C210 Down near West Fargo, ND 8/10/2021

iamtheari

iamtheari

Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
4,898
Display Name
Display name:
Ari
https://www.grandforksherald.com/ne...ospitalized-after-plane-crashes-in-West-Fargo

Not a lot of details yet, other than that the pilot was in his 60's, not local, had to be cut out of the plane, and was seriously but not fatally injured. There are also some really confused reports claiming it was a crop duster. We also had a crop duster hit some power lines and crash in another part of ND earlier in the day, so the news reporters probably just decided to combine the stories.

FlightAware shows the plane flying from KOMA to D54 this afternoon.

I don't know what the winds were like in the Fargo area today. It was a little breezy across western ND, roughly 20G30 out of the west. D54 has one runway, 18-36, which is 3300 x 50.
 
sarangan said:
But the damage to the tail cone and the wings bending forward does not make sense. Its almost like the aircraft was struck from behind.
Click to expand...

The plane suddenly stopped, the wings and tail kept moving in a forwardly direction.
 
Ooof.. glad he survived!

Man I hate seeing how cleanly wings break at the fuselage join. That should be strongest part of the chain, not the weakest

upload_2021-8-11_14-15-35.png
 
Looks like it had full flaps out in the accident photo. Maybe he forgot to retract them during the go around.

Its been pretty warm, maybe he was still leaned for cruise.

Doubtful carb ice.

Fuel, etc.
 
Tantalum said:
View attachment 99088
Click to expand...

For some reason reminds me of this:

1*61FLBT9SA7l_jh4e8ftJGA.jpeg
 
Tantalum said:
Ooof.. glad he survived!

Man I hate seeing how cleanly wings break at the fuselage join. That should be strongest part of the chain, not the weakest

View attachment 99088
Click to expand...
They are not designed to be loaded in the direction that caused this failure. But you already know that so I’m curious why it bothers you.
 
Bill said:
For some reason reminds me of this:

1*61FLBT9SA7l_jh4e8ftJGA.jpeg
Click to expand...
Ha! And yet the wings stayed on! This was one of my first Beastie Boys album

If the pilot of that 210 happens to be in a small band he's got a good idea now for the next album!
 
Cloudhound said:
So, what you're getting at is, maybe it was something?

I agree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I asked for that :)

Okay, my theory is DA was up a bit (even for flat land Fargo), he did a go around, forgot his flaps were out full and wasn't able to climb back out.
 
danhagan said:
What's wrong with you people? Five messages and we don't already have a conclusion worthy of calling off the NTSB? :confused::confused::confused::eek::eek::eek:;);)
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with making educated guesses. That's how people learn. Besides, what percentage of PoA accident analyses have turned out to be wrong?
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
"wings breaking off" are fresh on my mind after that Mooney video!
Click to expand...
The ones that give me the goosebumps are like the arrow that killed the DPE and pilot applicant on take off. Nothing stressful just normal flying around and the Jesus nut breaks. That’s creepy…
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The ones that give me the goosebumps are like the arrow that killed the DPE and pilot applicant on take off. Nothing stressful just normal flying around and the Jesus nut breaks. That’s creepy…
Click to expand...
Yeah.. I still love and fly Pipers but that was chilling
 
Tarheelpilot said:
They are not designed to be loaded in the direction that caused this failure. But you already know that so I’m curious why it bothers you.
Click to expand...
Yup.

upload_2021-8-11_19-29-18.png

Detail B shows the cantilever spar attachment. Big, beefy fittings that lift the entire airplane. But they're not designed to take drag or antidrag loads (fore-aft loads). That job falls to the little fitting in detail A, near the leading edge. When the airplane lawn-darts into the grass, the momentum of those wings, heavy with lots of fuel, maybe, and all that heavy cantilever structural stuff, just collapses that little Detail A stuff and bends the detail B stuff.
 
It seems and just about all of these wing attachments, at least the diagrams I've seen, the wings are attached with (a) bolt(s) in shear.. is that the accepted wisdom for highest strength?

Sailboats have their keels attached with bolts in tension.. losing your keel is about as bad as losing a wing
 
Tantalum said:
It seems and just about all of these wing attachments, at least the diagrams I've seen, the wings are attached with (a) bolt(s) in shear.. is that the accepted wisdom for highest strength?

Sailboats have their keels attached with bolts in tension.. losing your keel is about as bad as losing a wing
Click to expand...

really it’s the same thing…
 
Tantalum said:
It seems and just about all of these wing attachments, at least the diagrams I've seen, the wings are attached with (a) bolt(s) in shear.. is that the accepted wisdom for highest strength?

Sailboats have their keels attached with bolts in tension.. losing your keel is about as bad as losing a wing
Click to expand...
Bolts are installed in their strongest practical position. Bolting a keel on in shear would be difficult indeed, and would require a bunch more structure.

A bolt, in single shear, has about 70% of the bolt's tensile strength. But very seldom is single shear used. The typical strutted Cessna has its wings and struts mounted in double shear, with the spar fitting between two tangs on the spar carrythroughs in the fuselage, or between the forks of the strut. That gives 140% of the bolt's tensile strength, saving weight and parts count. A cantilever spar like the 210's is mounted in multiple shear, as you can see in that parts picture. The bolt (a pin, actually) has to shear in four places to fail. That's 280% of the pin's tensile strength. The drag/antidrag bolt is mounted in double shear.

