PA-32 down Brentwood, TN

[Rein Hart]

Argh. RIP.

This is the reason I don't fly high-speed singles without a BRS. Training or Bush plane will land slow enough that putting it down in trees will result in minimal injuries, but a fast plane and well that's a rough time. Energy goes up with the square of velocity.

Agreed on BRS usage. Dumping fuel to prevent post crash fires would save lives too. Not sure if that exist for any GA planes. Maybe some type of release valve and pilot operated switch.

 

[Tantalum]

Honestly the Skymaster, despite all the "don't buy it!" things people tell you looks more and more appealing each day

The Riler Rocket version being both slow enough and fast enough, without the whole VMC issue.

I see you 91GE, I see you over there...

 

[hindsight2020]

Agreed on BRS usage. Dumping fuel to prevent post crash fires would save lives too. Not sure if that exist for any GA planes.

I have to agree. There's a good chance this guy would have survived an assisted egress (by definition a substantially delayed one, given significant blunt force trauma/fractures) if the thing hadn't exploded upon slide down from the trees. In fairness, Cirrus figured it out already with entire-aircraft chute, especially given some early composite planes are grenades, with non-metal-lined tanks perfectly atomizing a bomb of heated fiberglass from the composite wing turning into dust like a sugar wafer, and 100LL mist, kaboom.

At this point, it's probably the best all-around solution available (the BRS, not the Cirrus lulz). All that said, I don't have a problem flying a glide ratio brick like a cherokee six (or hell, my hershey arrow) without a chute... but I'd have to make sure I run the thing at altitude a heck of a lot more often than 10 effing hours a year for a whole decade then act shocked and chagrined when the WWII tractor engine betrays me.

 

[Rein Hart]

Honestly the Skymaster, despite all the "don't buy it!" things people tell you looks more and more appealing each day

The Riler Rocket version being both slow enough and fast enough, without the whole VMC issue.

I see you 51GE, I see you over there...
View attachment 112226

Woud love to see another Adam A500 attempt. Waiting to see if Veloce 600 flies soon and how well it handles the vmc issue.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Not sure if that exist for any GA planes. Maybe some type of release valve and pilot operated switch.

That sounds more likely to cause accidents than prevent harm.

 

[Jim K]

Argh. RIP.

This is the reason I don't fly high-speed singles without a BRS. Training or Bush plane will land slow enough that putting it down in trees will result in minimal injuries, but a fast plane and well that's a rough time. Energy goes up with the square of velocity.

A PA-32 stalls at about the same speed as a skywagon...

 

[Tantalum]

Adam A500

have you seen one in person? There's one rotting away at Skagit, when I flew into there and bought gas at the cheaper fuel island I was surprised to see one sitting there. It's huge in person, definitely serous ramp presence with how high it sits and the large wings



According to Wikipedia apparently at some point they were going to restart production out of Skagit (an odd spot if you ask me, small and quaint but sort of sleepy uncontrolled airport) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_A500

There is one flying around out there, the guy is super proud of it but the plane has basically no real useful load. I don't have the exact number but I think with full tanks it's under 100 lbs left. So yeah. But when he bought it the plane came with a whole second airframe

 

[readytocopy995]

No stupid questions. But no its not something that is usually addressed at the annual. With the right conditions any engine will rust in a week if not flown. As mentioned above it also depends on the extent of the rust which is not known, but since there was no mention of rust in other areas it maybe simply a preliminary observation during the initial teardown.

There are some magneto drive designs that could allow those rubbers to drop into the accessory case if not careful. It happens. Lycoming came out with a mod that secured the rubbers to the drive adapter so to minimize this problem.

makes sense. i found this, which explains. so basically the rubber is facing in and as it degrades can invade the accessory oil case. crazy

 

[Mtns2Skies]

A PA-32 stalls at about the same speed as a skywagon...

Maybe on paper, but let's go do a landing contest and see what the real world numbers are

 

[Bell206]

so basically the rubber is facing in and as it degrades can invade the accessory oil case

Basically. But usually the rubber doesn't degrade instead falls out. Here's a copy of the Lycoming bulletin that modified the rubbers and drive to give you a better idea.
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Magneto Drive Gear and Cushion Modification.pdf

 

[Rein Hart]

That sounds more likely to cause accidents than prevent harm.

How?
Would you rather perform emergency landing with empty tanks or fuel present?

 

[Mtns2Skies]

How?
Would you rather perform emergency landing with empty tanks or fuel present?

Malfunctions of the valve and/or pilots inadvertently hitting the "dump all fuel button" I feel like would happen more often than an emergency where you need to dump the fuel.

