Our day with NTSB

[Tom-D]

Tom, did you also sign off the annual on this plane.

Yes, 16 hours prior to the accident, after the owner completed and signed off repairs of the discrepancy list.

Cessna's representative found no discrepancies on the airframe.

Your and Mine PMI at FSDO found no discrepancies either.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

was there a crash fire (gas in the tanks)?.....and was carb heat used?

again....like I said before....my bet is on carb icing. That thing is an ice-maker.

 

[Tom-D]

was there a crash fire (gas in the tanks)?.....and was carb heat used?

again....like I said before....my bet is on carb icing. That thing is an ice-maker.

There was no fire, there was gas in the tanks, there was .3 flight time on full tanks, carb heat knob was found to be out thus heat was on at impact.
It is MY opinion that he iced it up and didn't have time to clear it.

 

[brien23]

Yes, 16 hours prior to the accident, after the owner completed and signed off repairs of the discrepancy list.

Cessna's representative found no discrepancies on the airframe.

Your and Mine PMI at FSDO found no discrepancies either.

The owner was the last one to work on the plane.

 

[Tom-D]

The owner was the last one to work on the plane.

yes..

 

[JoseCuervo]

not necessarily prove....but taint a jury into believing something....

btw....you should be fine Tom.

There will never be a jury. Real life ain't the same as movies.

The insurance companies don't sue if they aren't going to win or if they aren't going to collect.

They don't like wasting money in court more than anyone else does.

 

[brien23]

You should be fine Tom.

 

[Tom-D]

You should be fine Tom.

I knew that walking out of the interview.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

There will never be a jury. Real life ain't the same as movies.

The insurance companies don't sue if they aren't going to win or if they aren't going to collect.

They don't like wasting money in court more than anyone else does.

No way Jose.....I don't watch movies.

 

[hindsight2020]

There was no fire, there was gas in the tanks, there was .3 flight time on full tanks, carb heat knob was found to be out thus heat was on at impact.
It is MY opinion that he iced it up and didn't have time to clear it.

That's such a cheap seat stance on the part of the peanut gallery, and knowing the NTSB has set a precedent of faulting the pilot for carb icing, I just own FI engines these days. I used to own a C-150 btw. I consider many of the Carbed continental installations on Cessnas straight up deficient by design. They would never fall in the category of pilot error in my book. I suppose the only error would be to own/operate such a POS setup in the first place. Plenty of youtube videos that demonstrate carb icing can occur in certain installations at operating temperature and cruise power and very quickly on the descent even with carb heat on. That's ridiculous. By the time your engine starts asphyxiating you won't have enough heated airflow to clear it. The only way to avoid that is to fly with carb heat on all the time and take the performance decrease, unfiltered air and fuel flow increase. What a joke.

Ultimately, in the absence of data recording, the NTSB will not be able to prove carb icing in this accident, so it will assign that mickey mouse catch-all "pilot error" for "failing to defy the laws of physics and stay aloft absent power". Then again, even if they did prove carb icing, they would still blame the pilot for it. I don't agree with that at all. Not impressed by the NTSB when it comes to GA. Not one bit.

 

[Tom-D]

That's such a cheap seat stance on the part of the peanut gallery, and knowing the NTSB has set a precedent of faulting the pilot for carb icing, I just own FI engines these days. I used to own a C-150 btw. I consider many of the Carbed continental installations on Cessnas straight up deficient by design. They would never fall in the category of pilot error in my book. I suppose the only error would be to own/operate such a POS setup in the first place. Plenty of youtube videos that demonstrate carb icing can occur in certain installations at operating temperature and cruise power and very quickly on the descent even with carb heat on. That's ridiculous. By the time your engine starts asphyxiating you won't have enough heated airflow to clear it. The only way to avoid that is to fly with carb heat on all the time and take the performance decrease, unfiltered air and fuel flow increase. What a joke.

Ultimately, in the absence of data recording, the NTSB will not be able to prove carb icing in this accident, so it will assign that mickey mouse catch-all "pilot error" for "failing to defy the laws of physics and stay aloft absent power". Then again, even if they did prove carb icing, they would still blame the pilot for it. I don't agree with that at all. Not impressed by the NTSB when it comes to GA. Not one bit.

It is a well known fact that remote mounted carbs ice up very often and very quickly. This is why it is in my opinion the reason carb temp gauges sell so well. The C-150/0-200 sold well over 25,000 units, they are very reliable aircraft with brick simple systems, and each and every pilot of them must be well versed in the carb ice syndrome, and act quickly. In this case the hot air was on from start to throttle up. then off for take off. but back on prior to impact.
The pilot has stated when it quit he thought it iced, less than 10 seconds later he was in the trees.

