The Cardinal has Fowler flaps. The first 10 degrees is required for takeoff, and adds lift and very little drag. I have about 200 hours in the 177RG. I would not touch the flaps in this situation.
@mts982Ай бұрын
why no vids in 7 months?
@MalibuMikeCFIIАй бұрын
Thanks for the encouragement!
@JosieTube2 ай бұрын
Just getting back into flying, I can’t believe how the synthetic vision gives you such a lower workload. I think it’s amazing. Good flight.
@defendyourclam16822 ай бұрын
That’s a flat spin. The debris field is not consistent with “nose down”. Rip
@CFITOMAHAWK3 ай бұрын
Bonanza actual real engine fail turnback from 1k agl. April 2024. kzread.info/dash/bejne/jGSaj5JtpriwfcY.html&lc=UgxBn0meQUCfEIl--_94AaABAg.A2671L3lt7MA2IuAMAA-Vg
@gregs45633 ай бұрын
Good Job Sir. Boy two great guys. just found out. Watched Russ Francis growing up in MA. I learned from this report. Im a backyard mechanic. Thanks Malibu Mike. Could be anyone out there flying. Thanks too all involved for a safer future. RIP Men. Loved by so many. Will not be forgotton. Thanks Russ and Richard ,love doesnt end. Wish it didnt happen also. Tuff loss. Too much too say. Good times with Russ Francis and The NE Patriots and the NFL , Aviation, specialists, and the World. Too a safer Future !!! For the common good.
@u171098atgmail3 ай бұрын
thanks for a thorough discussion.. much appreciated
@jdsaldivar56065 ай бұрын
82ND AIRBORNE Listen up!! I'm only going to say this once... MURPHY... Killed these Men. Maintenance?? Did you say Maintenance?? There are 2 kinds of Aviation Maintenance... 1. US Military Maintenance SOP's. 2. Bullshit Civilian Maintenance SOP'S. ( " Hey!! Ain't these here bolts belong to that Door Plug on that there Airplane that's disappearing over that dad gum Horizon??" Seriously...it was not long ago that I chose to Subscribe to Mr. McFadden. I'm sad...and Pissed.
@DanFrederiksen5 ай бұрын
Wtih GPS and maps everything should be direct. F localizers
@landedzentry5 ай бұрын
My thoughts Not a pilot...They're running a rich mixture for a faster run-in ? That seems fraught with problems. There are other ways to do it. Royal Enfield Motorcycles (I think) use thinner oil for the run in to accelerate wear. New or re-bored Motorcycle and car engines have the luxury of not needing full power straight away. Do they not bench run in these aviation engines at all? 36 hours ...should be run in? 36@50mph(equivalent for cars) is 1,800 miles These engines sound behind the times. From the mid 90s motorcycle engine can be thrashed straight out of the crate. They don't last as long without the careful run in but they're ready to go immediately and don't really overheat. And they're high performance- my suzuki is 1000cc and 160ish bhp. Sad loss. Apparently engine failure on take off is the worst.
@northernlite33686 ай бұрын
Sound band is miserable and annoying to listen to, so much so that I flushed the vid although the title and was anxious to hear something new abiyt ,,naving'' niner nier niner OVER & OUT
@escrtn846 ай бұрын
Could he have thought that was a lake? Since he might have had oil on his windscreen
@smalltowns6 ай бұрын
Good video. Btw, your greenscreen is super clean, how do you do that and make it look so good?
@CJE2007.58 ай бұрын
Where have you been? I enjoyed watching the videos that you were making. Hope all is well
@englishclive8 ай бұрын
I don’t think you should be criticising a pilot who’s passed away when you don’t know what actually happened. Loads of speculative know it all comments, if the the Pilot was a friend of mine I wouldn’t have been happy. Be more respectful.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
I couldn't disagree with you more. I think it's totally possible to balance respect to those that have passed away and their families and to simultaneously discuss any possible lessons we can learn right now to prevent the same thing from happening to anyone else. There are gobs and gobs of data available right now so the lessons to other pilots can begin now. We should not throw up a roadblock to learning just because someone passed away in an accident. If it were me that had passed away in an accident, I would hope others would immediately learn from my potential mistakes and bad decisions and not repeat them. Not only can we learn lessons immediately from accidents but we can also provide closure to people that are desperately seeking relevant and valid information about an accident. There is an extreme shortage of useful information in the media after these crashes. Being tactful about these events means not making hard assumptions or throwing blame anywhere, but having a careful balance of ranking the possible causes of the accident and thinking about how we can mitigate these circumstances or make different decisions in the future.
@englishclive8 ай бұрын
@@MalibuMikeCFII I agree its possible to do what you said in the first paragraph of your reply above. I just don't think Mike did it. He needs to think on how listening to what he says lands with those involved. You then said: Being tactful about these events means not making hard assumptions or throwing blame anywhere, but having a careful balance of ranking the possible causes of the accident and thinking about how we can mitigate these circumstances or make different decisions in the future Which is exactly my point, again Mike failed in this regard. Regards, Clive
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
@@englishclive This is me, I made the video. I disagree with your opinion. I have personally heard from people who are friends and family of the pilot and they appreciated and commented on my video thanking me for this. So yes, there are many conclusions we can make, and lessons we can learn right away, and closure we can have. If you want to be critical of any of my assertions, please call them out specifically instead of name-calling (e.g. "know-it-all remarks").
