Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Assume anything you like. You do know what assuming does don't you?
Sad day in Jackson Hole
- Thread starter N801BH
- Start date
Assume anything you like. You do know what assuming does don't you?
I'll sure you'll come up with some equally cryptic nuggets of wisdom.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
I'll sure you'll come up with some equally cryptic nuggets of wisdom.
Okay, you don't know what assuming does.
Have and nice day.
wanttaja
En-Route
Out of 3350 homebuilt accidents, 306 (9.1%) were listed as "Engine Failure due to undetermined circumstances. Out of 1920 Cessna 172 and 210 accidents, 88 received the same PC: That's 4.6%, half the rate of the homebuilt aircraft. Same percentage for the Piper Cherokee 140/161/180/181 accidents.
In my opinion, there are two main reasons for the disparity.
First, on an accident such as this, they don't have the technical support of a large engine manufacturer. There are teams that help the NTSB investigate Lycoming- and Continental-powered aircraft accidents, but no formal arrangement for most auto-engine conversions.
Second, investigating custom-built aircraft accidents isn't really the NTSB's job. The NTSB's goal is to identify trends that can be used to make airplanes safer. But the homebuilt fleet is, technically, 29,000 separate aircraft types. An in-depth investigation into a custom-built aircraft with a unique powerplant is not going to have the same ramifications as determining the cause of a Gulfstream accidents. So homebuilts get the lowest priority. The investigators are professionals; if they HAVE the time, they'll do the investigation. But in the week this accident occurred, there were probably 25 other accidents. Lots of things to occupy the investigators' time.
Finally, remember that the investigator does not assign Probable Cause. He or she can state what they feel is the cause of the accident, but it's the Board itself that assigns Probable Cause. The board probably looked at this, saw the external experts used were pretty much ad hoc, and took the safe route and named it as Engine Failure due to undermined causes.
Ron Wanttaja
Ok, so this makes much more sense. Thanks for your straightforward answer.
I have a couple follow-up questions/comments.
First, doesn't this contradict what I think the OP said, which is that the pictures would show the obvious/evident cause of the failure? I think this shows that the cause of failure isn't quite so evident, right? In fact, OP said the investigator thought it was the prop governor, whereas OP thinks it's the supercharger, etc.
Second, minor quibble about this: "investigating custom-built aircraft accidents isn't really the NTSB's job." Legally, it is actually their job. See 49 USC 1131: "The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate . . . and establish the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable cause of .... (a) an aircraft accident..." See also 49 USC 1132(a)(1): "The [NTSB] shall investigate (A) each accident involving civil aircraft..." The law makes no distinction between custom-built or non-custom-built aircraft. The law requires them to investigate, and establish the cause/probable cause, for any accident involving aircraft.
Note that the statutory language isn't permissive, it's mandatory. The NTSB doesn't have the option of saying, "oh, well custom-built aircraft aren't really important so we're not going to bother with a probable cause determination."
As you pointed out, the difference in explanation rates for experimental versus non-experimental may simply have to do with the fact that the NTSB doesn't have as much assistance for experimental (and the assembly isn't standardized, etc.) and the answer isn't always so obvious. Which brings me back to my first point... If OP is saying the explanation for the failure is obvious and anyone can see it from just looking at the pictures, and the NTSB is saying it's not obvious and they can't determine a probable cause for the engine failure, then either OP or the NTSB is wrong.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
This difference of opinion, if it was presented to the board, might have been genesis of the "undermined engine failure." I suspect the board didn't spend a lot of time on this; easier to rubber-stamp it and move on.
It's an interesting issue. At Oshkosh one year, I asked someone at the NTSB booth whether they were required to investigate homebuilt accidents. They wouldn't answer. Couldn't have just been a lower-level functionary who really didn't know much.
But I've also asked the same questions of NTSB investigators...and got the same reluctance to answer "yes" or "no." Simple question, I thought.
I tried to research the issue prior to my other posting, and didn't find anything definitive. I did find this write-up from AvWeb, which was rather interesting.
http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181884-1.html
"Which Accidents Does the NTSB Investigate?
"The NTSB investigates and reports on all U.S. air carrier accidents, commuter and air taxi crashes, mid-air collisions, serious mishaps involving public use (government) aircraft and all fatal general aviation accidents. ... The Board may delegate to the FAA the investigation of non-fatal, general aviation accidents, involving fixed wing aircraft of less than 12,500 pounds, homebuilt aircraft, crop dusters and rotorcraft, but retains the discretion to oversee these accidents, if necessary. "
But of course....this is not the same as the legal quote you provided. This is an aviation writer, and gosh knows they make mistakes.
