According to the airport manager, the flight departed from Runway 36 at Calhoun County Airport (F95) in Florida with full fuel tanks. The pilot was in the left cockpit seat and the airplane owner, who did not hold a pilot certificate, was in the right cockpit seat. Two other passengers were in the Cessna 172.
According to airport surveillance video and witness statements, the airplane lifted off and immediately attained a high angle of attack at a slow speed. The airplane proceeded northbound past the departure end of Runway 36 and made a left 270° turn at a low altitude without climbing.
The airplane proceeded eastbound and across the departure end of Runway 36 and then descended behind a hangar.
Afterward, the airplane hit the ground, and a post-crash fire ensued.
The private pilot and one passenger were fatally injured, and two passengers were seriously injured.
The airplane came to rest near the airport perimeter fence. The initial impact point consisted of propeller slash marks in the soil about 50 feet west northwest of the main wreckage. Impact marks on the ground were consistent with a nose-low, right-wing-down attitude at impact, and the wreckage was contained within a relatively compact area around the main wreckage. Most of the fuselage, including the cockpit and instrument panel, was destroyed by fire.
During a post-accident examination of the engine, no evidence was found of a pre-existing mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane’s weight and balance at the time of the accident was reviewed. Pilot and passenger weights were obtained from autopsy and hospital records. The airplane’s weight was estimated to be 2,424 pounds, which was 224 pounds above the maximum allowable gross weight of 2,200 pounds.
The center of gravity was not within the allowable operating envelope at this gross weight.
One of the surviving passengers reported that the pilot did not ask him how much he weighed and that he did not observe the pilot performing a weight and balance calculation before the flight.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to perform a preflight weight and balance calculation and his operation of the flight at an excessive takeoff weight, resulting in an exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack after liftoff and an aerodynamic stall from which the pilot was unable to recover.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This May 2022 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
The accident report found 10 degrees of flap down. I don’t know what the POH suggests for that takeoff , but I’d bet it’s zero.
Plenty of runway length, no obstacles off the far end so why would he use any flap ?
Reduction of tire wear by lifting off at a lower speed ? More likely because he realized he was heavy and wanted that extra bit of ‘ lift ‘. However, climb angle depends on excess thrust —- not excess lift.
Since he was at full power already, there was only one way to do that, and that was zero flap.
As rich (above) said, a long very shallow angle climb , straight ahead, could have bought him some altitude to turn, and return to the airfield.
If an airplane can climb above ground effect on takeoff it has all the lift it needs ( lift equals weight , and weight only goes down as fuel is burnt )
The ’56 Operating Manual lists 10 degrees for a short field, but also warns that it will reduce the rate of climb. So, 0 degrees is recommended for a normal takeoff.
Extrapolation from the takeoff data, at 200 lb over gross, the a/c could climb at 200-300 fpm. As was said by others, climb straight ahead to get some altitude, then make a shallow turn if wanting to return to the airport.
I have flown many 172s, including my own, at close to gross and with the CG near the aft limits. Even within weight and balance, they all become extremely light in pitch when close to aft limits. To an inexperienced pilot, that can be very disconcerting.
But flying any 172 well over gross and with the CG behind the aft limits is an almost guaranteed disaster.
I have flown my own 172 with the seats filled with adults, but with only half tanks and after removing much of what I normally carry in the baggage compartment. That keeps it within limits. It’s still a bit doggie in high DA conditions, and yet I have 180hp and a CS prop.
Bottom line: fully loading a 172 requires paying attention to W&B. Period.
Just like climbing aboard the airport shuttle bus with your baggage. Nobody checks weight and balance on the bus, so why check it in airplane? Duh. With many of these fatal crashes I get the impression the accident pilots climb into the left seat with little or no training or regard for the finer technical and legal aspects of flying, just enough knowledge of the controls to get ‘er in the air. Just like their Ford F150 right? Sad and crying shame. RIP to the lost lives and families and friends they left behind.
Regards/J
This overload is not legal, but survivable. If the pilot had understood the implications and committed to a long, flat climb (possible in this terrain) … I think the final link was panic, resulting in an attempt to climb too fast.
Every pilot that flies a Cessna 172, HAS to know that ‘you can’t fill the tanks AND the seats’. [ unless 2 of them are under 100 lb.!]
Then it was hot, 88 degrees, so less performance.
The mid-time O-300 may have been a bit low on power too.
The 3,800 ft runway should have been enough, but there was a substantial crosswind.
So, what could go wrong.?? [ and did !]
I see some commenting about a “4 passenger “. This is the reason “fuel” is measured in pounds not gallons. .. it matters to total weight.. also the pilot panicked.. he “gunned” the engine as the plane struggled for altitude. all he had to do was come off the throttle and nose down. He Stalled trying to correct mid-flight.
Fuel is sold on the basis of Gallons for avgas not weight. We, as pilots, are responsible for doing the calculations. Add an electronic flight bag that does those calculations for you, and it is really easy to see if you are outside the envelope.
With reports like this, one would get the idea that not many CFIs apparently know how to teach the efects of hi DA. You limit the RPMs that the pilot has available to only let them have, say 65% power, and let them see what a dog that plane is with just the 2 of you in it. Of course you need a runway long enough that you can safely demonstrate this.
Reducing the throttle would not have helped at all. Lowering the nose would have, but with an aft CG, that might not have been possible.