@major__kong8 ай бұрын
Flaps are so misunderstood. Most pilots think of them as high lift devices that reduce stall speed. While that's true, you can also think of them as camber modification devices. Wings with higher camber shift all speeds lower - Vx, Vy, best glide, best endurance, and best range. Even if they add drag, there may be performance benefits utilizing small amounts of flaps. It's really hard to tell without doing analysis of the modified drag polar or flight testing. And manufacturers of light GA aircraft simply aren't going to do flight testing with partial flap settings except where it's normal like flying for best angle-of-climb. Also, giving something else for pilots to think about in an emergency is probably counterproductive. When I used to fly C152s in my much younger days, on one high DA day I decided to experiment with partial flaps in a climb. I found that adding 5°-10° of flaps improved my climb rate significantly. But anything compared to nothing was an infinite improvement :-) As a pilot and instructor, maybe it's proper to complain about their use of flaps when the POH doesn't call for it. However, as an engineer with a background in aerodynamics, flight mechanics, and aircraft design, I can't fault them without knowing more information. There's a chance they would have fallen even more short had they not used partial flaps, for example. With the engine making partial power, you could make an argument to fly at a speed where less power is required. This is obviously at lower speeds, and partial flaps makes the wing more efficient in terms of power required at lower speeds even with increases in drag up to a point. My advice is, if you're a student, follow the book. If all you do is chase $100 hamburgers, follow the book. But if you're in a constant learning mode like me, go up to a safe altitude and experiment some to understand the true capabilities of your aircraft and also learn your capabilities and limitations as a pilot. Just my $0.02.
@ConvairDart1068 ай бұрын
I know of no other pilot besides myself, who never departs straight out on departure over inhospitable terrain. For me, this accident is the result of bad decision making. My home airport is located with the city to the east, and surrounded by forest on the three other sides. I climb up to 3,000 feet before exiting the airport environment, and circle down into the pattern upon return. We are supposed to fly as if we EXPECT an engine failure at any time! 99% do not fly with that mindset, and will suffer the same result if this happens to them in the future. I climb until I can assure making an open area in my chosen direction, and will only depart the airport when I know it is safe to do so. Staying in the pattern for just one minute more for an extra 1,000 feet of altitude does not cost that much, and is the cheapest insurance you can buy with one gallon of fuel. Your decision decides the fate of everyone on board! Choose wisely! I have been flying for 40 years, and have had two engine failures. The first one resulted in a restart at 3,000 agl. The altitude gave me plenty of time to go through the checklist. The second one found me having to shed altitude in order to make the runway.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. For many airports, and/or many airplanes, there is typically going to be a vulnerable minute or two for departures simply because the area might be heavily congested or as Richard himself demonstrated in his video publications (e.g. for high performant aircraft), the impossible turn is truly impossible. To make a blanket statement that unless people fly the way you do, they will suffer an off-airport landing, is a little far-reaching. For GA, the fatality rate in the U.S. has been hovering around 1 in 100,000 hours the past couple of decades. I tend to believe the bottom 5% of pilots weighs that statistic down; I want to be in the top 5% to be a couple more orders of magnitude safe. You are striving for the same thing. However, with modern-day engine monitors and subsequent data analysis capabilities, oil filters, and oil spectral analysis, under most circumstances, the engine will begin to show warning signs long before a catastrophic engine-out event occurs. It's up to the pilot/owner to make sure they are listening. Back 30 years ago, they would put a single EGT and single CHT (both analog and with no data recording) into an airplane engine -- insanely insufficient to catch any troublesome patterns. We now have oil analysis that will find microscopic wear particles that hint towards possible issues. If we find a super tiny shaving of ferrous metal in oil filters we can find out where it came from. We now have boroscopy that allows us to easily inspect the condition of cylinders, pistons and valves in ways we couldn't 30 years ago. We also know more about these engines now than we did 75 years ago. Good pilots will operate their engines to not exceed certain temperature standards to prevent stacking the deck against themselves and their engine. Engines will usually give warning signs before they go kaput, and we just need to listen. Further, the new Advisory Circular 90-66C recommends to exit and enter the pattern AT traffic pattern altitude since otherwise it's too easy to descend and collide with another airplane in the pattern. Did you ever consider that maybe you are replacing engine-out risk with mid-air collision risk by enacting these practices? You certainly can't claim it's non-zero for hanging out right above an airport near the traffic pattern altitude for an extra amount of time! How many near misses have you had in 40 years?
@ConvairDart1068 ай бұрын
@@MalibuMikeCFII As for near misses, I have had several. Descending down into the pattern is not illegal, and was actually done during my training. My instructor learned to fly in WW2, when engines were not so reliable and he taught me many things you will not find in the manuals. As for mid air in the traffic pattern, have you ever done an overhead entry? From 3,000 agl, you can see the entire pattern and who is in it. I myself, had rather take my chances with my overhead entry, than an engine failure over a congested city at low altitude.I also prefer climbing to 3,000 agl before turning downwind on windy days to ensure I can get back if the engine quits. If you are one of those who take an immediate turn to course, you may very well have given up any chance of return. On my first engine failure, had I been downwind of the airport when it occurred, I would not have made it back as the wind was gusting to 20 that day.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
@@ConvairDart106 I strongly recommend following the new Advisory Circular 90-66C (www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf) which advises entry at the pattern altitude. The FAA has apparently done a lot of research over the past 30 years and is trying to put a stop to mid-air collisions with this new advice. It's easier to see airplanes at your same altitude than it is to see them 1000 feet below your altitude. Also, it seems like you are quite fixated on returning to the airport. There are many successful off-field landings all the time that we don't hear about because they don't become a statistic, as long as they don't stall the airplane before landing. I am suggesting there's a strong chance that your techniques are over-correcting out of fear of landing in a field somewhere. We all should prepare for where to put the airplane down if we have an engine failure at 400' AGL, and nearly every airplane needs to strategize for that, since it's likely too high to land on the remaining portions of most runways but too low to complete a turn back to the airport. The techniques I like to employ are keeping the airplane continuously within glide distance from the airport while flying a pattern wherever possible, and keeping sharp on my power-off 180 precision landings.