 

[readytocopy995]

Malfunctions of the valve and/or pilots inadvertently hitting the "dump all fuel button" I feel like would happen more often than an emergency where you need to dump the fuel.

every single one of these incident posts some person comes up with a totally insane idea on how to address a single contributing factor without looking at the broader context, at all

in the SMO crash, people were saying we needed explosive charges on the pilot side sticks and/or a disconnection mechanism for the flight controls so a CFI can completely eliminate control from the left seat. because that will never go wrong. like, you know, you're flying home in the left seat with your dog and he accidentally hits the flight control disconnect switch

 

[eman1200]

Maybe on paper, but let's go do a landing contest and see what the real world numbers are

I’ll gladly do this in your planes.

 

[Daleandee]

because that will never go wrong. like, you know, you're flying home in the left seat with your dog and he accidentally hits the flight control disconnect switch

Perhaps screaming at the dog as this CFI did would be the answer:

The pilot responded that it was to be a full-stop landing, and a few seconds later, the audio captured the instructor screaming, “let go, let go……. let go, let go, let go”.

The airplane struck the ground in a nose-down attitude and came to rest at the intersection of taxiway B and B4, about 375 ft south of the runway 21 threshold. The cabin, inboard wings and entire tail section were consumed by fire, with only ash remnants of the aft cabin and tail structure remaining.

Perhaps better training for the dog ... or if a system were to be implemented it would have a bit of "idiot (dog) proof" built into it.

 

[readytocopy995]

Perhaps screaming at the dog as this CFI did would be the answer:

Perhaps better training for the dog ... or if a system were to be implemented it would have a bit of "idiot (dog) proof" built into it.

that's not the point. the point is that trying to change something to prevent a rare situation that lead to an accident by creating a new mode of failure that leads to 50x as many inadvertent accidents is not especially creative

 

[Daleandee]

"creating a new mode of failure that leads to 50x as many inadvertent accidents"

You making this up as you go along? Yeah, of course you are!

 

[readytocopy995]

"creating a new mode of failure that leads to 50x as many inadvertent accidents"

You making this up as you go along? Yeah, of course you are!

whatever you have to tell yourself

 

[Daleandee]

whatever you have to tell yourself

Prove your numbers then ...

 

[readytocopy995]

Prove your numbers then ...

prove that disengaging the flight controls works better than briefing a student

 

[Daleandee]

prove that disengaging the flight controls works better than briefing a student

Prove your absurd numbers and then we'll talk ...

 

[ChopAndDrop]

“but I imagine all he saw was pitch black and flew into terrain. One of the reasons I try and avoid night flying, even though it’s my favorite time to fly.”

I’ve often wondered why the Garmin 430 map screen shows major highways/roads on its moving map… If I had an emergency at night it would be nice to know where a major road is nearby. I attended a night flying lecture once, and the main point was to try to plan your route to follow roads/highways if your flying at night.

back to the crash:
the Avionics Shop at FYM, I know that shop, been there several times, great place.

As another poster said, in the southeast, especially around Tennessee there is alot of forests/tree cover, it’s the natural state of things. Unless some farmer has cleared an area, it can be hard to find a clear spot to make a forced landing. anyplace that is cleared of trees is because something else has been built in that place.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I’ll gladly do this in your planes.

You ain't pilot enough to handle my plane

 

[nauga]

Malfunctions of the valve and/or pilots inadvertently hitting the "dump all fuel button" I feel like would happen more often than an emergency where you need to dump the fuel.

We're pilots, surely we can develop a system that interrupts or inhibits another flight critical system that has absolutely no new failure modes, requires no maintenance, and is absolutely free to certify, acquire, and install.

Nauga,
who keeps his feathers numbered for just such an occasion

 

[eman1200]

You ain't pilot enough to handle my plane

aawww, I'll bet you say that to all your students

 

[3393RP]

Malfunctions of the valve and/or pilots inadvertently hitting the "dump all fuel button" I feel like would happen more often than an emergency where you need to dump the fuel.

Make the emergency running out of fuel and the argument will be moot.

 

[Albany Tom]

every single one of these incident posts some person comes up with a totally insane idea on how to address a single contributing factor without looking at the broader context, at all

in the SMO crash, people were saying we needed explosive charges on the pilot side sticks and/or a disconnection mechanism for the flight controls so a CFI can completely eliminate control from the left seat. because that will never go wrong. like, you know, you're flying home in the left seat with your dog and he accidentally hits the flight control disconnect switch

Well, that's a couple of opinions and a couple of generalizations. The reality is that safety improvements come from lessons learned from crashes, and that while rare, students do sometimes overpower instructors resulting in crashes. But it's ok, it's just a risk they take, and there's no possible way to address that, because, you know, we've already invented everything anyway, and new things are expensive and scary. (Sarcasm)

I don't fly aircraft with chutes, and I have flown a piston single at night over areas where an engine out probably wouldn't be survivable. Everybody has their own risk tolerance....of flying and new ideas. It's ok, in both respects not everyone is driving in the fast lane. Double checking my post to make sure I didn't use any big words. (Not sarcasm.)

