PA 28-235 Down in Illinois, 4 Dead, 5/31/2020

5th crash within 30 miles of me this year. Scary for sure. Witness is saying wing separated in the air
 
It had just had its annual too.
 
muddy00 said:
5th crash within 30 miles of me this year. Scary for sure. Witness is saying wing separated in the air
Click to expand...
Hopefully not. A fresh pilot, and I believe that he or his family owned the craft.
 
I can't help but notice the remarkably factual reporting by the SLT and the discipline from the everyone they interviewed:

“Several people saw it and heard it,” Kahl said. “Witnesses heard a noise of some sort but they don’t know what it was. As far as what transpired in the air, I wouldn’t even begin to speculate on that.”

No wild speculation from the airport manager, no 'man on the street' interview of billybob the mechanics helper who speculates that it must have come from together.



What a tragedy. Good weather, plane suitable for the mission, 4 men gone.
 
If I'm interpreting the Flightaware track log correctly, it appears to show a more-or-less level double-standard-rate left turn at 5,300' MSL, from 220° to 022° in 34 seconds, then descent at 6,000 fpm.

RIP.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I wonder how long until we see a wing loss due to the removal and inspection of the attachment point?
Click to expand...
Definitely a potential risk as well.. I used to (still do?) have a paranoia about keel failures when sailing, and many yards advised against keel bolt removal unless there were signs of issues (types of cranks, water ingress)
 
Is the -235 included in that PA-28 wing spar SB?
 
I'm sorry, but that PA28 wing spar joint has never passed the "looks about right" rule to me. I remember when I first started flying there was a PA 28 fuselage and its wings sitting on the ramp. Seeing that tiny metal tab with those 10 dinky screws holding it on really did not give me the warm and cozy feeling of safety

Even before the Embry wing came off I went down a rabbit hole researching PA28 wing failures, of which there have been more than a handful. Then Embry happened.. and now (potentially) this.

You look at a Centurion wing carry through and it's a serious I-Beam and some very heavy duty looking bolts that hold it on.. and even the Centurion has lost a wing or too. Hell, even the small two person gliders have what appears to be a much more substantial wing connection (if you've ever seen a glider with the wings off)

..Mind you, this is coming from someone who far prefers the PA28 most high wings. But that wing joint, it's always made me uneasy in steep turns, bumps, etc. I trust the engineers, so I fly these planes, but it may (at some point) be time to acknowledge that the PA28 wing may not be best designed piece of equipment out there

Really?! This is what holds our wings on?
upload_2020-6-2_17-1-38.png
 
I was told once that C172 wings are held on with (4) 1/4 inch bolts.

I am guessing that most cantilevered wings have a similar arrangement that the PA28 has. Aside from the cost I would be ok with a proper inspection.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I was told once that C172 wings are held on with (4) 1/4 inch bolts.

I am guessing that most cantilevered wings have a similar arrangement that the PA28 has. Aside from the cost I would be ok with a proper inspection.
Click to expand...
On the 172 (and all strutted high-wings), the center section is in compression and shear in a different manner, as there are two struts out there on the wings, attaching them to the fuselage. But bolts rarely fail, anyway; it's the actual joint failing in the Pipers, and it's happened enough to have been discussed for three decades or more.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
On the 172 (and all strutted high-wings), the center section is in compression and shear in a different manner, as there are two struts out there on the wings, attaching them to the fuselage. But bolts rarely fail, anyway; it's the actual joint failing in the Pipers, and it's happened enough to have been discussed for three decades or more.
Click to expand...
Then don’t buy a Low winged Piper...
 
It seems to me that some airplane design are more tolerant to manufacturing and environmental anomalies than others and I think that is why we are seeing what we are.

I keep thinking about crankshafts, when is the next round of crankshaft ADs coming? Seriously, it seems like none of the FAA/PMA or OEMs can go 20 years without an AD on them. So if I need to buy a new crankshaft for a Lycoming O-320 it seems like the best way to bite the bullet is just buy the cheapest one since any of them could be recalled in 10 years.
 
I dunno, after watching this video from Fly8MA, it may change your mind. Tons of missing rivets including several holding the aft spar attachment onto both wings and it’s still rock solid when he jumps up and down on it.