@ConvairDart1068 ай бұрын
@@MalibuMikeCFII No, you misunderstood my first post. I said I climb until I know I can make the next suitable landing area, and am always looking around for the next suitable area as I go. Also, I am now flying an experimental airplane with a non certificated engine, which has made me even more wary than ever. Take an ILS for instance, or pomola. If you are using either for approach and the engine quits, you are unlikely to make the threshold. I live in western Washington which is heavily forested, and my father was killed flying into trees spotting salmon in Alaska back in 1967. I refuse to let the FAA force me into flying low over trees, or any other dangerous terrain. We would not even be having this conversation had Mr. McSpadden not departed the airport environment at 400 feet! Had he waited until reaching 1,000 feet, he would still be alive. He was betting everything on his engine! He and I have had our disagreements on other subjects before, but had he survived, he would most likely agree, that altitude is life! I had rather have to shed excess altitude, than be forced to stretch a glide!
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
@@ConvairDart106 I personally don't know of any CFI that recommends you always assume an engine failure is coming and VCOA until at a safe distance to glide somewhere. That seems like a severe overreaction and introduces more mid-air collision risks (mid-airs are almost always fatal) whereas landing on a road or a field is rarely fatal. Like you pointed out, ILS procedures with a 3 degree glideslope assume you have power otherwise you will definitely not make the airport. There are many tradeoffs regarding risks in aviation that we have to learn to live with. Often the least risky thing to do is stay at home and not travel anywhere because you could get into a fatal car accident even at 30 mph. We can't live like that, though! Humans are inherently terrible at estimating risk. Some will happily cross mountains but be very sheepish thinking about crossing Lake Michigan. What about relatively flat places in PA for example that don't have roads anywhere nearby, and the clouds force you to fly at 3,000? Again, if all we did was waited for clear skies, unlimited visibilities, and climbed to 5,000 feet above an airport before going anywhere, that's no way to fly in my opinion.
@ragedracer19778 ай бұрын
Can you show where you came up with 355fpm? The POH shows, even with the 140hp engine, it should have been able to climb at 550fpm. I understand it had the 180hp engine. Either way, none of it matters because the crash has nothing to do with density altitude. Almost guaranteed this is spatial disorientation. The increase in speed before CFIT is pretty telling. I’ve flown singles out of CNY, you’re really really harping on DA but that plane should have had absolutely zero problem out climbing the terrain. It wasn’t high DA.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Feet per minute is not the same as feet per nautical mile. If you're climbing at 600 feet per minute but flying 180 knots over the ground, that's only 200 feet per nautical mile. Climb gradients are specified in feet per nautical mile because that's directly convertible to the climb angle whereas FPM isn't, since then you also need to know the ground speed. Feet per nautical mile is the climb rate (in feet per minute) multiplied by 60 then divided by the ground speed in knots.
@ragedracer19778 ай бұрын
@@MalibuMikeCFII I must have misheard. I thought you said 355 FPM. I understand the difference. Either way, my math says the plane was capable of flying the departure procedure. He needed 456 fpnm to 6700. Vx for a 140 is 68kts, Vy is 78 knots. At Vx, he should have been able to achieve pretty close to 500fpnm. Even at Vy, he would likely have cleared any obstacles. I just don’t see anything in the data given that shows climb performance has any bearing on what happened. It was not high DA. The plane was capable of flying the DP, even though there was no legal requirement to do so. This was spatial disorientation. You can see the signature descending spiral starting…
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Sorry for the confusion. 355 FPM when flying approx 80 knots (IAS) and then adjusted for ground speed at a relatively high density airport is like doing almost 90 knots (TAS) so roughly you're traveling 1.5 miles per minute so divide 355 by 1.5 to get 236 feet per nautical mile. That is just over half of the requirement (456' per NM) to make an IFR departure from runway 21. Definitely severely risky business. However if the airplane had the engine upgrade as many are speculating, it would have made it less severe of a risk but still a moderately risky departure and that's only if everything goes exactly as planned. Unfortunately in these types of accidents there are often multiple links in the casual chain of events that doom a flight; spatial disorientation via somatogravic illusion was the dagger here as you said.