 

[readytocopy995]

Well, that's a couple of opinions and a couple of generalizations. The reality is that safety improvements come from lessons learned from crashes, and that while rare, students do sometimes overpower instructors resulting in crashes. But it's ok, it's just a risk they take, and there's no possible way to address that, because, you know, we've already invented everything anyway, and new things are expensive and scary. (Sarcasm)

I don't fly aircraft with chutes, and I have flown a piston single at night over areas where an engine out probably wouldn't be survivable. Everybody has their own risk tolerance....of flying and new ideas. It's ok, in both respects not everyone is driving in the fast lane. Double checking my post to make sure I didn't use any big words. (Not sarcasm.)

safety improvements for such an incident as a student grabbing the controls would be informing the student that such a thing can occur and having a solid briefing and practicing. not adding further complexity and failure mechanisms to the flight controls

weren't you the one saying that flying a C172 is more dangerous than flying in desert storm?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Are we crossing threads? Maybe I missed it, but how did we get from a seized engine to fighting over controls?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Sorry if it's a stupid question, but would the presence of rust in the cylinders be something that should be caught during an annual?

In the normal course of an annual not necessarily, but there are things you could do to at least have a heads up.

Oil analysis would definitely show the rust. But not everyone does oil analysis.

Another indicator could be oil consumption. When the inside of the cylinders start to get rusty, the scraper rings eat up the insides and you can see an increase in oil consumption (along with an oily belly) as the oil blows past the rings and out of the exhaust.

But if the airplane hasn’t been flying much, you may not have a good gauge on consumption.

 

[nauga]

The reality is that safety improvements come from lessons learned from crashes, and that while rare, students do sometimes overpower instructors resulting in crashes. But it's ok, it's just a risk they take, and there's no possible way to address that, because, you know, we've already invented everything anyway, and new things are expensive and scary. (Sarcasm)

Let's look at a counter example. Gear-up landings are a known issue in retract airplanes, even those with gear warning tones. It would be a great idea, and relatively simple, to put in a system that automatically extends the gear when, say, airspeed and throttle are below some threshold. It's simple and would significantly reduce the number of gear-up landings...right?

And yet...how many of us familiar with these systems know of airplanes that still have it enabled? Sometimes something that seems obvious to a casual observer is far from it.

Nauga,
who is simply complex

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Let's look at a counter example. Gear-up landings are a known issue in retract airplanes, even those with gear warning tones. It would be a great idea, and relatively simple, to put in a system that automatically extends the gear when, say, airspeed and throttle are below some threshold. It's simple and would significantly reduce the number of gear-up landings...right?

And yet...how many of us familiar with these systems know of airplanes that still have it enabled? Sometimes something that seems obvious to a casual observer is far from it.

Nauga,
who is simply complex

I believe such auto-extend systems have confused an emergency with a planned landing and put draggy legs out in the wind, leading to a bad ending.
Unintended consequences abound.

 

[Fearless Tower]

And yet...how many of us familiar with these systems know of airplanes that still have it enabled? Sometimes something that seems obvious to a casual observer is far from it.

I think I can honestly say that I have not flown a PA28 or PA32 where the system was disabled. I’ve used the override when training. But the system worked.

 

[Salty]

Mines been disabled.

 

[Jim K]

Mine's disabled, and the club arrow was disabled.

To play devil's advocate.... how many accidental cirrus parachute deployments have there been? A system can be designed that works. Cirrus makes it a little bit difficult to do, and that seems to be enough.

The real problem with dumping fuel is that people on the ground would probably be less than pleased to be doused with gasoline. On the other hand, it would be much easier to find the crash site... just follow the trail of fire.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Mines been disabled.

Like permanently or you just use the override?

 

[Salty]

Like permanently or you just use the override?

Permanently.

 

[RyanB]

The real problem with dumping fuel is that people on the ground would probably be less than pleased to be doused with gasoline.

Fortunately, AvGas is quite likely to evaporate before hitting the ground, which is of course dependent on altitude and the atmospheric conditions present.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Permanently.

Why?

 

[Half Fast]

The real problem with dumping fuel is that people on the ground would probably be less than pleased to be doused with gasoline.

Fortunately, AvGas is quite likely to evaporate before hitting the ground, which is of course dependent on altitude and the atmospheric conditions present.

Oh, I’m sure everyone will be fine with dumping gas once we switch to G100UL...