 

[JOhnH]

My gracious, do you need a reading comprehension course?

It's done, over with, finished, they found nothing wrong with the build, the parts, or the paper work.

Nice way to talk to someone that wished you well.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Nice way to talk to someone that wished you well.

No biggie.....it's just Tom.

 

[Tom-D]

Nice way to talk to someone that wished you well.

You forget what prompted that response?

 

[JOhnH]

You forget what prompted that response?

I don't think I forgot. Perhaps "never knew" might apply.

All I knew was that he said "hope it all goes well Tom".
Was there more to it than that?

But if he doesn't mind, then I don't either.

 

[Tom-D]

I don't think I forgot. Perhaps "never knew" might apply.

All I knew was that he said "hope it all goes well Tom".
Was there more to it than that?

But if he doesn't mind, then I don't either.

When he said I hope all goes well, I considered that as there was more to come. and that would have meant he miss read the part that it was over for me.

 

[RJM62]

well.....you said nothing bout the fat lady....so I figured it wasn't over yet.

What did my ex have to do with it?





Glad it's all over and that you're in the clear, Tom.

Rich

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

you married a real hum singer?....

 

[dell30rb]

It is a well known fact that remote mounted carbs ice up very often and very quickly. This is why it is in my opinion the reason carb temp gauges sell so well. The C-150/0-200 sold well over 25,000 units, they are very reliable aircraft with brick simple systems, and each and every pilot of them must be well versed in the carb ice syndrome, and act quickly. In this case the hot air was on from start to throttle up. then off for take off. but back on prior to impact.
The pilot has stated when it quit he thought it iced, less than 10 seconds later he was in the trees.

I have only flown a C150 once but it was a ferry trip and I put 10-11 hours on it. I had the carb ice up several times at WOT throttle at altitude, in VMC. No carb temp gauge.

 

[Palmpilot]

I have only flown a C150 once but it was a ferry trip and I put 10-11 hours on it. I had the carb ice up several times at WOT throttle at altitude, in VMC. No carb temp gauge.

I once got carb icing in severe clear conditions in a 182 on a warm summer day, with surface temps in the 90s. (I think I was at 6,500 MSL.)

 

[brien23]

This is something every student pilot should know. Why is it such a hot topic, the aircraft should have been able to handle it? Since it did not the only other explanation is Pilot Error.

 

[Aeromot]

Well, the NTSB Probable Cause is out, and it doesn't do Tom any favors. I have too few posts to include the link, but the NTSB identification number is WPR15FA268.

 

[bradg33]

Well, the NTSB Probable Cause is out, and it doesn't do Tom any favors. I have too few posts to include the link, but the NTSB identification number is WPR15FA268.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...b7c2-483a-bef8-b765b73d5037&pgno=3&pgsize=200

Ultimate finding:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

• The loss of engine power due to the mechanic's inadequate tightening of the crankshaft gear retaining bolts during an engine overhaul, which resulted in fatigue failure of the bolts and the crankshaft gear dowel pin that allowed the crankshaft gear to separate from the crankshaft."

 

[Brad Z]

My gracious, do you need a reading comprehension course?

It's done, over with, finished, they found nothing wrong with the build, the parts, or the paper work.

Hmmm.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Oh...my.

 

[Tom-D]

Yes they hit me with it.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Yes they hit me with it.

yes ....they did.

 

[Tom-D]

My question, when the bolts failed, wouldn't it simply stop turning the mags? if so why did it sputter and back fire?

read the full report, and tell me about the brand new carb.

 

[deonb]

Before we even start analyzing this... how are your friends doing?

 

[bradg33]

My question, when the bolts failed, wouldn't it simply stop turning the mags? if so why did it sputter and back fire?

read the full report, and tell me about the brand new carb.

For a short period of time, the would still be spinning close to full-speed, yet the mags would be slowing down (having lost the drive), throwing the timing off for that brief period before it just quit, right? Improper timing would lead to sputtering and backfiring, right?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yes they hit me with it.

That's why my mechanic leaves engine overhauls to others now.

 

[Brad Z]

FWIW- this was the original accident thread: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/worst-possible-news.86379/

Followed on with this thread: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/ntsb.87357/

 

[Tom-D]

For a short period of time, the would still be spinning close to full-speed, yet the mags would be slowing down (having lost the drive), throwing the timing off for that brief period before it just quit, right? Improper timing would lead to sputtering and backfiring, right?

or the bolts sheered as in quick stoppage. have you ever tried to turn a mag with impulse couplings on it. they turn hard.
I saw the NTSB pictures of this engine, the end of the crank showed the threaded portion still in the crank, and sheered clean, Dowlpin and all. stereo typical of quick stoppage.