@ragedracer19778 ай бұрын
@@MalibuMikeCFII you’re getting pretty deep in the weeds. Of course, if he ignored the POH and flew different speeds, or there was a big tailwind, or whatever - he couldn’t make the DP fpnm. But, the plane was likely capable of doing so. Given the actual weather that day, the DA was about 5300’ and at 68 indicated, TAS about 75. Winds were 11kts from 320. So he was turning into a tailwind. Yet again, his climb performance had zero bearing on this accident. The plane, if configured within POH parameters, was 100% capable of out climbing the terrain. The DP isn’t relevant. Thousands upon thousands of planes depart safely every day from airports where they couldn’t possibly meet the DP requirements. If he had smacked a cliff 5 miles away, I think it would be relevant to discuss, but he didn’t. He entered a descending spiral at the turn to down wind. Climb performance just has nothing to do with this one
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
@@ragedracer1977 VFR at night into a black hole is, for all intents and purposes, IFR. If you can't see the terrain to avoid, you should be following the departure procedure. Could he have pulled this off in the day? Like I said in my video it would probably be a nail biter. At max gross, 355fpm at almost 90 KTAS is very sluggish performance. If it hadn't been so heavily loaded (keep in mind we don't know if it's overloaded for sure yet) and it had better climb performance, the accident might not have happened. So the sluggish performance of the climb at night was certainly a contributing factor to him being so close to the ground in the first place.
@Win4Cheesily8 ай бұрын
Being local to the area, I am not sure how he thought he would make the trip back to the runway at such a low altitude. It's about 13-14 miles from where he lost power back to the departure airport. Experienced or not, this stuff can humble anyone. Rest easy pilot. Thank you for your analysis on this. Very detailed and informative.
@user-lq7hf1ww3k8 ай бұрын
Most engine fails on take off are partial power. Good to practice them. Specially the difficult one of 500 AGL LOTOT. You have to decide after troubleshooting to Turnback or Turnaround the airport. Do the "500 agl LOTOT TURNAROUND" first. Then the "500 agl LOTOT TURNBACK" later on.
@derekaldrich3308 ай бұрын
Having read the preliminary report myself, I was also wondering about it being a stuck valve scenario. And as you pointed out there is often no physical evidence of the condition after the fact. I also experienced a stuck valve situation with a Millenium-rebuilt Lycoming O-360 while working for an aerial imaging company years ago, but I had the benefit of an altitude surplus for the nearest airport KBUF. It was my first flight in this particular aircraft since the rebuild several months prior. Onsite FBO maintenance didn't find anything wrong, so my boss asked me to fly it back to base. I refused. So another pilot was sent out to fly it back. He got 10 miles from KSYR night IFR when cylinder 4 detached from the block. I have a video of the destruction somewhere.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Did the valve stick open far enough this time where the piston snapped it in half?
@derekaldrich3308 ай бұрын
That was our company A&P's assessment. I forgot to mention the other pilot did manage a safe dead-stick landing in night IFR (well above approach minimums for the ILS 10, but still impressive). Apparently no one told him before accepting the assignment that an emergency landing under partial power had been made only 12 hours prior. I really think your suggestion of stuck valve scenario seems the most likely given the information currently available.
@sanger5378 ай бұрын
I had a similar experience with a freshly overhauled engine in my Comanche where on take off it would occasionally start losing power when I was 2 to 300 feet above the ground. I had about four different engine shops, checked the engine out, and none of them could find anything wrong with the engine. There were times it would do this and they were times it would be normal and take off. I eventually found out that if I adjusted the RPMs back to climb position instead of takeoff position with the engine, running a little slower on the RPMs at full power that the engine would run. Normally it was only at high rpm that the engine occasionally would do this. I then took it back to the original shop that did the overhaul and told them the story. They found that on one of the cylinders there was an exhaust valve spring that would work normally, except occasionally on a high rpm it would not work. At high rpm, there was a weak spring that was cracked, and would not close the valve properly, thus injecting exhaust back into the induction system, which took power away from the other cylinders. They replaced that exhaust valve spring, and after that, I never had a problem. It sounds very likely that this is what killed McSpadden and his friend.
@Maynardtkrebs8 ай бұрын
Why the engine failed is fairly irrelevant. Turning back increased their kinetic energy relative to the ground. Strong guy pulled back on the yoke trying to make the runway. The plane fell. No mystery here.
@smithnyiu8 ай бұрын
I was flying an extra 300 straight and level well inside maneuvering speed (around 130kts), and turned to fight another extra and the aircraft just stalled and fell. Knife edge and 5gs is all it took. I learned so much from that. We hear so much about accelerated stalls but until we experience and recover from one , we don't intuitively know where that edge is. I now have much more respect for my turn rate, at any speed. If I had my own airplane (doesn't matter what it is) I would practice that at a safe altitude. It might just save your life one day.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Great data point. Thanks for sharing!
@Alixxusa8 ай бұрын
Drove by this accident. Front of plane was facing north east. The freeway has one lane reactions due to bridge construction just about a mile or so north of where plane landed. Less tha a quarter mile is a bridge that laps over for about Half a mile elevated and is surround by buildings and turns. Unfortunately i saw this pilots body sitting in the plane still, lifeless before police put up a barrier. The field he chose is very flat relative to natures sake. I see why he chose it but wouldnt have much stopping room before running into a tree line. Facing south is close to no runway before bridge and buildings .. i would have probably given the spot a good consideration given then terrain. Not much options. The front of the plane did appear to be very black. I could not tell was the paint scheme or oil splatter. Didn't appear to be charing from a fire just do to lack of smoke. I think we fail to remember these are humans from time to time. My father was a private pilot and this struck home forsure. Very sad. Edit: i am not a pilot. Just local observer.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Sorry to hear this impacted you personally so much from directly observing this. It pains me to see so many crashes where pilots overlook easier places to land while hoping they can make it back to the airport without a scratch on the airplane. A life is worth so much more than an airplane!