This accident *could* be a spar sep case, but at this point it’s just speculation.
 
Tantalum said:
I'm sorry, but that PA28 wing spar joint has never passed the "looks about right" rule to me. I remember when I first started flying there was a PA 28 fuselage and its wings sitting on the ramp. Seeing that tiny metal tab with those 10 dinky screws holding it on really did not give me the warm and cozy feeling of safety

Even before the Embry wing came off I went down a rabbit hole researching PA28 wing failures, of which there have been more than a handful. Then Embry happened.. and now (potentially) this.

You look at a Centurion wing carry through and it's a serious I-Beam and some very heavy duty looking bolts that hold it on.. and even the Centurion has lost a wing or too. Hell, even the small two person gliders have what appears to be a much more substantial wing connection (if you've ever seen a glider with the wings off)

..Mind you, this is coming from someone who far prefers the PA28 most high wings. But that wing joint, it's always made me uneasy in steep turns, bumps, etc. I trust the engineers, so I fly these planes, but it may (at some point) be time to acknowledge that the PA28 wing may not be best designed piece of equipment out there

Really?! This is what holds our wings on?
View attachment 86347
Click to expand...


I'm not an engineer, but this design is what? The second most popular airplane design in the world?
 
The GA fleet is aging. When most of these planes were produced, the manufacturer never foresaw, and never intended on the products to still be around 50 years later.

As the fleet ages, maintenance has become less and less. Face it, how many annual inspections have we seen that were pencil whipped? Take a 40-50 year old airframe that's had minimal maintenance, and sooner or later the odds for failures begin to gain.
 
Until the reported wing separation can be confirmed....does this maybe also look like a cabin fire scenario?

Perhaps the PIC started turning left and at a high rate, perhaps looking for a place to land and start spiraling down rapidly. Maybe the smoke got too thick and he lost all reference in the left turn and ended up too vertical and disoriented.

I tried listening to the STL approach frequency and didn't hear him call in for Flight Following but then again he might have picked it up several minutes later on another frequency. If he was using Flight Following we might have been a single key-click away of knowing the actual emergency.
 
Funny, whatever speculation the newspaper refrained from, we sure make up for it on POA.

Wing separation (if it happened) does not have to be the initiating event of a mishap. Lots of planes come down in pieces after they exceed vne.
 
Sinistar said:
Until the reported wing separation can be confirmed....does this maybe also look like a cabin fire scenario?

Perhaps the PIC started turning left and at a high rate, perhaps looking for a place to land and start spiraling down rapidly. Maybe the smoke got too thick and he lost all reference in the left turn and ended up too vertical and disoriented.

I tried listening to the STL approach frequency and didn't hear him call in for Flight Following but then again he might have picked it up several minutes later on another frequency. If he was using Flight Following we might have been a single key-click away of knowing the actual emergency.
Click to expand...

All the pings are from ADS-B, which could (but not necessarily) be due to not having flight following.

The airplane appears to have turned almost a full 360° while climbing 200 feet before the descent started.
 
Fairly good discussion here: https://www.piperflyer.org/maintena...32-wing-spar-cracks-what-you-should-know.html

As noted above, this has been going on for decades. Even if it is just a few crashes here and there and we can rationalize away why they happened.. there's still something here that Piper pilots and owners should be at least aware of. Of note, in the link above, the part about the Alaska pilot is interesting

Also, as posted by someone else above, many of the GA planes are aging. Even the best designed machines are approaching 60 years old. Even if most of these planes aren't pressurized, metal still fatigues, cracks happen, and after 60 years of flying and various owners and uses there's no guarantee that these planes were never flown outside their design envelopes. People often take issue with the lifetime limit on some composite wings (Tiger and Cirrus come to mind), but those are high, something like 12,000 hrs.. some of these Piper wings started failing (or showing cracks) after 7K hours. While the excuse has been that the Embry planes were used for training, I think it's fair to say that probably most PA28s at some point were used for training, and if not, it was certainly part of the design goals.. the explanation that "well this plane did a lot of u-turns and made lots of landings" is kind of bogus. Most of our club Skyhawks spend all day flying around the pattern.. they probably log 5-10 landing per hour in some cases. In addition, I'm willing to bet good money that the average flight school PA-28 from 1975 has a lot more than 7K hours on the frame

