C-162 not quite a 'catch'
02-21-2014, 05:05 AM
#41
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Earlier we were talking about the ridiculous price of a new 172SP at $400,000. I mentioned a war chest for legal defense must be maintained possibly around $150k of that. An example follows of the typical ridiculous lawsuit Cessna has to defend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Checklists and Lawsuits
(02/19/2014, B. Landsberg, AOPA) An accident that involved a new pilot and an old Cessna 172 is in the news. The Cessna was seen to takeoff with 40 degrees of flaps, get to about 100 feet agl, stall, crash, and burn. The NTSB investigation shows the aircraft right at gross weight despite having four adults aboard. That means the fuel load was light. The runway was more than enough to get airborne—more than 5,000 feet—so even if they were a bit overweight (which we don’t recommend) that wouldn’t necessarily have caused the crash.
What will guarantee no climb, and almost certainly a stall, is a takeoff with full flaps. My bet is that the pilot, used to flying newer and different aircraft, extended the flaps on preflight and never verified that they were up prior to takeoff. It was a simple but critical lapse. The old C172s did not require a preflight flap check. That’s a newer checklist item that I’ve never quite been able to understand. Some say it’s to “check the flaps.” Flaps are, by design, robust and I’ve never had a mechanical problem with them. Lucky perhaps, but for most aircraft full flaps forgotten is takeoff denied. I’ve observed, on a few occasions, a full flap takeoff about to be attempted. A gentle reminder on the CTAF has always saved the day, but that’s a long way into the accident chain. Checklists are important but fragile barriers. If you’ve never missed an item you’re better than most!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Checklists and Lawsuits
(02/19/2014, B. Landsberg, AOPA) An accident that involved a new pilot and an old Cessna 172 is in the news. The Cessna was seen to takeoff with 40 degrees of flaps, get to about 100 feet agl, stall, crash, and burn. The NTSB investigation shows the aircraft right at gross weight despite having four adults aboard. That means the fuel load was light. The runway was more than enough to get airborne—more than 5,000 feet—so even if they were a bit overweight (which we don’t recommend) that wouldn’t necessarily have caused the crash.
What will guarantee no climb, and almost certainly a stall, is a takeoff with full flaps. My bet is that the pilot, used to flying newer and different aircraft, extended the flaps on preflight and never verified that they were up prior to takeoff. It was a simple but critical lapse. The old C172s did not require a preflight flap check. That’s a newer checklist item that I’ve never quite been able to understand. Some say it’s to “check the flaps.” Flaps are, by design, robust and I’ve never had a mechanical problem with them. Lucky perhaps, but for most aircraft full flaps forgotten is takeoff denied. I’ve observed, on a few occasions, a full flap takeoff about to be attempted. A gentle reminder on the CTAF has always saved the day, but that’s a long way into the accident chain. Checklists are important but fragile barriers. If you’ve never missed an item you’re better than most!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