@Alixxusa8 ай бұрын
@MalibuMikeCFII in your experience what is the general rate of speed/altitude in an engine failure? Was he over estimating the plane glide ability or was his decrease rate considered abnormal? 60 mph in 10 seconds doesn't give you much problem solving time. The wasatch front is grossly populated.. he really only had a couple options and. A short amount of time to decide it seems. Hard to judge a man's ability to perform under panic/stress as well as computer his options at such a decrease of air speed. Hind sight is 20/20 so to speak. None the less tragic.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
@@Alixxusa it's almost impossible to say and varies based on how much power is lost and whether the propeller is windmilling or stopped, and also if it's a constant speed prop if the lever is full aft which can increase glide performance by 20-40%. By the looks of this accident it looks like partial power was still available at least at some point.
@scottw53158 ай бұрын
Good analysis and sad loss is about all I want to say. I'll add that with a four banger, losing a cylinder means a twenty five percent power loss. Given there altitude of 2000 msl or so that became a thirty percent power loss. So, an IO360 that could develop 180hp at sea level is down to 120hp with loss of a cylinder at 2000 msl. 70 percent power means the airplane is flying like it's at 10,000 feet. Now, we have two big guys and I'm assuming full fuel in a turn back to the airport with gear in transit. I've seen the satellite photos for that airport. The options taking off from RWY 32 aren't great with neighborhoods and wooded areas. As well, a pilot with an engine still running is always going to choose an airport. I think any of us could have found ourselves in this situation. Again, this is a sad loss for both of these gentlemen and to the aviation community.
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
Losing one cylinder is absolutely not a 25% power loss. This is not a mathematics equation. In a 4 cylinder it means you have almost no power at all. This is primarily because there is now a gap and asymmetry in the power production of the engine that the other 3 cylinders cannot overcome. You don't have to look far into examples of valve failures in 4 cylinder engines to verify this. In a normally operating 4 cylinder 4 stroke (suck, squeeze, boom, blow) engine, the cylinders take turns making power. When one cylinder takes a vacation, imagine a tug of war rope where nobody's holding the rope for 1/4th of the time. It's not hard to imagine the other team winning no matter how strong the other 3 people are.
@scottw53158 ай бұрын
I'm not an engineer and don't pretend to be. I'm not convinced you are either. I had a dead cylinder on an O320 from a broken ring and oil fouled plug. It flew although not great. I'm sure you're going to say the plug was still firing. I had a dead cylinder on a R985 which still put out power. Yeah, I had eight others. I'm not going any further with this. cheers! @@MalibuMikeCFII
@MalibuMikeCFII8 ай бұрын
A broken ring is a problem but is probably not going to severely affect cylinder compression unless it shatters. An oil fouled plug might cause the engine to run rough during a mag check (when the fouled plug is selected) but you still have one other good spark plug in the cylinder (there are 2 per cylinder). I encourage you to watch webinars from Mike Busch (most respected A&P/IA in the world AFAIK) on the Savvy Aviation youtube channel to help form a better foundational base of your theory of engines. There you will uncover a popular quote of Mike's that if you lose a cylinder in a 4-cylinder engine, you'll have to put it down in a field, but if you lose a cylinder in a 6-cylinder engine, you'll just have to change your underwear after making it to the nearest airport.@@scottw5315
@billhaug62989 ай бұрын
The POH for the Piper Cherokee shows takeoff data for 25 degrees of flap. I routinely fly a Cherokee 160 out of Carson City NV (4700’ altitude, 6100’ runway) using no flaps for takeoff so I am in best rate of climb configuration at liftoff. WIth a similar altitude and longer runway at Canyonlands, Col Larsen I think would have been better off with a clean wing on that 7000’+ runway. Less to contend with, climb straight ahead until 74 knots, then turn. These old POHs… over 50 years old in this case… have not been refined or improved and do not provide the degree of guidance one is used to in more modern aircraft, or mililtary aircraft that this pilot was used to. Just my opinion. As Mike implies, this was almost an impossible flight with no margin of safety on a takeoff & climb performance aspect alone.
@billhaug62989 ай бұрын
No margin-of-safety in this incident. 1) Fatigue. 3 hour flight from Scottsdale, likely at high cabin altitudes around 8000 feet or more. 6 hour flight ahead to Bismarck, with even higher altitudes possibly required. Was there supplemental oxygen on board? AIM recommends supp O2 above 5000’. 2). Night, single piloted, single engine over terrain and very forbidding country. Where do you go with an engine failure? Even, say, a voltage regulator failure? You have 30 minutes at night to get it down before your battery goes. 3) Inadequate climb performance at this DA with this load. No margin of safety. 4) Pilot may have been instrument rated, but did he have instrument currency or recency of experience? 5). The Black Hole scenario for this takeoff is an extreme challenge for an instrument rated, instrument current pilot. 5) The POH numbers from 1966 in this case are demonstrated on a brand new airplane with a test pilot at the controls. What will YOUR 57 year old airplane do? Do you know? Have you test flown it against the POH numbers? 6). As Mike mentioned, the aircraft has probably slipping through the air, requiring right rudder, at the departure end of the runway. Out-of-balanced flight kills climb performance. Again, Martin of Safety. If you don’t have a 25% to 50% margin above the POH performance numbers, reconsider. Yes, if flown at all, this flight should have been a daytime flight with a very fresh pilot. Very sad, my condolences to the family and friends. Margin of safety, people, margin of safety.
