ERA13LA037

The airplane departed from a 2,350 foot long runway that had tall trees located off its departure end. As loaded, with full fuel and the pilot and three passengers aboard, the airplane was about 117 pounds below its maximum gross operating weight at takeoff. The pilot selected 10 degrees of flaps for takeoff; however, the owner's manual stated that normal and obstacle clearance takeoffs were to be performed with wing flaps retracted and specified the use of takeoff flaps only for soft or rough fields. Just after liftoff (the pilot estimated the altitude to be about 40 feet above the ground), the airspeed began to deteriorate and the stall warning sounded. Because of the row of trees off the end of the runway, the pilot could not land straight ahead, so he turned about 10 degrees left and aimed toward a shorter tree. The airplane’s right main landing gear impacted the tree, and the pilot landed the airplane on a nearby road. During the landing roll, the left wing struck a tree, the airplane swerved to the left, and the nose landing gear sheared off before the airplane slid to a stop. Examination of the airplane and a postaccident engine run did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation. It is likely that the pilot’s improper use of flaps during takeoff while operating near the airplane’s maximum gross weight reduced the airplane’s climb capability and it was unable to clear the trees off the end of the departure runway.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On October 20, 2012, about 1430 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172D, N2879U, was substantially damaged when it struck trees and terrain shortly after takeoff from Goose C reek Airport (28A), Indian Trail, North Carolina. The certificated airline transport pilot and his three passengers were uninjured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local personal flight operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. According to the pilot, on the day of the accident he was originally supposed to rent a Piper J-3 Cub but it was unavailable. Instead he rented the Cessna 172D but was not given a rental checkout in the airplane by a flight instructor. Prior to the flight he checked the weather conditions, and weight and balance accounting for the three passengers and the 36 gallons of fuel which was already on board. He then did a preflight inspection of the airplane, loaded his passengers and briefed them. Prior to takeoff from runway 22, he performed an engine run-up. Everything was "in the green" and though a witness reported "popping", the pilot did not hear it and did not notice any engine anomalies. He then selected the wing flaps to "10 degrees", added full power, and commenced his takeoff. At 60 "knots" indicated airspeed, he pulled back on the control wheel and the airplane lifted off. Upon liftoff, the speed began to deteriorate, the stall warning sounded, and about 40 feet above ground level he "got a sinking feeling". There was a row of trees off the end of the runway and there was not enough room for him to land so he turned slightly left by about 10 degrees and aimed towards a tree that was lower in height, but the right main landing gear impacted one of the trees. He then tried to lower the angle of attack to aid in stall recovery but the airplane would not accelerate, so he landed on a nearby road. During the landing rollout the left wing struck a tree, the airplane swerved to the left, and the nose landing gear sheared off. The airplane then slid to a stop on top of a fallen tree. PERSONNEL INFORMATION According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and pilot records, the pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane multi-engine land, commercial privileges for airplane single-engine land, and type ratings for B-737, CL-65, ERJ-170, and ERJ-190. He also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine and instrument airplane. His most recent application for a FAA third-class medical certificate was dated October 3, 2012. The pilot reported that he had accrued 5,890 total hours of flight experience, of which 362 hours were in the accident airplane make and model. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The accident aircraft was a four place, strut braced, high wing airplane, of conventional metal construction. Unlike later higher horsepower Cessna 172s, it was powered by a 6 cylinder, 145 horsepower, aircooled, horizontally opposed engine, and its flap system was manually operated. According to FAA and maintenance records the airplane was manufactured in 1963. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed on September 8, 2012. At the time of the inspection, the airplane had accrued 6982.7 total hours of operation. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION The recorded weather at Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport (EQY), Monroe, North Carolina, located 6 nautical miles southwest of the accident site, at 1353, included: winds 270 at 7 knots, 10 miles visibility, sky clear , temperature 20 degrees C, dew point 05 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 29.83 inches of mercury. AIRPORT INFORMATION Goose Creek Airport was uncontrolled. Field elevation was 565 feet above mean sea level (msl). It had one runway, 4/22. Runway 22 was asphalt, in good condition. The runway was 2,350 feet long and 35 feet wide. Obstructions in the form of 65 foot high trees were present, 404 feet from the departure end of the runway, which took a 3:1 slope to clear. Density altitude at the airport at the time of the accident was approximately 1,498 feet msl. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION Post accident examination by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the airplane displayed multiple areas of damage and that during the impact with the tree, the left wing spar incurred substantial damage. Examination of the engine revealed that oil was present, drive train continuity was present, the magnetos would produce spark, and thumb compression was present on all cylinders. TESTS AND RESEARCH Engine Tests At the request of the NTSB, on October 26, 2012 the engine was test run in the presence of an FAA inspector. Due to damage to the propeller that was incurred during the accident a propeller with the same part number was procured and mounted on the engine for the test run. During the test no evidence of any preimpact malfunctions or failures of the engine were discovered which would have precluded normal operation. Engine start was achieved on the second revolution of the propeller. The engine idled normally and oil pressure was observed to rise 5 seconds after the start and the needle moved into the green arc on the oil pressure gauge within 30 seconds. The engine was idled for approximately 3 minutes and after the oil temperature began to rise, the engine was accelerated to 1,600 rpm and a magneto check was performed. During the magneto check, a drop of approximately 50 rpm for the left magneto, and a drop of approximately 25 rpm for the right magneto, was observed. Carburetor heat was then applied, and the engine rpm dropped approximately 25 rpm. The throttle was then retarded to the rear stop, and the engine decelerated till it was at approximately 525 rpm. The throttle was then pushed in until the engine was at idle, and it was observed to run smoothly. The throttle was then pushed in smoothly and quickly to the forward stop, and the engine acceleratedwithout hesitation to a maximum static rpm. Takeoff Procedures Review of the Cessna Model 172D Skyhawk and Powermatic Series Owner's Manual, revealed that two procedures for takeoff were published in the "Operating Check List" section. One was for "NORMAL TAKE-OFF", and the other for "MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE TAKE-OFF". The normal takeoff procedure specified that the nose wheel should be lifted at "60 MPH" and that the climb was to be conducted at "85 MPH". The maximum performance takeoff procedure specified that the elevator was to be used to maintain a "slight tail low" attitude during the takeoff roll, and that the climb was to be conducted at "65 MPH". Both procedures stated that the wing flaps should be "Up" for takeoff. The owner's manual went on to say in the "Operating Details" section that, "Normal and obstacle clearance takeoffs are performed with flaps up". The use of 10 degrees of flaps would shorten the ground roll approximately 10 percent, but this advantage was lost in the climb to a 50-foot obstacle. Therefore the use of 10 degrees of flaps was reserved for minimum ground runs or takeoffs from soft or rough fields "with no obstacles ahead". Weight and Balance Information According to fueling records and pilot statements, the airplane had been topped off prior to the accident flight and with him included; all four seats on the airplane were occupied. He estimated that takeoff weight was approximately 2,183 pounds which was about 117 pounds under the maximum gross operating weight. Performance Information Exact owner's manual based performance calculation for the takeoff roll (ground run) and distance to climb over a 50-foot obstacle, which accounted for the actual conditions of the flight, could not be accomplished because the actual conditions were not addressed by, the manufacturer's published data. The owner's manual did not account for flap settings other than flaps up, or non standard temperature/altitude combinations. All of which, would have had an adverse effect on takeoff and climb performance, and would be cumulative in combination with each other. Therefore, only the zero wind calculations for takeoff ground roll and 50-foot obstacle clearance distances based on the available data published in the owner's manual for flaps up (retracted) could be used, which indicated that at sea level, at a gross weight of 2,300 pounds, ground run would have been 865 feet, and distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle would have been 1,525 feet.