Richard McSpadden Crash

[skyking3286]

My read of the NTSB is that we are looking at the last fifteen seconds of the decisions made in the flight. At a time when things were probably very, very busy for the pilots trying to make the best of a situation that had gone sour. So a lot of the controls could have been a last minute adjustment. Cowl flaps left in climb would be an easy thing to leave alone until they landed. Same with the prop, if it was producing any power at all. All we know for certain is that they arrived with no excess energy with a sick engine to get over the edge of the field. And why that engine sagged is going to be a very difficult case to make given the shape they found things in. I'd almost guess fuel cap venting issues if I didn't know anything else.

 

[hindsight2020]

That NTSB PR is going stop a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks about the engine,

I mean, they lost thrust to the degree they ended up impacting a berm in a presumed attempt to make a runway. 40SMOH engine. Engine bathtub failures are a thing, whether by materials failure or (in my conspiracy theorist opinion), assembly error/lack of quality control. Which is an especially injurious dynamic, given the relative indignity of what people are asking for these old timey tractor engines these days.

I for one, not quite ready to dismiss the engine, or its core or subcomponent assembly during overhaul, given the stated SMOH recency. I do agree with you, it's probable the NTSB may not find anything out. It's not like it's the first or last time they have slapped a "loss of power -- undetermined reasons" to an accident investigation PC anyways. Perhaps they'll dig one inch deeper given the name recognition dynamics of the deceased, but I'm not clued in to the political machinations of the NTSB, or their relative awareness (or lack thereof) of aviation social media.

 

[Piperonca]

Engine control linkages and a squad of other gremlins, some not immediately obvious, could have been at play. And the engine killed them, along with fraught responses to the engine trouble. Hope the NTSB produces a detailed and accurate report.

 

[Racerx]

"During the takeoff roll, a witness described that the engine sounded as if the propeller was set for “climb” and not takeoff"


Uhhh....what? Is there a difference in climb vs takeoff? Could you even tell the difference of a few hundred rpm on the ground watching?

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

"During the takeoff roll, a witness described that the engine sounded as if the propeller was set for “climb” and not takeoff"


Uhhh....what? Is there a difference in climb vs takeoff? Could you even tell the difference of a few hundred rpm on the ground watching?

My climb and takeoff rpm are max blue lever forward. I don't get it either.

 

[Fearless Tower]

My climb and takeoff rpm are max blue lever forward. I don't get it either.

I read it as witnesses thought it sounded like it wasn’t as loud as it normally would on takeoff. Like it wasn’t making full takeoff power.

 

[hindsight2020]

When it comes to witness accounts, garbage in garbage out.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That NTSB PR is going stop a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks about the engine, prop and also the gear position in the crash.

Unfortunately the Monday morning Q-Bs just move on to other things not addressed in the prelim. It’s gotten absurd on Beech Talk since the prelim came out

 

[Fearless Tower]

When it comes to witness accounts, garbage in garbage out.

Sometimes the witnesses can have valuable insight, but the words they use/how they are quoted is less than helpful.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Sometimes the witnesses can have valuable insight, but the words they use/how they are quoted is less than helpful.

It all depends on who the witnesses are.....and what they are familiar with. Then again, expert witnesses can have differing testimonies.

 

[hindsight2020]

Then again, expert witnesses can have differing testimonies.

Heck, they're generally PAID to have them in the first place....

 

[wanttaja]

Sometimes the witnesses can have valuable insight, but the words they use/how they are quoted is less than helpful.

Good example of that a few years back. A homebuilt crashed, and there was a non-aviation witness. The witness said something along the lines of, "It was just fluttering downwards." He was asked if the plane was in a spin, and he insisted it wasn't.

Then the NTSB investigator showed the man what a spin looked like, using a small model. The witness agreed that this matched what he saw. He thought a "spin" had the plane pointed straight at the ground with the airplane rolling.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Racerx]

I've read numerous things about how children are better eyewitnesses. Sometimes a lack of knowledge prevents memory errors from filling in blanks of expectations.

 

[Hengelo]

Humans are terrible eye witnesses. Classic example here.

 

[FPK1]

"During taxi out, witnesses heard the engine of the accident airplane running when the Beech A36 pulled up next to it. The accident airplane’s engine then shut off, and about 10 seconds later, the engine restarted."

Why did the engine shut down?

One video I watched suggested maybe a stuck valve...

Agree with others, no smoking gun in the report.

 

[Racerx]

"During taxi out, witnesses heard the engine of the accident airplane running when the Beech A36 pulled up next to it. The accident airplane’s engine then shut off, and about 10 seconds later, the engine restarted."

