Two dead in the "Cardinal from Hell"

kath

kath

Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Technical Administrator
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
1,874
Location
Anchorage, AK
Display Name
Display name:
Katherine
If you were at Gaston's last year (2006), you might have heard me ranting about this rental plane at my FBO which I called the "Cardinal from Hell". It was this C-177RG with tons of little things broken on it. Inop autopilot, wiggy ADF, serious aileron imbalance problem, broken gear warning horn, and the last time I flew it the engine died at idle (on the ground, after landing, fortunately). I remember ranting to Dr. Bruce and company over dinner about this awful plane and the poor quality of rental fleets, etc... I stopped renting that plane and haven't flown it in over a year now.

Well, last night, the Cardinal from Hell crashed short of the Wasilla runway, killing the CFI and student aboard. No word yet from the NTSB, and they haven't released the names of the victims yet.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/aviation/story/9078954p-8994984c.html

This is the first plane from my own logbook that has gone down. I guess that's one of those things that's bound to happen eventually to those of us who rent airplanes. I definately got that funny horrible feeling when I saw the tail number on the evening news. Trying not to speculate too much about the cause, but I can't help but wonder if the engine died when they pulled the power to idle. Trying to keep my anger under control and not "blame the airplane" until more news comes in...

--Kath
 
Wow - I sure hope its not that, and instead something uncontrollable....just for humanity's sake.
 
kath said:
This is the first plane from my own logbook that has gone down. I guess that's one of those things that's bound to happen eventually to those of us who rent airplanes. I definately got that funny horrible feeling when I saw the tail number on the evening news. Trying not to speculate too much about the cause, but I can't help but wonder if the engine died when they pulled the power to idle. Trying to keep my anger under control and not "blame the airplane" until more news comes in...

--Kath
Click to expand...

I know how you feel. A Warrior that I did some of my primary fixed-wing training in lies at the bottom of the Hudson River (both pilots got out), and an Arrow that I did some of my complex endorsement in crashed near Cape May killing both occupants...
 
The plane I sol'ed in is gone and with it the two people in it. I know not why the crash occurred as it was in the UK and there is no online report. But the plane was always maintained well so I doubt it was related to that.

It sounds as if the Cardinal's owners let this thing fly when it should not have. The CFI also bears responsibility if he or she took it up knowing it was in bad shape as you describe. But it really sounds as if the owners are a bit shady. You might want to make a call to the NTSB and let them know of the issues you had raised a year ago. They will determine the relevance of that info.
 
Not quite as bad, I had something similar happen.

A CFI and I were doing pattern work in a Warrior when the engine stopped on rollout after landing. I coasted off the runway and we were able to restart it. We flew a few more patterns without incident.

The next day with another student that Warrior had an engine fire on landing. :hairraise: They coasted in near the maintenance hangar where the mechanics ran out with fire extinguishers.
 
Last edited:
One of the many reasons I decided to own instead of rent. It was either that or stop flying. The general condition of the rental fleet is either mechanically poor or cosmetically poor or both. Flying clubs or partnerships are the only alternative to sole ownership these days. IMHO.
 
only time ive had anywhere really near an engine failure in a single was after a 2 hr XC in a 150 in freezing ass cold February, high was about 15 degF. never developed any oil temp and on short final with throttle to idle it quite. had to prime to start for taxi to hangar. probably could have put my hand on the cylinder head. too damn cold to fly...
 
Anthony said:
One of the many reasons I decided to own instead of rent. It was either that or stop flying. The general condition of the rental fleet is either mechanically poor or cosmetically poor or both. Flying clubs or partnerships are the only alternative to sole ownership these days. IMHO.
Click to expand...

Is the state of the rental fleet other places really as bad as everyone says it is?

If so, I must really be lucky. The oldest plane available for rent at my FBO is a 1999. All the others are 2003 - 2006 and as far as I can tell are kept in great shape.

I still want to own someday, but I've not had any issues with the rentals I fly.
 
One of the first 152s I trained in later disappeared. Stink around the airport was that the instructor pilot and his student did a few night landings at Lantana, then went out over the Atlantic Oceans to do spins. On a moonless night. Word was the instructor liked to do it because it was so totally disorienting due to black hole effect. No trace of the occupants nor aircraft was ever found.
 
Sometimes ya just know what it was ice, TS whatever. This one is weird. No damage to wings, empanage, Tail. Looks like it just nosed in.

