Cessna 182Q Crash, Reliance, TN

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,106
Display Name

Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
I don't see where we discussed this one before. It's an inflight breakup of a Cessna 182Q, with a BRS chute that was deployed, but not found at the scene. Not sure if it was deployed by the pilot or on impact.

This reminds me of a friend of mine who was doing pipeline patrols and woke up in the hospital. He had no idea what happened and after a lot of medical tests, he was cleared to fly again. During his checkout, they got into turbulence and he hit his head pretty hard because the seatbelt wouldn't stay tight. He went back and looked at his medical records and sure enough, he'd had a big bump on his head after the crash. They didn't think much about it, assuming it was just another injury from the crash. He got back to flying and all of this type of plane got new seatbelts.


From: Aviation Accidents: "This Day in History"

NTSB issue the preliminary report into the fatal inflight breakup accident involving a Cessna 182Q Skylane II, N725AS, that occurred on May 7, 2023, near Reliance, Tennessee:

On May 7, 2023, about 1848 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182Q, N725AS was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Reliance, Tennessee. The private pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.

According to preliminary air traffic control information, the airplane departed South Bend International Airport (SBN), South Bend, Indiana, on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan destined for Jackson County Airport (JCA), Jefferson, Georgia. After takeoff, the pilot communicated with several air traffic control facilities appropriate for the route of flight. About 1845, the pilot established contact with the the Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center and advised the controller that the flight was at 8,900 ft mean sea level (msl). The controller acknowledged the transmission and provided the altimeter setting of 30.02 Inches of mercury, which the pilot correctly read back. At 1845:05, the controller asked the pilot if he was assigned 8,900 ft msl, to which he promptly replied that he was assigned 9,000 ft msl but was getting “bounced around a little bit.” The controller advised the pilot that the flight appeared to be out of the southern edge of weather and appeared to be clear of any depicted weather returns. At 1847:29, the airplane was on a southeast heading at 8,700 ft msl and a ground speed of 132 knots. About 20 seconds later, the airplane turned right. The right turn was not announced by the pilot or instructed by the controller.

The controller broadcast the call sign of the airplane to which the pilot responded, then at 1848:23, the controller informed the pilot, “it looks like you are in a little bit of a descent in a turn is everything all right.” The pilot did not reply. The controller attempted to contact the airplane several times and solicited assistance from another aircraft to relay a message; however, there was no reply by the pilot. The controller asked Chattanooga air traffic control tower if they could see the airplane to which the facility reported they could see a data tag but no target.

Witnesses in the area at the time reported the wind was strong, with one witness who was a military trained rotorcraft pilot estimating the wind speed to be at 40 knots.

An Alert Notice (ALNOT) was issued for the missing airplane at 1852 and a search was initiated. The main wreckage which consisted of the fuselage with partially attached engine, propeller and a small portion of the empennage was located the following morning in a wooded area behind a private residence. The separated right wing came to rest about 4,200 ft south-southwest from the main wreckage, and the left wing was subsequently recovered by local law enforcement. The separated aft empennage was located about 415 ft south-southwest from the main wreckage. It was missing nearly its full span of right horizontal stabilizer, rudder counterweight, and left elevator counterweight. The main wreckage, section(s) of both wings, aft empennage, and left elevator counterweight were taken to a secure facility for further examination. The airplane was equipped with a whole airframe parachute system per a supplemental type certificate. The rocket was discharged, and the parachute was not located.
Latitude, Longitude: 35.225799,-84.421951


351139153_905168300581414_348722242022418864_n.jpg

351161986_779852556966252_1130078612275709606_n.jpg
 
Anyone know the deployment envelope for tBRS in a 182? My hunch is it was pulled too late. Big parts falling off 182s is very rare.
 
Paramedic I work with responded to it. I was actually working and turned down a flight through area right at that time. Night pilot turned it down as well. Just too many storms.
 
An Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this 182Q on 12/15/2018, so I'm guessing that this was a fairly new aircraft and not one of the older "legacy" Cessnas. This would indicate that the 4-1/2 year old airplane was in pretty good shape structurally, and as pointed out by Jeff Oslick above, C-182s are pretty sturdy airplanes. The turbulence must have been severe.
 
An Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this 182Q on 12/15/2018, so I'm guessing that this was a fairly new aircraft and not one of the older "legacy" Cessnas. This would indicate that the 4-1/2 year old airplane was in pretty good shape structurally, and as pointed out by Jeff Oslick above, C-182s are pretty sturdy airplanes. The turbulence must have been severe.
Nope, it’s a Q model.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/312220

I didn’t know him, but had several mutual friends.
 
"An Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this 182Q on 12/15/2018 ... ". Is there a difference between a 182Q and a "Q model"?

The pilot was a well-known and well-regarded physician, and his death is a big loss to his community. R.I.P.
 
This would indicate that the 4-1/2 year old airplane was in pretty good shape structurally,
FYI: more than likely this was not a "4 1/2 year old aircraft." The 182Q model started as a 1976 model as shown below. The date of the AWC is not always a good indicator of its production year. A common reason is it may have been imported and issued a new AWC. Regardless, whether the aircraft is actually 4.5 years old or 50 years old should not change the structural integrity of the aircraft unless there were previous issues.
upload_2023-6-5_20-30-46.png
 
An Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this 182Q on 12/15/2018, so I'm guessing that this was a fairly new aircraft and not one of the older "legacy" Cessnas.
I guess I’m not following you here. You acknowledge that it’s a 182Q, but state that it must be a fairly new aircraft. Q model 182’s aren’t ‘new’.
"An Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this 182Q on 12/15/2018 ... ". Is there a difference between a 182Q and a "Q model"?
Same thing. Just pointing out that an Airworthiness Certificate doesn’t have anything to do with the date it was produced.
 
Certificate issue date is typically when the FAA issued the owner the registration. As in it was bought and registered in December 2018.
 
The manufacturer states that the BRS should be deployed below 135 KIAS in a C182.
 
An Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this 182Q on 12/15/2018,
Looking at the registry the 12/15/2018 date is for the registration cert and not the AWC. The AWC issue date was 10/19/1978.
 
If your airworthiness certificate is lost or damaged and gets replaced, you get a new one from the FSDO with a new date. Our '77 has a cert issued in 2005 because the old one was becoming unreadable.
 
If your airworthiness certificate is lost or damaged and gets replaced, you get a new one from the FSDO with a new date. Our '77 has a cert issued in 2005 because the old one was becoming unreadable.
I was looking at a Cardinal to buy once. Same syndrome, Cert date years after the plane was built. It had gone into Experimental Category. When the experiment was over, it got a new Cert date. They had put some kind of skid thingy on the tail to protect from over rotations, which were a problem with early Cardinals. Maybe this 182 went through some experimental thang.
 
If your airworthiness certificate is lost or damaged and gets replaced, you get a new one from the FSDO with a new date. Our '77 has a cert issued in 2005 because the old one was becoming unreadable.
Interesting. The policy is to use the original issue date for a replacement AWC for the past 25+ years. Were there by chance 2 dates in the issuance box? Either that or there was more to the it or an error was made but having a more current date for a simple replacement would be something I would definitely question if performing a conformity inspection of the aircraft.
When the experiment was over, it got a new Cert date. They had put some kind of skid thingy on the tail to protect from over rotations,
FYI: If an AWC gets amended then it will have a more current issuance date which the prevailing guidance states. However, for an exchange or replacement AWC the original date must still be used.
 
To be clear, the original airworthiness date is still 1977, but the certificate date is 2005. Both appear in the records. If someone was looking at a database that didn't show all the data fields from the FAA, I can see why they might be confused why an older plane had a newer date attached to it.
 
the original airworthiness date is still 1977, but the certificate date is 2005. Both appear in the records.
Still interesting. Technically there should be only one airworthiness certificate issue date. By "records" which ones are you referring to? Most FAA records databases only have one block that contains the AWC issue date. So I dont quite follow how your aircraft can have two AWC issue dates shown in the records. Perhaps an example?
 
Back
Top