@billhaug62989 ай бұрын
One very important technical piece: the speeds on the ADS-B track are GROUND speeds. Note at around the 14 minute mark when Mike zooms in, the adsbexchange software actually adds “ground” to the speed annotation. This means, since winds were basically calm, that these are TRUE Airspeed numbers on the ground track readout. Indicated Air Speed, which is what drives aircraft performance through the air, is about 8%, or 6 knots LESS, than each of the numbers presented on the ground track. Vy, or best-rate-of-climb speed for this aircraft, is 85 mph per the POH, or 74 knots, with a CLEAN wing. In my opinion, the IAS of the aircraft at the departure end of the runway associated with the 68 kt and 72 kt readouts of the ground track is therefore 62 kts and 66kts, respectively. For this Piper Cherokee, this is compatible with struggling in ground effect with 25 degrees of flap still out. Likely Col Larsen retracted the flaps after the turn. To get best performance for climb, an IAS of 74 kts should have been maintained, or GS/TAS (assuming no wind) of 80 kts.
@martinmdl68799 ай бұрын
Water in the fuel.
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
Contrary to evidence in the NTSB report.
@hughscot9 ай бұрын
Here are all the facts of the crash: kzread.info/dash/bejne/i2lot9NtZ5WrlaQ.html
@mortonrobinson64089 ай бұрын
Your words are very informative, but I respectfully wonder if you care to comment as to whether YOU would have made a takeoff from that airport after experiencing an engine outage on the ground while taxing out as a witness supposedly described. Or, would you have taxied back to h15:40 15:46 😅
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
We're not sure why they restarted their engine. If I had experienced engine roughness right after starting up, depending on the severity and assuming I noticed it, I would have cancelled. We do need to raise awareness of what morning sickness is for engines and ensure people are aware of how it's an early warning sign. But again, we don't know if this is what they experienced in the flight that prompted them to restart their engine on the ground. I hope the NTSB can definitively figure it out.
@mortonrobinson64089 ай бұрын
Mike, I feel honored you answered my comment. After many years of Flying little airplanes , I feel so confident that if I were taxing an airplane to the run up area and the engine quit through no fault of my own. I would have run the airplane back. to the FBO and I would not fly it until they figured out what was wrong with it, and could assure me that it would not happen again. Most of the time it’s so easy to do armchair quarterbacking, but in this case, I hope you and I know that airplane in our hands would not have been flown on that day. Thank you for all your good work. Mort.
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
@@mortonrobinson6408 Again, we don't even know if the engine quit on them. They might have been spooked by something, maybe a rough running symptom, and decided to see if it would replicate if they shut it down and restarted it. Hard to say though.
@mortonrobinson64089 ай бұрын
It is indeed hard to say. The unnecessary loss of two very kind beautiful men makes me weep. My heart breaks for the misery. Their families are going through. “😊What to do”.
@rickgarner63959 ай бұрын
Mike, excellent video and debrief. I too had several alternator failures in my C177B but every time I could cycle the alternator switch and it would come back on with no further issues. I reported the incident to my A&P and because it was an intermittent problem he could only suggest replacing the alternator or voltage regulator and see if that cured the problem. I wasn't interested in his shot gun approach so I continued to fly the plane. The last time it happened was on an Angel Flight mission with 1 pax and as luck would have it I was over my home airport about half way through the mission and cycling the alternator switch did not bring it back on. I was VMC at the time so, without declaring an emergency I told ATC I had an alternator problem and diverted to my home airport. After arranging alternate transportation for my pax I walked down to my A&P's shop and he was still in the shot gun mode as far as troubleshooting. Long story short, I did some trouble shooting and found a loose connection at the voltage regulator. Problem solved! With regard to your decision to declare an emergency, who would find fault in that. Declare and use all the resources available to you. Personally, I would not have chosen to fly a low instrument approach back into the departure airport. If I was on top in VMC with plenty of fuel and VMC airports nearby, I would have headed for it. Just my 2 cents. Nice job in managing the situation and landing safely. New subscriber looking forward to the next videos!
@jeffreywnek989 ай бұрын
The report didn't seem to indicated any abnormalities with the spark plugs or the cylinders. From the report: "The top sparkplugs were all found intact, undamaged, and tightly installed in each cylinder. The top sparkplugs were removed, and a lighted borescope examination was conducted on each cylinder. No abnormalities were noted within the cylinders. The engine crankshaft was rotated by the propeller in its normal direction of rotation, and suction and compression were noted on all cylinders through the top spark plug holes, with movement of all rocker arms noted during rotation. All 8 sparkplugs were removed and compared to a Champion Aerospace AV-27 “Check-A-Plug” Chart. Coloration across the plugs was from normal to black carbon fouled, with normal wear to the electrodes. No mechanical electrode damage was noted or observed on any of the sparkplugs. The bottom sparkplugs for cylinders No. 1 and No. 3 were oil soaked, consistent with orientation of the engine at the accident site and oil within the cylinders"
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
I explained this in the video. A stuck valve doesn't necessarily result in a damaged cylinder nor permanent loss of compression. It can un-stick after the engine cools off. There are ways, though, to ascertain the probability of a stuck valve by performing the Lycoming wobble test that the manufacturer outlines.