If joyriding pilots over-stress a plane which then maintenance subsequently misses and the cracks propagate, that's one thing.. but "it landed too many times" is a bit of a stretch

Lastly, that wing joint is *always* under stress.. even when it's just sitting on the ground the gear design means that the wing joint is always under some stress. Fast turns, side loads on landing, towing the plane over bumps, etc., grass runways, all add cycles to that puny little tab



Ryanb said:
rock solid when he jumps up and down on it
Click to expand...
and here I am thinking I've seen all of his videos.. but I haven't seen that one!
.. for what it's worth though, that dude probably weighs, what, 180 lbs maximum? With a max gross around 2,400 lbs each wing will carry 1,200 lbs.. I should hope that a few hundred pounds (much of it being absorbed by the gear roughly 1/4 span out when he humps) won't break the wing off
 
weilke said:
Funny, whatever speculation the newspaper refrained from, we sure make up for it on POA.

Wing separation (if it happened) does not have to be the initiating event of a mishap. Lots of planes come down in pieces after they exceed vne.
Click to expand...
Very valid point. And had it been a Piper Commanche or a Saratoga, speculation about the possible cause of the separation would likely focus on those scenarios. But it was a PA-28 and there just so happens to be an SB for the wing spars on high time PA-28's so I think asking if that particular airplane was included in the SB was a fair question.
 
Tantalum said:
...
.. for what it's worth though, that dude probably weighs, what, 180 lbs maximum? With a max gross around 2,400 lbs each wing will carry 1,200 lbs.. I should hope that a few hundred pounds (much of it being absorbed by the gear roughly 1/4 span out when he humps) won't break the wing off
Click to expand...
Times the certified G-load factor, so 3.8 times that in the up direction, and 1.5 in the down direction.
 
Tantalum said:
for what it's worth though, that dude probably weighs, what, 180 lbs maximum? With a max gross around 2,400 lbs each wing will carry 1,200 lbs.. I should hope that a few hundred pounds (much of it being absorbed by the gear roughly 1/4 span out when he humps) won't break the wing off
Click to expand...
Fair point, however, upon a little dissection of the accident, something interesting with their flight path is that they completed at least 180°of a turn to the left while still maintaining altitude. That would tend to nullify a sudden wing separation. Whatever happened appears to be something that was not necessarily an instantaneous event but the result was a very rapid loss of aircraft control. Inflight fire?

Again, we’re all speculating here. It could be a wing sep or it could be something totally unrelated. Too soon to know.

F1F41D1A-795C-46D7-A6CB-5A753944DDE6.jpeg
 
weilke said:
Funny, whatever speculation the newspaper refrained from, we sure make up for it on POA.

Wing separation (if it happened) does not have to be the initiating event of a mishap. Lots of planes come down in pieces after they exceed vne.
Click to expand...

And the great percentage of those planes came apart after loss of control in IMC, not on clear sunny days.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
Again, we’re all speculating here. It could be a wing sep or it could be something totally unrelated.
Click to expand...
True, the whole wing thing started though because someone up thread indicated that a witness stated the wing separated

That large tightening circle and subsequent dive/crash are eerie
 
Tantalum said:
True, the whole wing thing started though because someone up thread indicated that a witness stated the wing separated

That large tightening circle and subsequent dive/crash are eerie
Click to expand...
It very well could’ve had a wing sep during the so-called 6,000fpm descent rate and exceeded Vne. Just saying that by the looks of the track log, it doesn’t seem likely that was the starting point in the accident chain.
 
Agreed, my theory as well (Post#29). Something rather important or interesting lead to a turn left (pilot side) but it does look like it started out controlled. Looking at it more the other thing is a Pathfinder/Dakota once in level flight even that loaded should have been doing about 130kts. So if there was no headwinds there might have been something wrong. How do you get winds aloft for that date? Or maybe it was a AP problem and they just engaged it or something related to a rudder trim or aileron cable failure. Could be anything. But the seemingly controlled turn, almost as if to return home makes it mysterious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top