The DC-3 had its wings mounted with many bolts in tension. No spar fittings.

upload_2021-8-12_12-38-18.jpeg

https://www.pprune.org/aviation-his...ow-many-screws-does-take-attach-dc3-wing.html
 
danhagan said:
What's wrong with you people? Five messages and we don't already have a conclusion worthy of calling off the NTSB? :confused::confused::confused::eek::eek::eek:;);)
Click to expand...

sarangan said:
There is nothing wrong with making educated guesses. That's how people learn. Besides, what percentage of PoA accident analyses have turned out to be wrong?
Click to expand...

I was poking fun sarangan, thus the EIGHT emojis ... in past years, "pilots" that flew 2-3 hours a decade (including their MS flight simulator) were always the "first on scene" around here to diagnose the event ...
 
sarangan said:
There is nothing wrong with making educated guesses. That's how people learn. Besides, what percentage of PoA accident analyses have turned out to be wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the first sentence but I expect we'd differ on what constitutes 'educated.' As for the last sentence, I don't have statistics but my personal favorite was a thread on an A320 crash where 'the regulars' were postulating on a cause by analyzing photo of a different crash site.

Nauga,
who can't finish cooking 'til he has all the ingredients
 
nauga said:
I don't disagree with the first sentence but I expect we'd differ on what constitutes 'educated.' As for the last sentence, I don't have statistics but my personal favorite was a thread on an A320 crash where 'the regulars' were postulating on a cause by analyzing photo of a different crash site.

Nauga,
who can't finish cooking 'til he has all the ingredients
Click to expand...

This reminds of the time a resident was going on and on interpreting the chest X-ray of a patient and how it correlated with the clinical signs.

I looked carefully at the corner of the film and it was the film for a completely different patient.
 
nauga said:
I don't disagree with the first sentence but I expect we'd differ on what constitutes 'educated.' As for the last sentence, I don't have statistics but my personal favorite was a thread on an A320 crash where 'the regulars' were postulating on a cause by analyzing photo of a different crash site.

Nauga,
who can't finish cooking 'til he has all the ingredients
Click to expand...


Is that kind of like how they finally got Billy the Kid on tax evasion? :)
 
That place gets quite interesting in crosswind situation, especially when you are close to the ground.

Glad he survived. There is a APIA on that field who is quite handy…. May be he can buff it off?
 
Anything will buff out if you rub it with enough money. In the case of the subject C-210, just jack up a fuel cap and run a new airplane under it. I'm just paraphrasing an old automotive saw: "Just jack up the radiator cap and ... "
 
Can possibly be traced back to trying to land with a ‘new to him’ plane with that gusty 30 kt crosswind. Not 5 miles away is Fargo, aligned with the wind. Just having an IPA, solving these accidents.
 
sourdough44 said:
Can possibly be traced back to trying to land with a ‘new to him’ plane with that gusty 30 kt crosswind. Not 5 miles away is Fargo, aligned with the wind. Just having an IPA, solving these accidents.
Click to expand...

Based on the ADSB track he went around and the crash happened on downwind. This wasn't a landing excursion one could blame on a crosswind.
 
The botched go around was related to the attempt to land in the crosswind. He hit trees on the go-around, sounds low. I think it’s all related, the ‘chain’ of events. That chain could of been broken with a divert to Fargo.

For some reason seems clear to me.
 
sourdough44 said:
The botched go around was related to the attempt to land in the crosswind. He hit trees on the go-around, sounds low. I think it’s all related, the ‘chain’ of events. That chain could of been broken with a divert to Fargo.

For some reason seems clear to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, fargo has 3 runways to choose from. 30kts blowing through those hangars in west fargo is not fun
 
sourdough44 said:
The botched go around was related to the attempt to land in the crosswind. He hit trees on the go-around, sounds low. I think it’s all related, the ‘chain’ of events. That chain could of been broken with a divert to Fargo.

For some reason seems clear to me.
Click to expand...

It could have also been broken by not taking off in Omaha.
Or by not buying a plane.
 
Just came across this thread looking at the NTSB report for the accident. Thought there were some good observations in the thread but had some feedback. It was a hot and windy day. The NTSB cites probable fuel starvation based on their finding that the right tank was empty. The fuel selector was on the left tank with 8 gallons of fuel left so I don't necessarily agree with their idea that I switched it to the left tank when the engine cut out. One of the things I'd implemented was setting a check fuel timer on the 430 every half hour so I'm more confident that I'd intentionally selected the left tank prior to any engine issue.

To be fair, I lost about 7 days of memory the day of and following the crash so I can't say definitively what happened. However. . . Kudos to those who pointed to the wind and poor choice to go to West Fargo rather than KFAR. The alternate runways would likely have been a lifesaver. I settled on that first mistake on Thursday before the Tuesday flight and shouldn't have stuck with it. The logic was that I would save $100 or so by going to West Fargo rather than KFAR.