". The collision left the Cessna's wings mostly intact, and the back of the plane appeared to suffer little damage.
The nose of the Cessna, however, was smashed in, and pushed down and under. "

Elevator failure perhaps :dunno: :(
 
sbonek said:
Is the state of the rental fleet other places really as bad as everyone says it is?

If so, I must really be lucky. The oldest plane available for rent at my FBO is a 1999. All the others are 2003 - 2006 and as far as I can tell are kept in great shape.

I still want to own someday, but I've not had any issues with the rentals I fly.
Click to expand...

I have not had that bad of luck when I was renting. The FBO in Illinois I rented from had all new 172s the other Illinois FBO had older but working Warriors, the one in FL. had older planes but all were very serviceable, the ones in England were all new. The FBO where I base my plane has 1 172. From what I have seen it looks ok and I know the mechanics who work on it and they keep it up and running.
 
My flight school has a total of 9 airplanes in its rental fleet:

3 old Cessna 172N's
1 90's-model 172R
2 90's-00's -model 172SP NAV II's
1 172SP NAV III (G1000)
1 182T NAV III (G1000)
1 Piper Arrow 200, probably from the 80s

I've only flown the N models, but I have found them to be well cared-for and maintained mechanically. Cosmetically, the interiors could use a little work on the two that I fly regularly, but the third has a pretty new interior. In fact, the owner tells me that as of the next 100-hr for the one plane with a really bad interior, he's going to have it redone. The plane with a new interior just had a new engine put into it, and that's the cheapest one to rent ($63.50/hr dry), despite being the N-model in the best shape!

Now, I've not seen the interiors of the other planes, but I imagine that they are kept up to the same standard as the older planes. Also, the two G1000-equipped planes are lease-backs. After reading of other peoples' horrors with rental fleets, I guess I'm pretty lucky.
 
sbonek said:
Is the state of the rental fleet other places really as bad as everyone says it is?

If so, I must really be lucky. The oldest plane available for rent at my FBO is a 1999. All the others are 2003 - 2006 and as far as I can tell are kept in great shape.

I still want to own someday, but I've not had any issues with the rentals I fly.
Click to expand...
In the club to which I belong, we have a nice fleet of 35 year old airplanes. As a general rule, with planes that old, none of the planes would ever pass a rigid airworthiness inspection. I suppose that the same is true for a brand new plane, and/or with something thoroughly gone over like the current AOPA Cardinal. However, the club spends a boatload of money on maintenance and gets a lot of things right. The result is planes that I deem safe to fly, most of the time. I assume many of us are in the same situation. Cosmetics are a bit less rigorously attended to. :(

What this means is that more than once I show up at the airport on a CAVU day and find a maintenance issue that becomes a no-fly item to me. Each time I say to myself how much better it would be to own, and control my own maintenance. Then I have to tell myself that inevitably the same thing would happen from time to time.

Be PIC. Don't fly junk. Deciding to stay on the ground is as much a part of flying as burning that hole to the Hamburger at 130 knots.

-Skip
 
A couple of years ago I searched the NTSB accident database for N-numbers of airplanes in my logbook. I go back to the mid-sixties, so there were a lot of airplanes in my search, mostly trainers (as student and CFI) and rentals.

It was a little disheartening. A surprising number of them had been in some kind of accident, some very serious or catastrophic. Many of the trainers had hard-landing accidents, some more than one. A lovely Piper Warrior that I had once enjoyed renting was destroyed years later in an apparent suicide crash, and a NavionRangemaster I once flew also went down under very suspicious circumstances. A Cessna 152 and its "pilot" fell victim to a deadly cocktail of alcohol and morning fog. A Saratoga and pilot were lost to an overabundance of air in the fuel tanks, as was a club Cardinal, though its pilot survived the night forced landing. A Mooney 201 hit a house when a go-around somehow went bad.

<sigh>

-- Pilawt
 
tonycondon said:
only time ive had anywhere really near an engine failure in a single was after a 2 hr XC in a 150 in freezing ass cold February, high was about 15 degF. never developed any oil temp and on short final with throttle to idle it quite. had to prime to start for taxi to hangar. probably could have put my hand on the cylinder head. too damn cold to fly...
Click to expand...


Shoot, I thought you had an engine failure every time you pulled the tow release...
 
hey if it wasnt there to begin with then it cant fail!
 