Why did the engine shut down?

One video I watched suggested maybe a stuck valve...

Agree with others, no smoking gun in the report.

If it's the same eyewitness that said it sounded like it was climb and not takeoff rpm...I'm not sure we can say for certain it actually did shut down.

Based on the report we know we have a 40 hour smoh engine. But at least so far it appears it should have run. It seems to have fuel. It seems to have spark. It seems to have had compression. Hopefully it had an engine monitor and some data could be garnered from that.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi everyone.
Not much information yet to learn much more about what occurred, but it would appear that they were still heading / turning toward the airport, right wing, nose low attitude. The logic behind it escapes me. Did they hit a tree, power line any other obstacle?
I wish we could find more details to learn something from it.
At this point, given past accidents, students first solo.. that survived an engine out..., I would think that the 180 / 270 turn is not a good idea under most circumstances, and all efforts should be to train / teach, forward 30-60 deg. V forward viewing area.
If anyone has more details please post, I am sure we will get more details from NTSB later but unfortunately not enough for us to learn anything from it?
The information from some of ear / eye witnesses I do not think it helps, the details are very difficult to believe or understand, I do not think these guys would nave taken off if they had known previously that there was a problem with the plane.
Does / can anyone find any specific logical path, given any of the information to date?
Other options existed seconds before impact, and it is difficult to understand why they were not exercised, unless they were out of control after they passed the Recycle Cir Ln road, or just before? Hit Power lines, Trees... I think they were too good a pilots / very experienced, to get into a Stall?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Heck, they're generally PAID to have them in the first place....

Exactly. Witnesses are people who were there.

'Expert Witnesses' are subject matter experts who are hired/paid by the lawyers.

The two should not be confused....

 

[Fearless Tower]

"During taxi out, witnesses heard the engine of the accident airplane running when the Beech A36 pulled up next to it. The accident airplane’s engine then shut off, and about 10 seconds later, the engine restarted."

Why did the engine shut down?

One video I watched suggested maybe a stuck valve...

Another possibility is idle mixture not set properly and the engine shut down when the pilot pulled throttle back to idle during runup.

May or may not have had anything to do with the actual accident.

 

[RyanShort1]

Another possibility is idle mixture not set properly and the engine shut down when the pilot pulled throttle back to idle during runup.

May or may not have had anything to do with the actual accident.

Ten seconds isn't long at all. That's just outright odd. That's barely enough time to check that the fuel shutoff valve is in the correct position, and hit the starter, and IO-360s are not great at hot-starting.

 

[tobnpr]

Juan Browne just released a video with prelim NTSB investigation findings. His take, possibly some sort of partial engine failure (fuel injection?)
What I found interesting is apparently the landing gear was in the process of being lowered at the time of the crash. If I followed the description of the terrain correctly, they almost cleared a steep embankment before the airfield but failed to do so. If this were the case, I certainly understand the reticence of not lowering gear- but is it possible the drag from the gear made the difference between a fatal crash into an embankment, versus a gear-up belly landing on more level ground above it?

 

[Dave Theisen]

The position of the gear handle could not be determined, they could have been bringing it back up trying to extend the glide.

 

[PaulMillner]

The position of the gear handle could not be determined, they could have been bringing it back up trying to extend the glide.

Some people don't raise the gear until there's no usable runway ahead. In this case, and given that it takes 12-14 seconds for properly rigged '76 177RG gear to retract, it may have still been in the initial retract cycle.

 

[PaulMillner]

Looking at those photos I have to wonder if this plane had shoulder harnesses. It doesn't look that bad

I believe shoulder harnesses were standard on the '76 RG. It was definitely part of the "RG II" package that almost all Cardinal RG purchasers elected.

Paul

 

[Piperonca]

Hesitance on gear status could have been the owner trying to save his airplane. Understandable human nature, as would be not landing on good locations to the front of him. All dreadfully sad and gets worse with time. If I ever get to fly again, and have something similar happen, I’m going to remember “sacrifice the plane” if it will save my life and those of any passengers.

 

[ateamer]

It all depends on who the witnesses are.....and what they are familiar with. Then again, expert witnesses can have differing testimonies.

Expert witnesses aren’t exactly witnesses so much as analysts. They don’t provide evidence, just give their opinion on what the evidence means.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Expert witnesses aren’t exactly witnesses so much as analysts. They don’t provide evidence, just give their opinion on what the evidence means.

