Propeller Breaks at 13K

SixPapaCharlie said:
What are the stats on that happening?
Anyone know?
Click to expand...
I don't know any specific stats, but I suspect the likelihood of the engine separating from the airframe has a lot to do with how far from the hub the propeller breaks. I have seen airplanes with damage to or missing outer sections of a blade and safely landed. I have also read about separations that happened close to the hub. All of those resulted in engines departing the airframe before the pilot had any time to shut down. All of those that am familiar with were on multi-engine airplanes.
 
Note to self. Not in PPL training. In the event of a propeller failure, convert to an engine failure immediately.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
I took it as the plane was difficult to control from the shaking, so he basically dove down to get on the ground quickly.

If so, I think that was a bad move. I would've cut the mixture stopped the prop, then glided down. Even if he still went to that same location, he could've made a mostly normal landing and not been hurt even if the plane was damaged from a likely collapsed gear.
Click to expand...

Some years ago there was a story circulating about a similar incident. In that case the engine shook itself loose, but did not depart the airframe (was contained by the cowl). It continued to run - and could not be shut down! The pilot made a successful landing in spite of all that.

Dave
 
Ozone said:
And then there's this old prop-fell-off thread: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18441
Click to expand...

That was a completely different situation. This thread is about a propeller falling apart in flight. This becomes an unbalanced hunk of metal/wood spinning around the front of the plane. The imbalance causes the engine to shake right off it's mounts.

The Malibu incident at Aspen was a failure of the entire crankshaft end. The entire propeller and everything it attaches to completely departed the aircraft at once. There was no imbalance or shake show. Bang, gone. Just an engine failure at that point.
 
Last edited:
Since I started the speculation vis-a-vis the accident injuries, I guess there's a need to defend it.

Every major human factors system has a post-mortem investigation branch. NTSB investigates plane, boat, car, truck, rail accidents. They start with a wide open process, nothing is out of bounds, until the investigation is completed with some kind of closure. Even in cases where 'we don't know' is the ultimate conclusion. Not intellectually satisfying but at least they can say they looked at stuff. Medical institution have an M&M conference regularly to improve outcomes, and learn what works and what doesn't.

Surely there's some aspect of post-mortem discussion that could be considered ghoulish, or lurid, or rank speculation. For people who are not a part of the system any speculation might be out of bounds. But - for people with real world experience, and some history in the books on accidents, maybe their insight will get one pilot who is on the fence about a safety device to put them in. Maybe it will offer an opportunity to discuss safety and the cost involved with a CFI. More speculation, but is it hurting the accident victims? Is it hurting the pilot population in general? Is it hurting the civil society in some way? Is there an element of finger pointing, or assignment of blame? Is it a game of one-upmanship, or monday morning QB? To most of these questions my answer is not really. We all rank ourselves on some scale of perfect to incompetent. It's human nature and as long as I don't see anyone here laughing about, or insulting the situation or players along the way, any kind of speculation and potential resolution has some modest merit, equivalent to the cost basis of the investment in the discussion, which in most cases is zero.

No one asked me for my opinion, and no one is paying for my opinion. That doesn't mean that because you don't like it, you get to silence it. That's what the mods are for, and why we have a little 'report' post icon in each persons home area on the lower left. If you don't like something I opine on, then report the post, or offer up your opinion or leave and mark the thread to ignore, or mark the person to ignore. Whining about disliking a thread, while posting in that same thread seems a bit churlish to me anyway.
 
docmirror said:
Every major human factors system has a post-mortem investigation branch. NTSB investigates plane, boat, car, truck, rail accidents. They start with a wide open process, nothing is out of bounds, until the investigation is completed with some kind of closure.
Click to expand...
They also work with far more information that PoA and/or mass media sources many here use as sources for their speculation. Informed speculation can be useful, particularly if it's followed buy substantiating analysis by experts. SGOTI is not an expert. The newspaper reporter, interviewer, and columnist most of us have access to for our 'data' are not experts. Speculation without facts tends to pile new poop on top of old poop. Personally I think it does more harm than good, or perhaps just simply no good.

docmirror said:
More speculation, but is it hurting the accident victims? [...] It's human nature and as long as I don't see anyone here laughing about, or insulting the situation or players along the way, any kind of speculation and potential resolution has some modest merit...
Click to expand...