@bernardanderson37589 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing this strategy Malibu Mike
@BruceTGriffiths9 ай бұрын
I found this extremely interesting. I owned a 1976 Cardinal RG for about 4 years and flew it about 600 hours on a fresh Major Overhaul. I had this exact valve problem that you discuss and one of my valves stuck about 20 hours in to the breakin. It would unstick almost immedialtely after running it for just 10 or 15 seconds however, I took it immediatley to our mechanic and he confirmed the issue and made a minor adjustment to the valve. He may have just removed deposits. I am not sure. The issue never occurred again but as I was listening to this video, it struck me that this issue may have been quite likely. As a note, my 1976 Cardianl had the Lycoming A1B6D engine which I think was the case for all of the 1976 177RGs. One other note, I flew my Cardinal out of Lake Placid several times and performance could be questionable at that altitude in the 177RG as I found out one day with 3 souls on board. No issue occurred but the rate of climb was not great.
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
Very interesting that your valve stuck 20 hours into the break-in. That was one of my key variables that I couldn't solve for -- how often do valves stick right after a major overhaul? You've at least partially answered it (regarding tractability) with a data point that illustrates the possibility. Thank you!
@richardlanders53009 ай бұрын
Dan Gryder posted a video about this incident about a week ago. I didn't actually watch it because I think the guy is just looking for more views and doesn't care anymore about the facts. However, after seeing the preliminary report I thought it would be interesting to see what he'd actually said. Turns out, he removed that video. Something that makes me say....hmmm.
@Jack-xy2pz9 ай бұрын
every accident every lost soul thw value oh the victims are of equal value. The better the pilot yeah, bigger deal bigger shock. PIC didn't do my hunch this xase that Richard was trapped with little say little time to say in plane owners dumb decision trying to save his beautiful baby bird suddenly trying the impossble turn at way way too low agl for the Cardinal.. Having said so we should get say we're turning back.? I'm just Talking dont mind me. I would like to suggest upon every take off someone should be calling out agl until a 200 + feet above a possible turn agl . Below that agl The landing must be straight ahead 20° into the wind if available . Why doesn't someone come out and say it? An accident like this one is an embarrassment to AOPA. We expect ordinary pilots to admit they made mistakes if they survived. I think richard would want AOPA to speak for him honestly WHY? To save lives. That would be the biggest Tribute to him.❤
@patrickunderwood56629 ай бұрын
Low-time sport pilot and “study” style flight simmer ( on the Bonanza which is a very similarly configured airplane). Inexperienced and undoubtedly naive. Like everyone else, I was gut punched by the news. Would never presume to second-guess these highly experienced pilots. Just some thoughts and a question. 1. Cowl flaps and takeoff flaps (assuming that’s a thing in the 177RG) are exactly the sort of items that pilots sometimes forget to reconfigure after takeoff/climb. I’ve done it many times IRL (flaps) and in the sim Bonanza (both) despite having drilled and drilled. I would expect these items to go by the wayside very quickly after the startle of a climb-out emergency. 2. The steep slope at the end of the runway. I wonder if pilots subconsciously assume that if they make it to the vicinity of the airport in an emergency turn back, they’ll have a cushion of clear ground prior to the paved surface. This looked like a carrier ramp strike, something most pilots probably don’t consider part of their possible outcomes… 3. I believe there was a golf course a little to the right? But it sounds like there was a near-instantaneous decision by the PF to return to the airport. Thinking about the old navy thing of “winding the clock.” Obviously not much time here, but a less rapid reaction might have opened up more options. And the question: Lean for taxi. Usually that’s all you get. I’d like some pointers on, how much? What indication are you looking at: just the rpm? It starts to drop, push in a little mixture? Any science to this? Thanks.
@tedwalford76159 ай бұрын
Talk about drag, wasn't the gear down?
@michaelberry9509 ай бұрын
Your presentation demonstrates great clarity of thinking, kudos
@mikemurdock23349 ай бұрын
Hey Mike - thanks for the insight. Help me understand why the pilot would stop and restart the engine on taxi, excessive EGT? And would a restart clear that somehow? Or was it a idle stall? Trying to understand the mind set of the pilot.
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
The answer is contained in the video. My hypothesis was that they restarted the engine due to "morning sickness", a rough running engine that occurs soon after starting, a symptom that goes away after a period of time. The two critical pieces of information that we still don't have yet is whether there is any engine monitoring data available, and secondly if any valves fail the wobble test (danger of stuckness).
@DWBurns9 ай бұрын
This may force them to make G100UL and get the lead out of our fuel. Rich mixtures with leaded gas kills engines, and people. Prop setting, Climb perhaps wad said as Fine? Same thing unless he meant feathered. Did they pull the prop to full course? I think it provides better glide. I know on my Arrow it provides less thrust on simulated engine failures. Engine surging on takeoff/climb may have been the prop being moved from climb to takeoff when the issue began. On my Arrow that is 2500 rpm for climb to 2700 for takeoff. I have a new engine in my Arrow IO 360 C1C, we run lean. Did the break in, rings were seated at 25 hours. At 120 hours compression was 80 over 80 on all 4. I fear lead build ups. My Arrow has been accused of not making takeoff power by people on the ground. It is one of the quietest plane I have been around, I don’t know why it is so quiet, exhaust is new. Engine monitor says it is making full power. The 900 foot take off near max gross says it is making full power. Listening too it on the ground I question if it making full power.