Kath, there are a lotta barely legal airplanes out there waiting to kill people. Expensive as the regs make it, part 43 and the small airplane directorate, are the only things standing between the current situation and a LOT MORE death.

Good on you for getting out. To bastardize Potter Stewart's famous quote about pornog___hy: "I can't tell you what it (pornog...hy) is but I recognize it when I see it".
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�FILE����DATE����������LOCATION����������AIRCRAFT�DATA�������INJURIES�������FLIGHT������������������������PILOT�DATA
���������������������������������������������������������������F��S�M/N�����PURPOSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-1114��78/4/28����COLUMBUS,GA���������BELLANCA�7ECA�������CR-��1��0��0��NONCOMMERCIAL�������������PRIVATE,�AGE�24,�90�TOTAL
��������TIME�-�1850��������������������N1874G��������������PX-��1��0��0��PLEASURE/PERSONAL�TRANSP��HOURS,�12�IN�TYPE,�NOT
���������������������������������������DAMAGE-DESTROYED����OT-��0��0��0����������������������������INSTRUMENT�RATED.
��������DEPARTURE�POINT�������������INTENDED�DESTINATION
����������COLUMBUS,GA�����������������LOCAL
��������TYPE�OF�ACCIDENT�����������������������������������������PHASE�OF�OPERATION
�����������STALL:�SPIN����������������������������������������������IN�FLIGHT:�BUZZING
��������PROBABLE�CAUSE(S)
�����������PILOT�IN�COMMAND�-�FAILED�TO�OBTAIN/MAINTAIN�FLYING�SPEED
��������FACTOR(S)
�����������PILOT�IN�COMMAND�-�EXERCISED�POOR�JUDGMENT
�����������MISCELLANEOUS�ACTS,CONDITIONS�-�UNWARRANTED�LOW�FLYING
Click to expand...
Richard, I feel like this accident report leaves a lot of question marks.
 
infotango said:
Richard, I feel like this accident report leaves a lot of question marks.
Click to expand...

According to the report, failure to maintain airpspeed with subsequent stall/spin after buzzing. Young pilot, aerobatic airplane, buzzing things on the ground.... No question marks here. The older reports sure aren't as thorough in detail as the modern ones, though, that's for sure!!
 
What you don't see in the accident report may even be worse. The airplane was owned by a flying club. So chances are the pilot had very little time in the airplane. Looking back at my logbook the accident occured about 8 months after my last entry for that airplane.
 
Skip Miller said:
In the club to which I belong, we have a nice fleet of 35 year old airplanes. As a general rule, with planes that old, none of the planes would ever pass a rigid airworthiness inspection. ...

-Skip
Click to expand...

You've got to kidding, right? An airplane is either airworthy or not. "Rigorous airworthiness inspection?" What the heck kind of attitude is this? I'd say this club needs some serious FSDO oversight if they fly airplanes that can only pass a less than rigorous airworthiness inspection. There's no age waiver for aircraft to meet the airworthiness standards.
 
Witmo said:
You've got to kidding, right? An airplane is either airworthy or not. "Rigorous airworthiness inspection?" What the heck kind of attitude is this? I'd say this club needs some serious FSDO oversight if they fly airplanes that can only pass a less than rigorous airworthiness inspection. There's no age waiver for aircraft to meet the airworthiness standards.
Click to expand...

Get a grip Tim. It wasn't that long ago that the FAA couldn't define Airworthy.
 
Troy Whistman said:
According to the report, failure to maintain airpspeed with subsequent stall/spin after buzzing. Young pilot, aerobatic airplane, buzzing things on the ground.... No question marks here. The older reports sure aren't as thorough in detail as the modern ones, though, that's for sure!!
Click to expand...
I was actually trying to be funny Troy, although, like in real life, people don't really seem to laugh at my jokes, (although they do seem to laugh AT me plenty).
Maybe I should have added a ;).



This plane is the one I soloed in: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060720X00970&ntsbno=NYC06LA179&akey=1
 
Witmo said:
You've got to kidding, right? An airplane is either airworthy or not. "Rigorous airworthiness inspection?" What the heck kind of attitude is this? I'd say this club needs some serious FSDO oversight if they fly airplanes that can only pass a less than rigorous airworthiness inspection. There's no age waiver for aircraft to meet the airworthiness standards.
Click to expand...