I think it does illustrate the ambiguous nature of the NTSB's relationship to homebuilt aviation. Blunt statement of the law or no, it appears the NTSB's policies let them farm the investigations to someone else.
Ron Wanttaja
Interesting. I suspect that whoever wrote the avweb article is not a lawyer. It is a little disconcerting that the NTSB personnel you spoke to weren't aware or refused to give you information about the NTSB's basic mission. About the delegation issue, I haven't seen anything specifically that allows for that. There is a statutory definition of accident and I suppose the NTSB would not have an obligation to investigate non-accidents, but that doesn't depend on whether an aircraft is homebuilt. I'll dig some more later if I have time.
Edit: Accident is very broadly defined in 49 USC 1101: "damage to or destruction of vehicles in . . . air transportation, regardless of whether the initiating event is accidental or otherwise."
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
I suspect it was legality vs. policy. As you quoted, the NTSB is legally required to investigate homebuilt accidents. But policy may require them to spend minimal time on homebuilts, and they didn't want to imply they were treated equally.
It's how us non-lawyers might handle a question like that...
Ron Wanttaja
Sounds like they have the option on all non fatal Pt-91 <12,500 operations. It also provides no exception for fatal accidents regardless the operation.
I think this is significantly out of date. In 1994 the NTSB law was significantly rewritten. As far as I can tell, pre-1994 there "may" have been distinctions between fatal/non-fatal and other types of accidents. I can't tell for sure. What is clear is that there are no distinctions now and the NTSB is legally required to investigate and establish the probable cause for all civil aviation accidents, fatal or non-fatal, homebuilt or not, etc. The avweb article, if it was ever right, probably related to pre-1994 info.
Also, take a look at this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/organization/AS/Pages/office_as.aspx
Office of Aviation Safety, NTSB: "The mission of AS is to accomplish the following: 1) Investigate all civil domestic air carrier, commuter, and air taxi accidents; in-flight collisions; fatal and nonfatal general aviation accidents..."
How about Pt 103 operations?
I don't know if ultralights are considered aircraft. Let me check.
LOL see 49 CFR 830.2. Does this help? "Civil aircraft means any aircraft other than a public aircraft."
Ok, I also found the deal with delegation. It's not a true delegation, but the NTSB has said in 49 CFR 831.2(a)(2):
"Certain aviation investigations may be conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), pursuant to a “Request to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to Investigate Certain Aircraft Accidents,” effective February 10, 1977 (the text of the request is contained in the appendix to part 800 of this chapter), but the Board determines the probable cause of such accidents or incidents. Under no circumstances are aviation investigations where the portion of the investigation is so delegated to the FAA by the Board considered to be joint investigations in the sense of sharing responsibility. These investigations remain NTSB investigations."
Looking at the "Request," this is what it says:
(a) Acting pursuant to the authority vested in it by Title VII of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1441) and section 304(a)(1) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 [NOTE THAT THESE SECTIONS NO LONGER EXIST AS OF 1994], the National Transportation Safety Board (Board) hereby requests the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (Secretary) to exercise his authority subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations of Title VII and section 304(a)(1) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, and as set forth below to investigate the facts, conditions, and circumstances surrounding certain fixed-wing and rotorcraft aircraft accidents and to submit a report to the Board from which the Board may make a determination of the probable cause.
(b) The authority to be exercised hereunder shall include the investigation of all civil aircraft accidents involving rotorcraft, aerial application, amateur-built aircraft, restricted category aircraft, and all fixed-wing aircraft which have a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less except:
(1) Accidents in which fatal injuries have occurred to an occupant of such aircraft, but shall include accidents involving fatalities incurred as a result of aerial application operations, amateur-built aircraft operations, or restricted category aircraft operations.
...
[other exceptions]
...
(d) Provided, That this authority shall not be construed to authorize the [FAA] to hold public hearings or to determine the probable cause of the accident; and Provided further, That the Secretary will report to the Board in a form acceptable to the Board the facts, conditions, and circumstances surrounding each accident from which the [NTSB] may determine the probable cause."
___________
The delegation of the "investigation" part, but not the determination of the probable cause, is still probably OK, because 49 USC 1331 actually says "The NTSB shall investigate or have investigated [an aircraft accident] and establish the facts, circumstances and cause or probable cause..."
So this means that the NTSB can have certain accidents investigated "by" the FAA so long as the NTSB is still the one to establish the facts/circumstances/probable cause.
_____________
Last edited:
Ok, updated answer.
