2 killed in plane crash west of Daytona Beach

Tantalum said:
[snip]
That's physically impossible the way the gear is set up, that force will be transferred one way or another up into the wing. The oleo strut can be made softer, etc., to help dissipate that energy, but ultimately it is going to be transferred up into the wing given its current design. Piper should have used Tomohawk, Piper Sport, Grumman, Cirrus, etc., style gear. I imagine that would have been lighter and easier on maintenance too
[snip]
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Cherokee was designed and certified before all those other airplanes, right? It's entirely possible that the Tomahawk design was informed by lessons learned on the Cherokee. That said, changing what seemed to be a working design on the most popular airframe in Piper's fleet (requiring recertification, I suspect) probably never made any economic sense.

John
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
good question....it might not be abuse as much as the flight profiles are intense & tough.....like take-off and landings only in certain aircraft with air work and x-country in another. That kind of intense use is not the norm across the PA-28 fleet nation wide. It would be a shame to implement some corrective action in an AD for all to perform.
Click to expand...

What would they do, say “If this airplane has ever made a landing, inspect it...”? ;)
 
Clark1961 said:
It appears that you have missed my point entirely which is that the precise identification of the crack initiation site may have nothing to do with the ultimate failure
Click to expand...
Likewise. I can say with certainty, in my experience, that the point of origin leads to the point of ultimate failure when it dealing with the type of metal failure we see in this accident. Time will tell.
 
jsstevens said:
You do realize that the Cherokee was designed and certified before all those other airplanes, right?
Click to expand...
Fair enough.. but that "type" of springy landing gear you see on Skyhawks, etc., has been around in forever, so still seems like a questionable design choice given the aircraft's intended usage and other options that were available

Checkout_my_Six said:
like take-off and landings only in certain aircraft with air work and x-country in another
Click to expand...
are ERAU's landings more abusive though? Aren't most primary trainers spending a crazy amount of time doing "pattern work" and touch and goes? My home airport usually has a couple Cherokees and Skyhawks just bouncing around the pattern all day, each day. Not arguing with you, just genuinely curious what it is that is unique about ERAU's use case. Someone up thread mentioned load sensors, etc. While I don't advise this for the whole fleet (costs, etc.,) it would be interesting to place some basic sensing equipment in ERAU's fleet and pull data for a month or so. I mean, if 1 in 10 planes examined has wing cracking then that's potentially a big issue
 
Gerhardt said:
FT, I have to disagree with you for the first time. Piper knows that the PAs they sell ERAU are used for training, and that they’ll be cycled through more hard landings than any other aircraft out there. Knowing that, there really should be extra steps taken for those aircraft. It could be something as simple as putting in their sales contract that they must dispose of the aircraft after a certain number of calendar or tach hours. (Dispose doesn’t mean destroy...more likely sell)

Those planes can only take so much abuse before bad things happen, and you’re never going to catch every problem that arises, like this one, regardless of how close you look.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but has Piper changed the design since ERAU started their current training syllabus? I highly doubt when the Arrow was designed that they envisioned the extent of abuse that those airplanes are getting which is my simple point here. Those ERAU airplanes are seeing far more landings than any other Arrow out there which would make it a shame if the FAA did a knee jerk AD based solely on ERAU inspected airplanes.
 
denverpilot said:
Now I’m confused or mis-read it.

I thought the latest NTSB report was about the recent accident airplane, but this article says it was a different aircraft that the crack was found in.

Then it also references the 1987 accident and the previous AD.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-Finds-Wing-Crack-In-Piper-Trainer-230825-1.html
Click to expand...
The AVWEB article is correct - they simply quoted the latest NTSB update that said that they inspected 10 other Arrows after the fatal accident. One of those 10 (which had similar time as the accident airplane) exhibited similar fatigue cracks as the accident airplane.

What I haven't seen confirmed is whether those 10 Arrows were all ERAU airplanes or if they randomly selected 10 (non-ERAU) Arrows to inspect.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The AVWEB article is correct - they simply quoted the latest NTSB update that said that they inspected 10 other Arrows after the fatal accident. One of those 10 (which had similar time as the accident airplane) exhibited similar fatigue cracks as the accident airplane.

What I haven't seen confirmed is whether those 10 Arrows were all ERAU airplanes or if they randomly selected 10 (non-ERAU) Arrows to inspect.
Click to expand...

They inspected ten planes, one of which was an ERAU plane and that is the one that they found cracks on. The other nine came from other flight schools. 2 of them were from another unnamed Florida flight school. 5 of them were retired from a third Florida flight school. The last 2 were from a Texas flight school. It is all broken down on page 3 of the investigative update. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/ERA18FA120-Investigative-Update.pdf
 
Wheels said:
They inspected ten planes, one of which was an ERAU plane and that is the one that they found cracks on. The other nine came from other flight schools. 2 of them were from another unnamed Florida flight school. 5 of them were retired from a third Florida flight school. The last 2 were from a Texas flight school. It is all broken down on page 3 of the investigative update. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/ERA18FA120-Investigative-Update.pdf
Click to expand...
So if I am reading this correctly. The only other affected plane was also a ERAU aircraft. The other 9 were good. Sorry, but that really makes me wonder what ERAU is doing to their planes. Ten is generally not a statistically significant number, but it does raise questions.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
So if I am reading this correctly. The only other affected plane was also a ERAU aircraft. The other 9 were good. Sorry, but that really makes me wonder what ERAU is doing to their planes. Ten is generally not a statistically significant number, but it does raise questions.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I wonder when and how those planes came off the line.
 