LOL! This is the funniest post I've seen in a while.

I'd wager that no plane owned by anyone in this thread would pass a fine tooth comb airworthiness inspection by the FAA, without requiring a correction. Including yours. You think every repair, oil change, minor tweak of the plugs was logged in an aircraft's history, or every repair that required a 337 had one filed for it instead of a simple log entry? Unless you've owned it since it was new then I'd guess not. Is your airworthiness certificate in view in front of your registration right now? Every placard required upon certification still in the airplane? The PMA tags on all your seatbelts still legible?

You do the best you can do and focus on safety of flight items.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
LOL! This is the funniest post I've seen in a while.

I'd wager that no plane owned by anyone in this thread would pass a fine tooth comb airworthiness inspection by the FAA, without requiring a correction. Including yours. You think every repair, oil change, minor tweak of the plugs was logged in an aircraft's history, or every repair that required a 337 had one filed for it instead of a simple log entry? Unless you've owned it since it was new then I'd guess not. Is your airworthiness certificate in view in front of your registration right now? Every placard required upon certification still in the airplane? The PMA tags on all your seatbelts still legible?

You do the best you can do and focus on safety of flight items.
Click to expand...

I took exception to the statement that older airplanes are somehow less airworthy than newer ones by virtue of their age. My airplane is 32 years old and if my IA says I'm missing a placard or that my airworthiness certificate needs to be moved in front of my registration, guess what--it gets the placard and the certificate gets moved. My IA doesn't make allowances for a 32 year old airplane vs. one just off the Wichita assembly line. If something needs fixin--it gets fixed. I agree that the FAA could probably nit pick any set of logbooks and find discrepancies but my point is that the standard is the same for both older and newer aircraft. I've seen newer planes that I wouldn't fly if you paid me and older planes that I wouldn't hesitate to stick my family in and fly over mountains at night. It really boils down to the sense of responsibility of the owner/operator. It's their responsibility to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition.
 
Witmo said:
I took exception to the statement that older airplanes are somehow less airworthy than newer ones by virtue of their age. My airplane is 32 years old and if my IA says I'm missing a placard or that my airworthiness certificate needs to be moved in front of my registration, guess what--it gets the placard and the certificate gets moved. My IA doesn't make allowances for a 32 year old airplane vs. one just off the Wichita assembly line. If something needs fixin--it gets fixed. I agree that the FAA could probably nit pick any set of logbooks and find discrepancies but my point is that the standard is the same for both older and newer aircraft. I've seen newer planes that I wouldn't fly if you paid me and older planes that I wouldn't hesitate to stick my family in and fly over mountains at night. It really boils down to the sense of responsibility of the owner/operator. It's their responsibility to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of the above, and no doubt the poster you jumped on does too. I own - I think - the oldest plane of anyone in this thread.

My plane gets signed off every year as airworthy at annual. But as you mentioned, a different IA, or an FSDO inspector could probably find dozens of "unairworthy" things if they looked hard enough. I think that was the point Skip was making.

Some IA's and FSDO's are actually practical! Just because my parking break was removed years ago without a 337, no one is going to ground it (which is good since I would probably have a hell of a time installing a replacement, and most were removed for safety reasons anyway!)

It comes down to what you as the PIC are willing to live with (pun somewhat intended.)

I'd like to hear FAA's definition of "airworthy."

As an owner I presumably know that if one or two things are inop and the seats are ratty that it is still in tip top shape under the cowling (or not.) With a rental? Unless you have personal knowledge otherwise you've gotta assume that the things Kathy describes might be indicative of other, more sinister problems laying in wait and to hell with the last 100 hour sign-off.
 
Last edited:
Thank goodness it wasn't you Kath. I'm sorry to hear that someone crashed, but it would've broken my heart had it been you.
xoxo
DW
 
alaskaflyer said:
I agree with all of the above, and no doubt the poster you jumped on does too. I own - I think - the oldest plane of anyone in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, Tom Downey's Fairchild has your 170 beat hands down. And I'll bet that when he finishes his resoration (later this summer, I hope) it would pass a white glove inspection by the FAA. But, I'm also sure that he's the exception, rather than the rule. That bird is going to be a work of art.
 
Ghery said:
No, Tom Downey's Fairchild has your 170 beat hands down. And I'll bet that when he finishes his resoration (later this summer, I hope) it would pass a white glove inspection by the FAA. But, I'm also sure that he's the exception, rather than the rule. That bird is going to be a work of art.
Click to expand...

