Plane crash from Beef Island

This story

was in the St. Maarten paper about the Beef Island crash. Perhaps it was an engine failure, as the plane was supposedly outbound when it crashed.

It was a Cessna 150 two seat aircraft. Must have been an engine failure as a 150 can takeoff in less than 1/3 the length of the Beef Island runway.

Hmmm....Late afternoon in a 150 for a ~220nm flight?
Some of you fly-boys tell us what’s wrong here?

I learned to fly in 150s,,, there are a lot of variables that could factor into the crash. Yes, engine problems, too much loaded weight, if there was a tail wind, how strong? My condolences to the pilot’s family. Too many possible reasons to assume why. Most crashes are simply a fluke considering how rare they are. 150’s are a simple and great aircraft to fly. There had to have been one or more unusual factors that caused the crash.

The odd thing is if the crash was a engine failure it should have been survivable. The 150 would be ditched at a very low airspeed. The pictures seemed to show a much higher speed impact.
G

Regardless of the altitude the plane got to, pilot error could have also cause a stall resulting in the same situation of engine failure

The following is based on published news reports and specs. A Cessna 150's gross weight is 1,600 lbs and empty weight is 970 lbs, so useful load is 630 lbs. The distance from Tortola to Guadaloupe is 170 nm (not 220 nm). Range with standard tanks, at 75% power cruise speed, is 300 nm. Fuel capacity without long range tanks is 26 gallons, or about 208 lbs, leaving 422 lbs for pilot (there was no passenger) and gear. Long range tanks would add 10 gallons, or another 80 lbs. If the pilot weighed 200 lbs, then 222 lbs was left for cargo with standard tanks and 142 lbs for cargo with long range tanks. Temperature was 88 F and humidity was 60%. Weight and balance, and density altitude, would not seem to be causative factors.

Some news reports state that there was a "runway overrun." Take off distance for a Cessna 150 at gross weight over a 50 ft obstacle is 1,375 ft. The EIS runway is 4,642 ft. Runway length would not seem to be a causative factor.

Pictures of the damage suggest a stall, i.e. failure to maintain lift, which leaves (1) engine failure, and/or (2) pilot error.

I heard of this as I pulled into Leverick bay on the day of accident. (I am a pilot). Regarding time of departure, there was plenty of time to make trip and arrive before dark. Distance not factor. Runway length certainly not issue. Winds were generally as expected that day. Often C150 is used as trainer plane or "building time". Most likely cause is pilot error (Distracted by something inside or outside of plane). Potentially banking too much at too low of altitude and causing stall. Could be easy to do looking down/back as plane turning just after takeoff.

Just my opinion. RIP

There have been a few cases at SJU where unscrupulous gas dealers would sell fuel not meeting the specs and the planes revved up and conked out on the runway.

It was not a simple engine failure followed by a ditching. Either the aircraft stalled or control was not maintained and the aircraft impacted the water at high speed. Generally in a accident like this there is a distraction that causes the loss of control. Could be a engine failure, rough running engine, cargo shift, instrument failure ect.. The Golden rule of flying is prioritize aviating, navigating and communicating in that order. The next rule is if a accident is not avoidable fly the aircraft all the way to the crash. You might walk away however if you stall or lose control the outcome is never pretty.
Someone mentioned fuel. One of the big issues in the Caribbean is water getting into the fuel. A slug of water will stop the engine. Water can get in the tanks through condensation, bad fuel caps or poor practices by the fueler. Aircraft tanks are supposed to be sumped for water before flight but crashes caused by water occur often.