Well..… maybe not paid witnesses for court…. But highly skilled (experienced) people in aviation that saw and heard and were talking with them.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi everyone.
>>During taxi out, witnesses heard the engine of the accident airplane running when the Beech
A36 pulled up next to it. The accident airplane’s engine then shut off, and about 10 seconds
later, the engine restarted.<<

There are a lot of questions that come up in my head, when I read that statement.
Where was the witness / witnesses positioned / located with respect to both acft.?
What phase was the RG in? Was it still doing the Run-Up? If true it's very possible that they were at the steps where they were re Cycling the Propeller and checking the Low idle / carb heat that may have sounded like the engine shut off? It would be very difficult to differentiate between the sounds coming from the A36 and the RG unless they were really close one or the other.
Given all these unknown facts it is very difficult to trust what they are stating as fact. There really is a need for more details in order to accept the statement as fact that >>..airplane’s engine then shut off..<<.
The 10 sec. time is too short to get and engine restart, typically we wait a few seconds, 30? before attempting a restart and if it did shut off by itself, it would have taken longer trying to troubleshoot why it shut off....
Again, my opinion is that if that really occured and there was a problem before take off, these guys given their experience and background, they would have never taken off.

 

[RyanShort1]

Hi everyone.
>>During taxi out, witnesses heard the engine of the accident airplane running when the Beech
A36 pulled up next to it. The accident airplane’s engine then shut off, and about 10 seconds
later, the engine restarted.<<

There are a lot of questions that come up in my head, when I read that statement.
Where was the witness / witnesses positioned / located with respect to both acft.?
What phase was the RG in? Was it still doing the Run-Up? If true it's very possible that they were at the steps where they were re Cycling the Propeller and checking the Low idle / carb heat that may have sounded like the engine shut off? It would be very difficult to differentiate between the sounds coming from the A36 and the RG unless they were really close one or the other.
Given all these unknown facts it is very difficult to trust what they are stating as fact. There really is a need for more details in order to accept the statement as fact that >>..airplane’s engine then shut off..<<.
The 10 sec. time is too short to get and engine restart, typically we wait a few seconds, 30? before attempting a restart and if it did shut off by itself, it would have taken longer trying to troubleshoot why it shut off....
Again, my opinion is that if that really occured and there was a problem before take off, these guys given their experience and background, they would have never taken off.

Well, most of us here on this board can't really answer the questions about the witnesses.

As regards your last statement, unfortunately, many, many pilots have, and will takeoff in airplanes with known problems. In fact, the more experienced you are, and the more things you've survived, the more likely you are to become "complacent" and figure that you can get away with this or that. That's a real danger with experienced pilots.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Well, most of us here on this board can't really answer the questions about the witnesses.

As regards your last statement, unfortunately, many, many pilots have, and will takeoff in airplanes with known problems. In fact, the more experienced you are, and the more things you've survived, the more likely you are to become "complacent" and figure that you can get away with this or that. That's a real danger with experienced pilots.

Do you know either of these guys? .....I seriously doubt what you said.

 

[RyanShort1]

Do you know either of these guys? .....I seriously doubt what you said.

No, but known problems can be as simple as a "known" malfunctioning oil temperature gauge that a good, experienced instructor just "gets used to" and assumes is occasionally reading incorrectly. I literally saw that happen about three weeks ago. Add the pressure of "a mission" - which this certainly was - and you have an absolute recipe for being pressured to do what you know you shouldn't or that might have elevated risks. I'm not saying that we know that that happened, but dismissing the possibility is, well, also complacent.

That said, I was replying to this (and not specifically accusing the deceased):

Again, my opinion is that if that really occured and there was a problem before take off, these guys given their experience and background, they would have never taken off.

Because my experience is that people will indeed take off with known problems. That's why there are things like MELs.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.

..but dismissing the possibility is, well, also complacent...

Dismissing the possibility of an "engine shut down" without verifying what cause it before take off, is not complacent and any one that believes that even for a second, while typing or just thinking it, needs to stay out of aviation. There may be some things that some pilots ignore, that may know about, a sensor, light... but we are not discussing that, read the statement I posted, before you post something like this.

 

[RyanShort1]

Hi.


Dismissing the possibility of an "engine shut down" without verifying what cause it before take off, is not complacent and any one that believes that even for a second, while typing or just thinking it, needs to stay out of aviation. There may be some things that some pilots ignore, that may know about, a sensor, light... but we are not discussing that, read the statement I posted, before you post something like this.

First, I don’t dismiss that it *might* have shut down, although 10 seconds isn’t hardly enough time for the blades to stop if it’s a normal shutdown. Could be as simple as a fuel valve not set correctly.

Dismissing the thought that experienced pilots can make mistakes and bad choices is a big red flag. That’s at least invulnerability if not also macho on the FAA’s hazardous attitudes list.