 

[MAKG1]

or the bolts sheered as in quick stoppage. have you ever tried to turn a mag with impulse couplings on it. they turn hard.
I saw the NTSB pictures of this engine, the end of the crank showed the threaded portion still in the crank, and sheered clean, Dowlpin and all. stereo typical of quick stoppage.

The report said that two of the bolts were sheared, and the other two stretched, with elongated holes and evidence of fatigue cracking. My non-expert conclusion would be that two of the bolts were loose for an extended period.

 

[Tom-D]

The report said that two of the bolts were sheared, and the other two stretched, with elongated holes and evidence of fatigue cracking. My non-expert conclusion would be that two of the bolts were loose for an extended period.

That is what the report says, this would not be the first time the NTSB was proven wrong.

 

[Tom-D]

I think you guys will excuse me if I don't comment on this anymore

 

[Tom-D]

Before we even start analyzing this... how are your friends doing?

The last I heard they were undergoing more treatments. but doing well as expected.

 

[Zeldman]

I think you guys will excuse me if I don't comment on this anymore

I would have thought a lawyer would have advised just that from the beginning.

And yes, I understand.

Praying for your friends full recovery.

 

[Mason]

I think the NTSB is just looking for a convenient scapegoat. IMO.

 

[mtuomi]

"The mechanic revealed to the NTSB IIC during the interview that he felt that the crankshaft gear bolts had failed as a result of a sudden engine stoppage when the airplane collided head-on with a tree. As such, the failure of the crankshaft gear bolts was not the cause of the accident, however, was as a result of the accident. The mechanic further opined that he felt there was nothing wrong with the engine, and that what probably precipitated the loss of engine power was carburetor ice. He added that the accident pilot told him earlier that morning that he had to wait about 30 minutes or so for the fog to lift so he could take off."

Tom - you almost killed your customer because you forgot to tighten some bolts. But it wasn't just a few bolts. We sure are glad you have said you are not accepting new customers. Your attitude is insane - the bolts failed because of fatigue, that is a completely different failure mechanism than sudden stoppage. Obviously you won't accept this either. It is your fault. You fckd up.
Shame on you. And thank whoever you believe in, that the poor pilot and passenger are alive. And that they won't use the legal system to take everything you have ever owned to recoup their suffering.

"The engine had an oil filter and adapter installed"
"The original engine oil screen remained installed, despite the fact that the engine was equipped with an oil filter. When the oil screen was removed, a significant amount of contaminates consistent with metallic material as well as a significant amount of unidentified black colored substance was observed."

^ Well done signing off that engine.

" It was noted that there was black sealant applied to the crankcase halves mating surfaces, and there was no silk thread noted on the crankcase halve mating surfaces. It was also noted that the black sealant material was found in several of the oil galleys"

^ Well done overhauling it. Jezzes!

"The four crankshaft gear bolts all exhibited overstress fractures in their threaded portion. Two of the four bolts, referred to as bolts #1 and #2, exhibited gross plastic deformation in the shank portion. Bolt #1 had broken free of the safety wire, and bolt #2 had a portion of safety wire still attached. Both of these two bolts exhibited fractures consistent with overstress. The remaining two bolts, referred to as bolts #3 and #4, remained safety wired to each other, and did not exhibit gross plastic deformation. These two bolts exhibited flat fractures and crack arrest marks consistent with fatigue fractures.

The bolt holes in the crankshaft gear had become elongated. This effect was less pronounced on the face of the gear that would have mated to the crankshaft, and more pronounced on the opposing face. The crankshaft gear teeth appeared to be well formed, and did not exhibit any irregularities or uneven wear.

The crankshaft gear dowel pin was fractured, and partially missing. The portion that was submitted to the laboratory contained a flat fracture surface. Examination of the fracture surface using a stereo microscope revealed crack arrest marks and ratchet marks consistent with a fatigue fracture. There were three prominent ratchet marks indicating a fatigue fracture with multiple origins. Examination of the body of the dowel pin revealed wear marks on one side."

No reason to not tighten the bolts all the way with a torque wrench. 80ish hours after OH, I'm guessing they were finger tight = forgotten to put on properly at all. Scary.

I mean hello. I'm sorry to be critical, but he built an engine that was nowhere near airworthy, and almost killed people doing it.

I am so very happy Tom isn't accepting new customers. This is dangerous. I hope they take his A&P/IA away.