Search Results for: Cessna 172

The overcast was holding steady at 900 feet. Morning visibility wasnt faring much better, showing two miles. The airport was IFR and the beacon was lit. The temperature and dew point were dancing in lock-step. [IMGCAP(1)] I was working Ground and Clearance. A deep voice rumbled through my headset. Clearance, N4173A, requesting Special VFR. Im just trying to jump back over to Hewitt under that cloud deck. Im a Cessna 172 and I got information Mike. …

Many years ago as a newly minted instrument pilot, I was flying an old Cessna 172. When I checked in with approach, after the usual exchange, the controller asked me if this was a training flight.

I am a newly certified private pilot with 100 hours in a Cessna 172 Skyhawk. My Learning Experience took place March 3, 2013, on a relatively short flight from New Hudson, Mich., to Flushing, also in Michigan. Looking back, I should have immediately recognized the telltale signs of an electrical problem, but didn’t. The first sign of trouble came shortly after takeoff when the number 2 comm radio failed. I copied the frequencies down and transferred them to the number 1 radio, then turned it off.

No airplane is perfect for every mission. Designers make compromises in the hope of producing an airplane that will find enough buyers to be a marketing success. But buyers have proven they sometimes want what manufacturers won’t provide, so we have a lively market in aftermarket mods. One popular mod is for more powerful engines in airframes like the Cessna 172. The results include better climb, a little faster cruise and, unfortunately, higher fuel burn. All aftermarket modifications to an airplane come with drawbacks. They can be as simple as a bit of added weight and a logbook entry or complicated enough to require a lengthy supplement to the paperwork. The more we alter the airplane’s original performance, the more we need to understand the mod’s impact on the airplane’s other characteristics.

At about 1158 Mountain time, the airplane was substantially damaged when it veered off the runway and struck an unoccupied, parked Cessna 172 during an attempted go-around. The private pilot/owner, two passengers and two dogs on board were not injured; no persons on the ground were injured. Visual conditions prevailed.

Every year, takeoffs and landings account for over half the pilot-related accidents, according to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. While poor technique accounts for some of them, many accidents could have been prevented if the pilot had consulted available documentation to determine the airplanes performance. But before any of that can happen, we need to ensure we know how to evaluate current conditions. To assist students in determining performance data, I have them use a takeoff and landing data card on which is all the information a pilot should need to evaluate takeoff and landing performance. The card is also useful for instructors who are in the position of flying multiple aircraft models or versions. As an example, in a recent period I flew four different versions of Cessna 172s (one with the airspeed in MPH, another in knots, a third with the 180-HP STC and still different V-speeds; the fourth was a Thielert diesel conversion-you get the idea). Keeping the numbers straight for these and other different airplanes can be a challenge without a reference card. Lets look at whats important to evaluate, and how to go about assembling your own data card. The first item is to evaluate weight and balance, factors directly affecting any aircrafts performance. That an overloaded airplanes performance will decrease as its fuel consumption increases should not be news to any pilot. Too, one loaded outside its center of gravity (CG) range will handle differently, and will likely be dangerously unstable. In either case, the plane will not perform in a predictable manner and the pilot is in uncharted, dangerous waters. Step one is to get the aircrafts empty weight and moment. This sounds simple and straightforward, but I have seen incorrect aircraft weight sheets in logbooks. When I went back and checked the maintenance logs, I found a difference of over 200 pounds. Airplanes of the same make and model do not weigh the same. Dont forget basic empty weight consists of the aircraft, unusable fuel and oil.

During the Cessna 172Ss first 100-hour inspection, a technician found both magnetos had slipped their timing approximately five degrees. The aircrafts magneto-to-engine timing was checked shortly after delivery, at 4.3 hours. Orange putty on the magneto hold-down studs was noted. It appears the magnetos have drifted significantly to the advanced position in 93 hours. This has been an ongoing issue with the engine and magneto manufacturers; SB2-08 does not address an advanced timing condition as in this case.

My first “actual” instrument flight after earning the rating was a 27-nm hop from Sedalia to Boonville, Mo., in a Cessna 172. The entire flight was flown below radar coverage. Navigation was by ADF-an outbound bearing from Sedalia to intercept an inbound to Boonvilles Jessie Vertiel Memorial Airport. With my clearance received I climbed into juicy clouds at about 800 feet agl and cruised to the “far” NDB, thence flying the full-procedure approach. I had a strong crosswind on the inbound course; it was too low for VOR cross-bearings, so my navigation was by the lone, waggling ADF needle, my watch and a rough guess at my probable groundspeed. I juggled the approach plate, my charts and kneeboard, and the flight controls as I fought light turbulence while hoping to hold my wind-corrected bearing to avoid towers growing up into the murk. I broke out about two miles from the runway, lucky to pick out and avoid a Cessna scud-running just beneath the cloud deck, then scooted the rest of the way in at MDA until intercepting the VASI and landing in a stiff wind.

I am a student pilot with about 60 hours total time split between a Beech Mentor T-34C, Cessna 172 and my just-purchased personal plane, a Beech Musketeer. I had flown about 20 hours with a CFI in the few months preceding my story, in both a 172 and the Musketeer. I had four flights for a total of about eight hours in the Musketeer. On the fateful flight, we took off normally in marginal VMC conditions. The smoke from several brushfires had cut visibility down to about three to four miles. We had an easy and uneventful flight with a normal takeoff, several ground reference maneuvers, a little GPS familiarization, stalls and slow flight. Nothing was out of the ordinary and the aircraft performed well.

Its strange (or not so strange) that I usually hear or read about some sort of related accident happening after I read an article in your magazine. The apparent cause of those accidents are almost exactly “the gotchas” discussed in the article. With that in mind, “Fuel Gotchas” (April 2007) hit very close to home. Our local flying club just lost a Cessna 172, apparently because the pilot ran out of fuel. A 40-knot headwind resulted in a four-plus hour flight from El Monte, Calif., to Stockton, Calif. This route usually takes less then 2.5 hours. Of course, the Skyhawk only had 38 usable gallons. Do the math.