'd probably spring for the 182.
 
I did the weight and balance estimate on my 172. Even if their weight was just at the limit (and that is assuming a mid to thin crowd..I entered 185/180/160/130 for adult males and less for female and 30gal) they would have been beyond the aft limit. No matter how you arrange them. And if a pilot does not notice the aft limit violation they are surely not going to realize that they are over gross weight. Add to that a hott high altitude flight.... Speculation surely but not unreasonable.

As far as those that think going to a high performance is not a big deal. I think it is. Perhaps more so for new pilots with under 200hrs. The FAA also thinks so. I found going from a Cherokee PA28-182 to a Saratoga PA32 a little intimidating at first. It feels and is, much faster, heavier and less forgiving if you drop below the 90kts it likes to move in the pattern at. Compare that to a Cessna 162 that turns in the pattern at 60kts (172 - 70kts)and its a big difference with much less room for error. And yes the RIGHT foot on the Saratoga has to go so deep that at takeoff I have my seat fwd quite a bit to reach the floor.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
If you are having to use that much left rudder on take-off you have a serious rigging problem with your 'toga...
Click to expand...
No kidding, that’s waaay out of whack!
 
Pilawt said:
Unknown whether this airplane had the 180 hp upgrade. FAA registry says “O-320 series”; but then it says the same about my 172N, even though it has had an O-360 for more than 20 years.
Click to expand...

Flightaware says 180hp - not sure where that comes from.
 
Pilot Tyson Colby Brummett is a commercial pilot with instrument, single and multi-engine ratings and a flight instructor. Certificate issued last year and 35 years old, so may be somewhat lower time.

Lack of fire or fuel smell makes one wonder about an out of fuel situation, though the witness description sounds more like a stall.
 
Ryanb said:
No kidding, that’s waaay out of whack!
Click to expand...

It passed inspection but it does feels like a lot, when compared to the P28-181s. It puts out a lot of power on takeoff....AND I LOVE IT esp when not at full capacity. My point is that things happen faster and require more attention to detail even in the most basic high performance minivan like the Saratoga...but that's outside the scope of this threat.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Certificate issued last year and 35 years old, so may be somewhat lower time.
Click to expand...

If you are using the FAA Airmen Registry to try to figure out when someone obtained a certificate, know that it can be very inaccurate. Something as simple as an address change can pop a new "issued" date in the database and CFI certificates are reissued every two years.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Pilot Tyson Colby Brummett is a commercial pilot with instrument, single and multi-engine ratings and a flight instructor. Certificate issued last year and 35 years old, so may be somewhat lower time.

Lack of fire or fuel smell makes one wonder about an out of fuel situation, though the witness description sounds more like a stall.
Click to expand...

Its possible the tanks maintained integrity. Can we read anything into the speed/climb profile? The track seems limited/incomplete on Flightaware. The one thing we can all agree on is that no one should take off in a 172 with 4 full sized adults and expect to have a safe flight.
 
Flying Doc said:
Its possible the tanks maintained integrity. Can we read anything into the speed/climb profile? The track seems limited/incomplete on Flightaware. The one thing we can all agree on is that no one should take off in a 172 with 4 full sized adults and expect to have a safe flight.
Click to expand...

Particularly on a hot day and in the mountains. Your climb rate is so limited and downdrafts off the ridges can easily overwhelm.

I just don’t see how a CFI would do this. Weird.
 
Sadly it happens all too often. I didn't think he was a CFI. There have to be stats somewhere on how many accidents happen due to weight issues. We don't know what happen here but there should be some sort of warning device on a plane when its overweight or poorly balanced. So that at least the unsuspecting victims/(passengers) see/hear a warning so they can make the decision to go or NOT rather than leave it up to the pilot. Just like a red line for oil pressure is bad so is the weight. I always feel most terrible for the passengers in these GA accidents. It seems that in GA passengers take on huge risks when they strap in without having a clue of those risks. And the main risk to a GA pasenger is the person in the left seat and his/her risk profile and experience.
 
Assuming it had the 180 hp with the 250 lb gross weight increase, they may have been within limits. My 172n with the conversion
has a gross weight of 1,027. I can carry 3 200 lb passengers and full tanks and still be under gross. However, 4 adults on a hot day at that altitude? Not a chance I would attempt that.
 
Here is the partial radar track:
upload_2020-7-4_15-17-34-jpeg.87284


And here is that path roughly overlaid on a VFR sectional. It does appear he went on the south side of Mount Timpanogos up Provo Canyon which makes way more sense, and I have flown that same route many times.

upload_2020-7-4_16-33-44.png

The approximate crash site is circled in red.