The FAA considers ultralights to be "vehicles" and not aircraft. See 14 CFR 103.1, and see NTSB/SS-85/01 (linked below) at 1-2 ("the FAA classified powered ultralights as 'vehicles' rather than as aircraft'").
http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/safety-studies/SS85-01.pdf
Unfortunately, as you can see from my previous post, the term aircraft is not well defined by the NTSB, but it appears that the NTSB has followed the FAA's lead and also does not treat ultralights as "aircraft." Therefore, it does not believe that it has a responsibility to investigate ultralight accidents. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, it appears that since 1983 the NTSB has taken the onus of investigating fatal ultralight accidents.
This is all far from clear, but this is what I've been able to determine through about 30 mins of legal research. My firm bills me at about $500/hr, so you can just mail me a check for $250. Thanks Henning!
wanttaja
En-Route
"Phillip J. Kolczynski manages his own law firm in Irvine, California. He has a national practice, concentrating in aviation, product liability and business litigation in federal and state courts. Phil teaches evidence, product liability and aviation law at the Aviation Safety Program, School of Engineering, University Of Southern California. He chaired the 1990 ABA National Institute on Aviation Litigation in Washington, D.C., and has spoken nationally at numerous aviation litigation symposia. "
Ron Wanttaja
Hmmmm....
Did you read the part where I said the NTSB investigator TOOK the prop governor and prop with her for further examination to a FAA approved prop shop in Boise ????
If it was an issue , she would have put that in her report..
Remember, this plane did the exact same thing 6 weeks earlier and if that guy had not called me with that info, I too would be questioning other avenues...
Did you also read the entire thread where I gave Zoe Kelliher an outstanding review of her dedication into investigating this crash ?
She could have just driven over here, measured the crater in the ground, taken a few pics and then spend the other 4 days vacationing in Yellowstone... But she didn't, she put on gloves and waded right into that dripping mess of bio-hazard to look at EVERY part on that plane... I will say it again... She is GOOD, .. Naw,make that GREAT in respect to wanting to help GA and the experimental sector....
Ps.... Was anyone else able to open the pictures on Flickr?
ollopa
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Messages
- 599
- Display Name
Display name:
ollopa
Learned something new today. I saw this line in the report
http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/h...a008b038d-1258F58B-AACD-50C8-CAC15A79E38B808E
There's pretty good information in those PDFs including annotated pictures. The wreckage and impact report has pictures of the broken serpentine belt and routing. http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=428166&docketID=57405&mkey=88029
So I went looking for the public docket and found this:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/h...a008b038d-1258F58B-AACD-50C8-CAC15A79E38B808E
There's pretty good information in those PDFs including annotated pictures. The wreckage and impact report has pictures of the broken serpentine belt and routing. http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=428166&docketID=57405&mkey=88029
Attachments
Last edited:
I am starting to get less respect for the young lady.....
She had 22 months to create the report and can't seem to spell alternator and supercharger correctly...
Ps... Those aerial shots came from my plane since I flew her around for an hour or two Sunday morning... And, I didn't even add the fuel costs for that flight to my bill...
-
Last edited:
Or anomalies.I am starting to get less respect for the young lady.....
She had 22 months to create the report and can't seem to spell alternator and supercharger correctly...
Ps... Those aerial shots came from my plane since I flew her around for an hour or two Sunday morning... And, I didn't even add the fuel costs for that flight to my bill...
ollopa
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Messages
- 599
- Display Name
Display name:
ollopa
Ben,
I don't recall seeing your name in the record of conversations. You weren't interviewed as the first on-scene? Or were you excluded for some other reason?
Anyway it feels like you got shafted on both credit and compensation.
I don't recall seeing your name in the record of conversations. You weren't interviewed as the first on-scene? Or were you excluded for some other reason?
Anyway it feels like you got shafted on both credit and compensation.
Interesting.. I didn't even download or read the witness statements... All the pics she took of someone holding parts with a hand visible is..... MY hand...
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
When my engine blew forcing a highway landing you could see tons of oil all around the engine and covering the whole engine compartment and the bottom half of the fuselage. It was still leaking from the engine seals. The NTSB report said it ran low on oil. Sure it did! After the #4 piston came through the cylinder head and the crankshaft seized and all the oil blew out. 15 minutes before the event I added a qt to bring it up to 6.5 qts (8 was full).
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Oil starvation is a very common cause for seizing a connecting rod to the crankshaft and throwing pistons outside the engine. I think you have the causality backwards.
You had a big leak -- you added oil to compensate -- that suddenly got worse and resulted in a thrown rod. It takes surprisingly little oil to coat a vehicle.
It can go either way, the bearing tells the story of which failed first, the rod or the oil. I've seen cyl/case studs/through bolts let go have similar effect as well as cylinders splitting from heads.
Last edited:
It's a beautiful hand though. Really top notch stuff. You turn me on, sexy.
Yeah but... Did you get her in the hot tub?
Post 186 sounds like he's fishing. 