Well, Tom isn't in this thread :no: But I just noticed that Tim posted, his C-170 is a year or two older than mine :redface:

And for the record Tom D was the last person to sign my 170 off as airworthy :p
 
Witmo said:
I took exception to the statement that older airplanes are somehow less airworthy than newer ones by virtue of their age.
Click to expand...
I think we are in serious agreement here. If you look at my OP you will see that I also stated that newer and totally refurbed planes were in all probability also unlikely to pass the nit picker's brigade.

-Skip
 
Witmo said:
You've got to kidding, right? An airplane is either airworthy or not. "Rigorous airworthiness inspection?" What the heck kind of attitude is this? I'd say this club needs some serious FSDO oversight if they fly airplanes that can only pass a less than rigorous airworthiness inspection. There's no age waiver for aircraft to meet the airworthiness standards.
Click to expand...

Ghery said:
No, Tom Downey's Fairchild has your 170 beat hands down. And I'll bet that when he finishes his resoration (later this summer, I hope) it would pass a white glove inspection by the FAA. But, I'm also sure that he's the exception, rather than the rule. That bird is going to be a work of art.
Click to expand...

I feel that cosmedic discrepancies are not an airworthy issue, but they do show pride in ownership or lack there of. and the rental fleet seldom has owner pride, it is all money issues. Then it becomes the renter who is the driving force that gets things fixed.

When you own an old aircraft like mine it is a different thing about maintenance you do it to preserve the aircraft for future enjoyment of the aircraft community. once an aircraft goes beyond a certain year it becomes a classic and the whole idea of maintenance changes.

Some owners of classic aircraft won't fly them except to shows or rallies, and are letter perfect to the day they came off the show room floor, I on the other hand think mine will be a daily flyer, modified to be safe in todays skys, and flown as oftem as I can afford to.

I hope to get it flying this summer but who knows, it may or may not get done, after all it is a hobby with me. I'm 5 years into this project, why hurry now?
 
Anthony said:
One of the many reasons I decided to own instead of rent. It was either that or stop flying. The general condition of the rental fleet is either mechanically poor or cosmetically poor or both. Flying clubs or partnerships are the only alternative to sole ownership these days. IMHO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Although this year it's gonna hurt the wallet a little... (See ongoing saga of bladder failure in left wing, and suspicion that the right wing may not be far behind in another thread here. Oh yeah, and FFC can bite me. LOL!)

But this was a big draw back for me to aviation as well... I was renting and generally unsatisfied with the condition of MULTIPLE Skyhawks at a local FBO. Even the CFI would only fly certain aircraft. Which I later came to find out... were owned by a mechanic.

And we wonder why no one's drawn to aviation these days... we put them in stuff that's not properly maintained, smells like 35 years of asses have sat in it, and wonder why it's just not "romantic" to them, and why they want to go fly the shiny new LSA across the field.
 
sbonek said:
Is the state of the rental fleet other places really as bad as everyone says it is?
Click to expand...
There are places where there's only one FBO to rent planes from, and they suck. But generally, the quality of rental aircraft is related to the rental rate, and what you are willing to pay.

When I was renting, I was checked out at two FBOs. When going out for airwork or solo conversion of avgas to noise, I took the $70/hr 172L with torn upholstery and rough paint.
When taking my wife or friends flying, it was the $105/hr 172SP with leather seats and a panel and interior that looked like it just came from the factory.
 
"blame the airplane" would translate into "blame the owner". Hope you mention your concerns to the appropriate people.
 
Back to the original thread theme.... one of the first planes I ever got instruction in... was the launch platform for a suicide by skydiving (without a chute)... how a guy managed to unbuckle a seatbelt and dive out of a 152 without tipping off the CFI until its too late... i dunno...
 
Doggtyred said:
Back to the original thread theme.... one of the first planes I ever got instruction in... was the launch platform for a suicide by skydiving (without a chute)... how a guy managed to unbuckle a seatbelt and dive out of a 152 without tipping off the CFI until its too late... i dunno...
Click to expand...

If you unbuckled with one hanb and opened the door with the other to throw yourself out, theres not much I could do to stop you. My primary concern is with keeping the plane under control so I don't die too. If you really want to die, that's on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top