My conclusions as to what happened are based on pictures inside the airplane and conversations with others. I believe that I missed the Mixture Full Rich on the descent checklist prior to the approach and so was flying with fuel leaned for cruise on the approach. Had I landed out of that first approach I think it would have been fine.

With the winds, I chose to go around, presumably when a wing lifted from the crosswind. I don't believe in forcing a landing so that would have been consistent with how I fly. When I advanced the throttle I believe that killed the engine due to fuel starvation (because the fuel mixture was still lean) and left me scrambling for where to land. Funny comment about being low resulting in striking the trees. Tough to climb without an engine.

I've spoken to the three local flying clubs in Omaha about the accident with the intent that if I can help prevent anyone else from making these mistakes it would make the embarrassment worth it and post this with the same intent. Flight plan better, update flight planning early and often and FOLLOW YOUR CHECKLISTS.
 
Thanks for coming back and sharing your actual account. One the first things that came to mind was flaps or leaning so my guess was stupid lucky sort of.

But on that topic, our 182 (yes different engine) loves to be moderately leaned from takeoff to landing even up here on the hot days at 1000msl. Plus if we have in even half carb heat it just enrichens it even more. So where I am going with this is...did you possibly go full carb heat then full throttle or full throttle then full carb hear?

When practicing touch and goes way back when on a nice 5000ft runway I once did carb heat then throttle and the engine stumbled hard but not stopped about 1/3 of the way down the runway, I full stopped, did mag checks and then realized I had mixed those two up. I think it basically made it too rich or something and it stumbled. Or maybe I just didn't push it (throttle) in smooth enough, etc.

Really bummed about your plane, C210s are awesome. Glad you are better now and shared.
 
RhinoJMK said:
Just came across this thread looking at the NTSB report for the accident. Thought there were some good observations in the thread but had some feedback. It was a hot and windy day. The NTSB cites probable fuel starvation based on their finding that the right tank was empty. The fuel selector was on the left tank with 8 gallons of fuel left so I don't necessarily agree with their idea that I switched it to the left tank when the engine cut out. One of the things I'd implemented was setting a check fuel timer on the 430 every half hour so I'm more confident that I'd intentionally selected the left tank prior to any engine issue.

To be fair, I lost about 7 days of memory the day of and following the crash so I can't say definitively what happened. However. . . Kudos to those who pointed to the wind and poor choice to go to West Fargo rather than KFAR. The alternate runways would likely have been a lifesaver. I settled on that first mistake on Thursday before the Tuesday flight and shouldn't have stuck with it. The logic was that I would save $100 or so by going to West Fargo rather than KFAR.

My conclusions as to what happened are based on pictures inside the airplane and conversations with others. I believe that I missed the Mixture Full Rich on the descent checklist prior to the approach and so was flying with fuel leaned for cruise on the approach. Had I landed out of that first approach I think it would have been fine.
Click to expand...
But a fuel tank was empty. Do you run tanks empty?

NTSB Docket - Docket Management System

data.ntsb.gov data.ntsb.gov
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that the right fuel bladder burst in the crash.
 
RhinoJMK said:
My opinion is that the right fuel bladder burst in the crash.
Click to expand...


According to the NTSB.....

"The areas around the fuel filler caps did not exhibited any fuel stains. Both fuel filler caps had fuel grade placard of “100 OCTANE” and the fuel filler caps had “40 U.S. GALLON” inscribed.The left and right wing fuel tanks were of a bladder type. The bladders in both tanks were secured by their attaching hardware and not collapsed. There was some wrinkling of the bladders adjacent to wing structure that exhibited impact damage.The left and right wing vent system was unobstructed.The left and right wing tank fuel line pick up screens did not contain debris. The left and right wing tank fuel senders were intact and secured to the wing root structure. The electrical wiring leading to the senders was intact and secure and were cut during wreckage recovery. The left fuel sender had two stickers: “P/N#0726110-1 S/N#202964” and “11/17/20 AIR PARTS OF LOCK HAVEN 202964.” The left and right sender float arms moved freely and smoothly when exercised by hand. An ohm meter was used to check resistances of both senders when their float arms were positioned at the bottom mechanical stop, approximate mid-range of float arm travel, and at the top mechanical stop. The approximate resistance values for the left fuel sender were: bottom stop – 28 ohms, mid-range – 110 ohms, top stop – 210 ohms. The approximate resistance value for the right fuel sender were: bottom stop –38 ohms, mid travel – 150 ohms, top stop – 300 ohms. According to the aircraft manufacturer, the resistance values of fuel senders are: max value is 255 ohms +/– 15 ohms and the minimum value is 33.5 ohms +/– 2 ohms.All the fuel lines from leading to the fuel selector and from the fuel selector to the engine were intact, secure, and did not exhibit fuel leakage. There was no debris within the fuel system. There were no fuel stains on the aircraft consistent with leakage during aircraft operation."

Sounds like an intact and perfectly working fuel system. It would be interesting to know if the pilot was the type to run a tank dry. I think most do not.

Guages were fine, fuel tanks were fine, engine was fine. I tend to believe the NTSB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top