I've said this before elsewhere, but I'll say it again. I look at that picture of the portion of the spar that failed and I see a corrosion issue, that was more than likely hidden by the bolt that attaches the spar to the fuselage. I don't think any maintenance would have found that issue unless the methodology included detaching the wing from the airplane and inspecting.

So the questions in my mind become: Why was there corrosion there? Was there damage from manufacture or some maintenance in the past? Did the material in that structural piece have issues when it was made? Should there be chamfers on those bolt holes?

There are several areas on that piece that are suspect to me. You can see the "smudge" on the lower left of the left hand bolt hole. This smudge looks like a corrosion area or inclusion in the material to me. The concentric arcs emanating from that smudge are probably the crack propagating over a period of time, each arc is the crack growing larger, causing a smaller cross section of that piece to take a proportionally larger share of the structural and dynamic load, until it finally failed.

On the right side of the piece there are similar areas on both sides of the hole with tell tale concentric arcs centered around those areas.

The bottom line is these airplanes are designed to land and the designers know that not every landing is a greaser. This accident is very troubling.
 
PaulS said:
I've said this before elsewhere, but I'll say it again. I look at that picture of the portion of the spar that failed and I see a corrosion issue, that was more than likely hidden by the bolt that attaches the spar to the fuselage. I don't think any maintenance would have found that issue unless the methodology included detaching the wing from the airplane and inspecting.

So the questions in my mind become: Why was there corrosion there? Was there damage from manufacture or some maintenance in the past? Did the material in that structural piece have issues when it was made? Should there be chamfers on those bolt holes?

There are several areas on that piece that are suspect to me. You can see the "smudge" on the lower left of the left hand bolt hole. This smudge looks like a corrosion area or inclusion in the material to me. The concentric arcs emanating from that smudge are probably the crack propagating over a period of time, each arc is the crack growing larger, causing a smaller cross section of that piece to take a proportionally larger share of the structural and dynamic load, until it finally failed.

On the right side of the piece there are similar areas on both sides of the hole with tell tale concentric arcs centered around those areas.

The bottom line is these airplanes are designed to land and the designers know that not every landing is a greaser. This accident is very troubling.
Click to expand...
The report does say (in regards to the fracture), "None of the surfaces exhibited visible signs of corrosion or other preexisting damage."
 
tawood said:
The report does say (in regards to the fracture), "None of the surfaces exhibited visible signs of corrosion or other preexisting damage."
Click to expand...

That's an initial observation and pretty vague. It may very well be true which makes me even more suspect of a material issue, or possibly a design issue, although the later is very unlikely as this design went through certification.

If you look at the hole on the left, again at the lower left of the hole. This time look at the inside diameter surface, not the sheared surface. In that area I see what could be a small spot of corrosion. It looks like it has bubbled there, above it is an orange tinted area that may be rust from a bolt. Pretty suspect to me.
 
PaulS said:
That's an initial observation and pretty vague. It may very well be true which makes me even more suspect of a material issue, or possibly a design issue, although the later is very unlikely as this design went through certification.

If you look at the hole on the left, again at the lower left of the hole. This time look at the inside diameter surface, not the sheared surface. In that area I see what could be a small spot of corrosion. It looks like it has bubbled there, above it is an orange tinted area that may be rust from a bolt. Pretty suspect to me.
Click to expand...
Certification does not guarantee it is not a design issue, because that does not put any airframe through 32,000 plus cycles. What takes me away from a design issue is the 32,000 plus PA28's have been manufactured and like 3 cases of wing separation that could not be accounted for by pilot error have occured. The same thing takes me away from a metallurgy issue since we are not seeing a rash of failures in 11 year old Pipers.

To me the report says there were no visual signs of corrosion, although testing could show different things. Further testing would also rule out other materials issues.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Tarheelpilot said:
32000 cycles is quite impressive. That’s an average of 4.2 to/ldg events per hour for 7600 hours.
Click to expand...
and that should be good news for the PA-28 population. Since no one has that kind of duty cycle, let's hope the FAA brings some reason to the expected AD. Let's hope that the AD limits landing cycles....and possibly places a life limit in landing cycles....not flight hours. If done correctly, very few aircraft should be affected by this.....
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
and that should be good news for the PA-28 population. Since no one has that kind of duty cycle, let's hope the FAA brings some reason to the expected AD. Let's hope that the AD limits landing cycles....and possibly places a life limit in landing cycles....not flight hours. If done correctly, very few aircraft should be affected by this.....
Click to expand...
I wonder how many owners know how many cycles are on their aircraft? It would be really nice if the ad required cycles to be calculated at 4.2 per hour in the absence of known data
 
that would wrongfully suck....only while under the use by ERAU should that apply.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
yes....but, are there others outside of ERAU? That's the question.
Click to expand...
In the report they looked at 9 other PA28R's from 3 other schools. None of those 9 showed cracks. It is a small sample size, but it is important. It is also starting a trend that it is potentially a PA28 issue but more so an ERAU issue. More planes need to be looked at.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
if they do end up making a diaper wearing AD that requires invasive inspection of the attachment, i say we get pa28 owners together for a class action suit against POS ERAU. socializing losses my ----.
 