Now I don't know what happened. It looks like a scenic flight, circling Mount Timp, and then what? Realistically speaking he should have been above the terrain already and not in need of climbing further.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-7-4_15-17-34.jpeg
    upload_2020-7-4_15-17-34.jpeg
    78.9 KB · Views: 424
Pilawt said:
Was there actually precip as depicted in the Flightaware map, or just artifact from terrain?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Those returns look to be from directly over the Wasatch front but any clouds were well above the peaks, easily at 12-15k. Maybe someone can pull a more detailed wx report from the time of the accident.
 
Flying Doc said:
...We don't know what happen here but there should be some sort of warning device on a plane when its overweight or poorly balanced. So that at least the unsuspecting victims/(passengers) see/hear a warning so they can make the decision to go or NOT rather than leave it up to the pilot...
Click to expand...

"We don't know what happen (sic) here...", but apparently we DO know the solution to whatever happened is a W&B warning device on the plane. :rolleyes:

We certainly wouldn't want to leave calculating the correct weight and balance up to the pilot. After all, we can't even trust them to figure out the correct left/right rudder input during takeoff either.

Who knows, they probably don't know how to use a mixture control, can't follow a magenta line and then they sometimes forget to put the gear down before landing. Yep, I think this leaving it up to the pilots thing is a serious hazard to society...
 
woodchucker said:
Here is the partial radar track:
upload_2020-7-4_15-17-34-jpeg.87284


And here is that path roughly overlaid on a VFR sectional. It does appear he went on the south side of Mount Timpanogos up Provo Canyon which makes way more sense, and I have flown that same route many times.

View attachment 87291

The approximate crash site is circled in red.

Now I don't know what happened. It looks like a scenic flight, circling Mount Timp, and then what? Realistically speaking he should have been above the terrain already and not in need of climbing further.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the tracking ended where it did. Feeds from ATC Radar would account for it, but Flight Aware gets input from other sources also, like ADSB to track airplanes. It would be interesting to see tracks from other flights to see if this plane should have tracked longer than it was
 
GRG55 said:
"We don't know what happen (sic) here...", but apparently we DO know the solution to whatever happened is a W&B warning device on the plane. :rolleyes:

We certainly wouldn't want to leave calculating the correct weight and balance up to the pilot. After all, we can't even trust them to figure out the correct left/right rudder input during takeoff either.

Who knows, they probably don't know how to use a mixture control, can't follow a magenta line and then they sometimes forget to put the gear down before landing. Yep, I think this leaving it up to the pilots thing is a serious hazard to society...
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong. ;) GA pilots are perfect, calculate W/B every time and always follow every procedure and never mistake Right for Left rudder when typing. Clearly GA passengers have nothing to worry about and clearly planes should not have anything that helps the pilots not kill themselves or their passengers. Last but not least because pilots dont need someone or something to check them that is why commercial airlines should not have any oversight on their pilots or expect them to have lots of experience before they take passengers.
Now independent of what happened in this tragedy, given the choice between putting your children in a GA plane with a 70 hour pilot eager to show off new skill, or 8000 hour pilot that flies regularly in the aircraft, I know who I would trust. But most passengers dont have a clue. My point was that it would be nice if we could improve our 50yo planes with some additional safety features. We pilots love flying, and assume the risks, but do our passengers know what those risks are and how they change from pilot to pilot? Anyhow topic for another thread.
 
Flying Doc said:
Anyhow topic for another thread.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a great idea (the "another thread" idea, not the "W&B warning device" idea).

Why not go start a new thread advocating for mandatory W&B sensors to be added to "50yo planes"? I am certain the additional weight, complexity, and expense to our aircraft is something for which you will find unending support among pilots. Who knows? You might even start a ground swell movement and eventually get the FAA on board with the idea.

Good luck with that.
 
smv said:
That sounds like a great idea (the "another thread" idea, not the "W&B warning device" idea).

Why not go start a new thread advocating for mandatory W&B sensors to be added to "50yo planes"? I am certain the additional weight, complexity, and expense to our aircraft is something for which you will find unending support among pilots. Who knows? You might even start a ground swell movement and eventually get the FAA on board with the idea.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Maybe the FAA would require the following posted on all GA planes for all passengers to see:

"Passengers please note safety is too expensive, intrusive and weighs too much to talk about. You should also know the pilot can't find insurance because planes like the one your boarding crash too much." Welcome to the friendly GA airline enjoy the ride.
 
Flying Doc said:
there should be some sort of warning device on a plane when its overweight or poorly balanced. So that at least the unsuspecting victims/(passengers) see/hear a warning
Click to expand...
Sure. You can mount the W&B warning device next to the stall warning, gear warning, and low fuel warnings so the pax can see/hear all the warnings in one scan.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top