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, I'm sure there was oil, but somehow the oil left the engine, in which case the cause should be something like "oil leak". The report sounds like I failed to add oil.
It did use some oil, but not an excessive amount except between about 8 and 6.5 qts, where it would blow it out under the carriage. But at around 6 qts oil usage was not bad. It was a little low before I added a qt because my previous flight was a 6 hour RT to the keys. I have just always been glad it didn't blow over the Everglades.
ollopa
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Messages
- 599
- Display Name
Display name:
ollopa
Oh then I'm sure you'll appreciate the "strong wing" typo http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=428165&docketID=57405&mkey=88029
One little tiny square appears to be redacted? Weird.
BTW the information in the probable cause finding regarding the supercharger seemed like a copy/paste out of an email or notebook. It doesn't have any kind of a flow and doesn't seem to have been written from a place of knowledge. I wonder if she had already submitted her initial findings / report before you informed her of the modification.
mtuomi
En-Route
Did you ever have anyone investigate the reason for the failure?
Every engine failure can be traced back to the primary cause, as long as most of the parts were found. Would be interesting to know what happened...
Yeah....
The more I look at this report, the more it stinks....
Plane crashed at noon on Wed, I recovered from the sagebrush in the National Park at 10 am on Thurs. Zoe hired me right then to assist her in the investigation. I then locked it up in a secure hangar at Jackson Hole Aviation by lunch. Autopsy on the plane ran from Thurs, 14 hours on Fri and all day Sat.. Late Sat afternoon she released the wreckage to the ins company by using a phone call to the adjuster, who was down in Phoenix, She then handed me her phone while the ins guy was still connected... His words were " It is the weekend and I don't work on the weekend so remove it from the hangar and store it outside at the airport"...
I told him the wreckage was emitting a disgusting smell of death and the airport did NOT want it stored there since the outside storage area in right next to the main terminal and they didn't want the few thousand commercial passengers that drive by to smell and see the mess... So he said " I am releasing it to you and the salvage company ( Beegles of Colorado) would be by on Mon ( tomorrow) to pick it up".. So, I literally picked it up by the tail with the forks of the lift hooked around the horizontal stabilizers, just like her photo shows when I set it up to simulate the crash angle.... I then drove it out the back gate and stored it in my yard, along with the trailer full of wreckage.... Since it was released to me, I then reconstructed it to the point of determining with 100% confidence that the supercharger modification led to his attention being drawn away from properly flying the plane and he stalled it during the downwind to base turn, killing him and his wife instantly....
Ps.. Beegles did come and get it .. WEEKS later....
Now, the strange part.. She asked me to take her flying on Sun morning before she headed back home to Boise.. We simulated various 180's to landing all along the downwind leg to prove he had more then enough time to execute a emergency landing like the tower cleared him for, she also took what seems like hundreds of pics from my plane of the crash site, the area and the runway..... In those pics it shows a white image of the plane at the crash site..... Only problem is, that plane was already sitting in my yard about a mile away.. So she actually photoshopped those pics to add back in the crashed plane at the scene...
..Hmmmm....
.......
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
No. By time the NTSB report came back, the trashed core was nowhere to be found without a lot more work that it was worth. But I would like to have known the real reason that it ran low on oil.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Somewhere, back in the previous posts, there was a comment about different standards of investigation when it comes to homebuilts. NTSB and FAA really like to find problems that can be a potential for other problems - it does make sense. If something goes wrong on one aircraft, there is a potential it can go wrong on another. But in the case of a one-off, like a modified supercharger on a homebuilt, is there something that can be an epidemic? Now I'm just tossing an idea out: In this case, maybe NTSB figures, "Well, if he did modify the supercharger then maybe he modified something else. And if that other modification caused some hiccup that resulted in the belt breaking and damaging the supercharger in such a way that it caused a power failure, ..., who knows, we'll write it up as "undetermined". Anyway, if he had maintained airspeed we wouldn't be here."
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,266
- Location
- Live from the Grill-o-mat
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
Who took the pictures in the wreckage and impact report, the ones with the evidence marker(s) around the in situ wreckage?
Nauga,
clearing the haze
She did, at about 8:45 AM on 9-12 morning... I was sitting in my construction lift just off to the right side of the pic... She wanted me to lift the wreckage straight up to find the tip of the prop. And it was right where she thought it would be.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Well, he's still wrong.
Wow, you must be really old. Princeton hasn't had a law school in a very long time.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Heh - that reminds me of a line from the TV show "Community":
"I thought you had a law degree from Columbia?"
"I do. Now I need one from America."
"I thought you had a law degree from Columbia?"
"I do. Now I need one from America."
I didn't realize it ever had a law school!