Crappy as it is in this case, if this is a fatigue (not abuse) issue, it was going to show up in the fleet at some point anyway. Might as well put some science behind it and determine a reasonable approach to dealing with it than go around with everyone's head in the figurative sand.
 
hindsight2020 said:
if they do end up making a diaper wearing AD that requires invasive inspection of the attachment, i say we get pa28 owners together for a class action suit against POS ERAU. socializing losses my ----.
Click to expand...

What would you sue them over? Using their airplane more than you use yours and finding a life limited design problem?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
and NPRMs are not usually used for an "emergency". ;) ...although an emergency AD is a rule making activity.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said other than it’s not a CFR creation process. Who cares? There’s multiple ways to “make rules” these days, all they need to do is publish a freaking Chief Counsel letter, and that’s officially a “rule” in the eyes of any ALJ. Not that you can search them, find them, or even get a categorical list of them.

The entire NPRM process is broken, not just with FAA, but system-wide, for its originally intended purpose... because bureaucrats don’t like commentary from those they supposedly serve, anyway.
 
What is this "ERAU" abuse I keep hearing? Are hard landings a chronic problem unique to ERAU? Because otherwise simply landing an airplane shouldn't be considered "abuse"

There are students at SEE who log 1 hr Hobbs and 7 landings in that time. Isn't that what most solo students do? How is practicing landings in a trainer considered "abuse"?

I prefer low wings and am very fond of my PA28 time.. but maybe it's not cut out for "trainer" life if landing it is considered "abusive"
 
Tantalum said:
What is this "ERAU" abuse I keep hearing? Are hard landings a chronic problem unique to ERAU? Because otherwise simply landing an airplane shouldn't be considered "abuse"

There are students at SEE who log 1 hr Hobbs and 7 landings in that time. Isn't that what most solo students do? How is practicing landings in a trainer considered "abuse"?

I prefer low wings and am very fond of my PA28 time.. but maybe it's not cut out for "trainer" life if landing it is considered "abusive"
Click to expand...
Yep. You’re right. You should never fly one again.
 
^why would I never fly one again? I spent 2 hrs in a 1974 PA28 just two days ago?

I'm trying to understand what this alleged abuse is at ERAU? 10 is certainly not a big sample size, but if out of 10 planes the only other one that had a crack was at ERAU then that says something..

If the only abuse though is "well they land a lot" then that's kind of flimsy in my book..

And why the PA28R? Once you get to commercial ratings then you tend to be doing more airwork, no? I would have thought all the landing abuse would be occurring on the fixed gear planes.. power off 180s and other commercial maneuvers should not be executed in a manner that results in hard landings (firm maybe, damage causing hard; no). Or if they are then there really is a problem with ERAU and their instructor and training regimen
 
Tantalum said:
If the only abuse though is "well they land a lot" then that's kind of flimsy in my book..
Click to expand...

Apparently, ER's training syllabus is they only do takoffs and landings in the -28R's. Nothing else. So they accumulate landings faster than similar aircraft elsewhere. Is that abuse? No, not in my book. But it is cyclic use, which fatigues aluminum. It may be that ER is performing its own version of accelerated wear testing on its fleet, and that's the underlying cause.

The problem will be if the FAA determines that PA-28R's are subject to fatigue problems at 25000 (or whatever) cycles. Most aircraft don't have their history sufficiently documented to determine their landing cycles. So, both pristine and worn out aircraft could be subject to onerous and expensive maintenance.
 
Tantalum said:
^why would I never fly one again? I spent 2 hrs in a 1974 PA28 just two days ago?

I'm trying to understand what this alleged abuse is at ERAU? 10 is certainly not a big sample size, but if out of 10 planes the only other one that had a crack was at ERAU then that says something..

If the only abuse though is "well they land a lot" then that's kind of flimsy in my book..

And why the PA28R? Once you get to commercial ratings then you tend to be doing more airwork, no? I would have thought all the landing abuse would be occurring on the fixed gear planes.. power off 180s and other commercial maneuvers should not be executed in a manner that results in hard landings (firm maybe, damage causing hard; no). Or if they are then there really is a problem with ERAU and their instructor and training regimen
Click to expand...
ERAU only uses their arrows for landings from what I understand. No xcountry no Airwork. Just landings.

I would not expect any ga airplane to be designed for continuous pattern work.

There is nothing wrong with using the arrows solely fortraffic pattern work but I would not expect the normal maintenance program to be sufficient either.

It’s not uncommon for maintenance programs to have different inspections, mx schedules and parts life limits based on the utilization of the aircraft.

That’s why I think this is a mx failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top