Most engine failures have warning signs. Especially in cases like this where the engine does not appear to have seized.

Good individuals die. Doesn’t mean their entire character is impeached, it could be two small decisions that killed them, although it looks to me more like a series of decisions. I would bet good money if I was a betting man that 2-3 different choices out of maybe 12 possibilities and they would’ve even had the 20 feet needed to clear the incline.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.

...2-3 different choices out of maybe 12 possibilities and they would’ve even had the 20 feet needed to clear the incline.

That is a totally different subject.
What you implied before is that there would be some pilots, assuming yourself, that would take off without troubleshooting, after the engine shuts down by itself without good cause.
I have never seen anyone close to doing that, if you think that someone would do it, I would assume that You would or did?

You are also assuming that the engine did shut down, and there is no real evidence that it did. I gave you a couple of examples of required procedures that may have sounded like it shut down, reduced RPM. Given the proximity of the 2 acft, and if you ever got close to an A36 you would know what I am talking about, all it had to do is increase it's RPM and make it sound like the other engine shut down, depending on the position of the observer.

I think you are confused about the definition of "macho". Macho / stupidity is what you describe that you / some one may do, if your engine would quit without cause, and just take off without adequate troubleshooting, and not presenting facts that may dispute the issue.

 

[Pinecone]

Hesitance on gear status could have been the owner trying to save his airplane. Understandable human nature, as would be not landing on good locations to the front of him. All dreadfully sad and gets worse with time. If I ever get to fly again, and have something similar happen, I’m going to remember “sacrifice the plane” if it will save my life and those of any passengers.

Once there is a major issue, the airplane belongs to the insurance company. Not my problem. My life and the lives of my passengers ARE my problem.

 

[RyanShort1]

Check density altitude.

Hi.

That is a totally different subject.
What you implied before is that there would be some pilots, assuming yourself, that would take off without troubleshooting, after the engine shuts down by itself without good cause.
I have never seen anyone close to doing that, if you think that someone would do it, I would assume that You would or did?

You are also assuming that the engine did shut down, and there is no real evidence that it did. I gave you a couple of examples of required procedures that may have sounded like it shut down, reduced RPM. Given the proximity of the 2 acft, and if you ever got close to an A36 you would know what I am talking about, all it had to do is increase it's RPM and make it sound like the other engine shut down, depending on the position of the observer.

I think you are confused about the definition of "macho". Macho / stupidity is what you describe that you / some one may do, if your engine would quit without cause, and just take off without adequate troubleshooting, and not presenting facts that may dispute the issue.

In response to your first paragraph, no, you aren't seeing that I made four separate paragraphs there. It's not the same thought as what you somehow think I implied before. I hope I wouldn't take off without troubleshooting, but I specifically stated that I've seen experienced pilots take off with known issues, and that was a reply to your post indicating that experienced pilots couldn't or wouldn't make that mistake. Recognition of the possibility is the first step towards prevention.

Second paragraph, where am I assuming that it did shut down? If you go back and actually leave my last post before this I "grant" the possibility, while also considering it unlikely. And I've been around aviation for 20 years. Don't know why you'd think I'd never been close to an A36.

Thirdly, I don't think I'm confused about macho. First off, I said that it's at least "invulnerability" if not macho, so don't confuse which one I think is more crucial to a situation like this. Second, I mentioned macho, because, as has been discussed, when someone stakes out certain things, like the "impossible turn" and has a reputation, no matter what, you've got to fight the temptation to feel the need to prove you were right, and better at something than others.

So, I think you badly misread what I was trying to say.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.

...you've got to fight the temptation to feel the need to prove you were right, and better at something than others...

You are flying in different circles that I do. Clairvoyance is not my forte.
I suggest that we all wait for the next data to come out before we jump to conclusions as to what / who did what and why.
Based on my experience of close to 50 years in aviation and flying with some of the buddies of mine that have been doing it for over 70, the more experienced pilots are Not likely to take chances and or make irrational decisions. You may want to get out of the circle.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It is sounding like there is more to the story. Someone on BT who apparently works for AOPA said as much, but was not willing to divulge at this time.

Guess we'll have to wait....

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

It is sounding like there is more to the story. Someone on BT who apparently works for AOPA said as much, but was not willing to divulge at this time.

Guess we'll have to wait....

That was me....I don't work for AOPA but know most of those guys from the airport. I suspect there is more and it will come out eventually.

 

[Piperonca]

Dan Gryder has some allegations on his channel. Says mechanic was fired before the crash. Has other opinions also. Starts around 19:00.