Took me less than a minute of searching to find this related to a recent accident (attributions stripped, emphasis added):
... he circled a while trying, and that's why he ran out. Either way, he's an idiot...
Click to expand...
All based on mass-media reports. We rail about inaccuracy in media, then we crucify survivors based on those inaccurate sources or strawmen we build from them.

docmirror said:
If you don't like something I opine on, [...] offer up your opinion...
Click to expand...
Isn't that what we're ALL doing?

docmirror said:
Whining about disliking a thread, while posting in that same thread seems a bit churlish to me anyway.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what we're ALL doing? ;)

Nauga,
and his churlish figure
 
Is the orange spray painted "X" on the wing to let other aircraft flying by know that the wreck was previously found? At first I thought it might be a signal to rescuers but the found wreck scenario makes more sense to me.
 
AdamZ said:
Is the orange spray painted "X" on the wing to let other aircraft flying by know that the wreck was previously found? At first I thought it might be a signal to rescuers but the found wreck scenario makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...

That's my assumption. It may be some time, if ever they take that plane off the mountain and when looking for someone else, or if someone happens on the wreck from the air, they need to know to ignore it.
 
AdamZ said:
Is the orange spray painted "X" on the wing to let other aircraft flying by know that the wreck was previously found? At first I thought it might be a signal to rescuers but the found wreck scenario makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...
Yes. :yes:
 
nauga said:
They also work with far more information that PoA and/or mass media sources many here use as sources for their speculation. Informed speculation can be useful, particularly if it's followed buy substantiating analysis by experts. SGOTI is not an expert. The newspaper reporter, interviewer, and columnist most of us have access to for our 'data' are not experts. Speculation without facts tends to pile new poop on top of old poop. Personally I think it does more harm than good, or perhaps just simply no good.



Took me less than a minute of searching to find this related to a recent accident (attributions stripped, emphasis added):
All based on mass-media reports. We rail about inaccuracy in media, then we crucify survivors based on those inaccurate sources or strawmen we build from them.

Isn't that what we're ALL doing?

Isn't that what we're ALL doing? ;)

Nauga,
and his churlish figure
Click to expand...

I guess the speculation is what we are here for in some cases, and as long as it doesn't hurt the person under the microscope, why all the heartburn? My commentary about the harness was on point, and dare I say, pretty accurate given the plane, and the age of the victim. I'd like to know if it did have harnesses, but I'm not willing to go the extra mile to find out, so call me on my lack of follow-through. meh - ok.

As for calling someone who runs out of gas stupid; Well, I have no problem with that either. It's a value judgment pretty well founded in fact. It is stupid to continue to fly a plane to fuel exhaustion. There - I said it.

Gotta disagree that I was being churlish in my opinion on the harness. It was sincere, and I hoped it was helpful to someone. Maybe a new pilot here who has a vintage plane without them. Look at the story again, the injuries, and the next time they strap on the plane consider investing in the harness. If you note, I followed up with the actual link to the product for those considering it.
 
docmirror said:
As for calling someone who runs out of gas stupid; Well, I have no problem with that either.
Click to expand...
Running out of gas, overstressing an airplane, CFIT, whatever - I prefer not to assign that value judgement with no facts in hand and only anecdotal data from a demonstrably unreliable source. Others are not so reluctant, and I find that unfortunate.

Nauga,
and the flying fickle finger of facts
 
nauga said:
They also work with far more information that PoA and/or mass media sources many here use as sources for their speculation. Informed speculation can be useful, particularly if it's followed buy substantiating analysis by experts. SGOTI is not an expert. The newspaper reporter, interviewer, and columnist most of us have access to for our 'data' are not experts. Speculation without facts tends to pile new poop on top of old poop. Personally I think it does more harm than good, or perhaps just simply no good.



Took me less than a minute of searching to find this related to a recent accident (attributions stripped, emphasis added):
All based on mass-media reports. We rail about inaccuracy in media, then we crucify survivors based on those inaccurate sources or strawmen we build from them.

Isn't that what we're ALL doing?

Isn't that what we're ALL doing? ;)

Nauga,
and his churlish figure
Click to expand...

Agree.

I don't mind some what-iffing in the absence of facts - that can be helpful.

But judgment or the drawing of grand conclusions in the absence of facts is not helpful. Hell even facts when incomplete, imprudently interpreted, or taken out of context can be misleading.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
How, perform an ultrasonic strength test every preflight?
Click to expand...

Minor correction, ultrasonics test for cracks and defects, not 'strength'. While one effects the other, it is not required nor the same thing. Reality is, it would be very simple to do on a preflight with a portable 70° crystal, it would take no more time than running your fingers along the leading edge.

But, he has a point, before you have a separation event like that, a fault would most likely have been visible under a proper preflight inspection unless it picked up a big rock during the run up/take off process and started the crack then. Most people's preflight is something done out of rote with no real understanding of what all they are looking for or the failure modes of what they are inspecting and are in general, wholly inadequate to find a defect. Luckily, most defects that can actually cause an immediate issue are rare.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top