@scottw53158 ай бұрын
I don't know what you mean by rich mixtures kill engines and kill people. What do you mean you run your engine lean? Lean for the appropriate altitude to develop peak power? Run too lean and you won't develop peak power. 100LL used to be called 100/130 octane. I30 octane is rich and 100 octane is lean. So, you're saying that without lead engines will be more reliable? Where is that analysis?
@F84Thunderjet9 ай бұрын
It’s incomprehensible that experienced pilots would attempt a takeoff after an engine failure while taxiing. Eye witness testimony is always questionable especially if the witness is not very close and/or not an experienced pilot. How far did they fly with a malfunctioning engine? Were they able to at least maintain altitude once the engine stopped producing full power? Were they able to climb even just a little bit? These are questions, if they could be answered, would give insight into their decision to attempt to return to the airport.
@ralphedelbach9 ай бұрын
The big issue about this crash in my mind is not that this plane might have had an engine failure or that if so, the exact nature of that event, it is how an experienced pilot like Richard McSpadden could attempt to return to the airport instead of putting the plane down in one of the relatively safe areas that were available. There will always be unexpected events with mechanical/electrical devices and it is not possible to avoid them. How you react in that kind of situation is a life or death decision. Everything else is secondary.
@MalibuMikeCFII9 ай бұрын
I decided to focus on the NTSB factual report and not put emphasis on pilot decision making. There are already many opinions out there about not turning back.
@scottw53158 ай бұрын
Look at the satellite photos. It looked like buildings and neighborhoods off the departure end. What are these relatively safe areas you mention.
@pchantreau3 ай бұрын
The hypothesis of an initial partial power loss certainly could explain the reasoning to try to make it back to the field. It's possible that there was an engine condition alerting the pilots but also giving the impression that they had more latitude than they actually had. Engines do not always fail catastrophically without warning. They could have had power fluctuations before the total loss. The flaps and cowl flaps are a little surprising.
@hansssnet9 ай бұрын
Over this summer I found the podcast Richard hosted called “There I was” and the episode 28 with Doug Stewart dealt with a 177 that had loss/reduce power on takeoff they thought they had an exhaust system issue in that case luckily Doug and the other person onboard both survived. I immediately thought of Richard’s situation though, such a sad time. Richard will be greatly missed. He provided so much knowledge to the GA community through his work that we will continue to learn from for years to come.
@hamishkebb35509 ай бұрын
www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2010/avoidable-3-ar-2010-055 Avoidable Accidents No. 3: Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft
@timmholzhauer33429 ай бұрын
Prop full forward? Full back would be much less drag. It’s a huge difference in my Bonanza. So sorry for the loss. My condolences to families and friends!
@On-Our-Radar-24News9 ай бұрын
Excellent analysis! I'm finding this channel to be one of the best GA accident analysis.
@matthewwhyatt55459 ай бұрын
I wonder if the flaps were dropped at the end when they realized they weren't going to make the field to try and crash a couple of knots slower? Good chance we'll never know i suppose -
Пікірлер
The Cardinal has Fowler flaps. The first 10 degrees is required for takeoff, and adds lift and very little drag. I have about 200 hours in the 177RG. I would not touch the flaps in this situation.
why no vids in 7 months?
Thanks for the encouragement!
Just getting back into flying, I can’t believe how the synthetic vision gives you such a lower workload. I think it’s amazing. Good flight.
That’s a flat spin. The debris field is not consistent with “nose down”. Rip
Bonanza actual real engine fail turnback from 1k agl. April 2024. kzread.info/dash/bejne/jGSaj5JtpriwfcY.html&lc=UgxBn0meQUCfEIl--_94AaABAg.A2671L3lt7MA2IuAMAA-Vg
Good Job Sir. Boy two great guys. just found out. Watched Russ Francis growing up in MA. I learned from this report. Im a backyard mechanic. Thanks Malibu Mike. Could be anyone out there flying. Thanks too all involved for a safer future. RIP Men. Loved by so many. Will not be forgotton. Thanks Russ and Richard ,love doesnt end. Wish it didnt happen also. Tuff loss. Too much too say. Good times with Russ Francis and The NE Patriots and the NFL , Aviation, specialists, and the World. Too a safer Future !!! For the common good.
thanks for a thorough discussion.. much appreciated
82ND AIRBORNE Listen up!! I'm only going to say this once... MURPHY... Killed these Men. Maintenance?? Did you say Maintenance?? There are 2 kinds of Aviation Maintenance... 1. US Military Maintenance SOP's. 2. Bullshit Civilian Maintenance SOP'S. ( " Hey!! Ain't these here bolts belong to that Door Plug on that there Airplane that's disappearing over that dad gum Horizon??" Seriously...it was not long ago that I chose to Subscribe to Mr. McFadden. I'm sad...and Pissed.
Wtih GPS and maps everything should be direct. F localizers
My thoughts Not a pilot...They're running a rich mixture for a faster run-in ? That seems fraught with problems. There are other ways to do it. Royal Enfield Motorcycles (I think) use thinner oil for the run in to accelerate wear. New or re-bored Motorcycle and car engines have the luxury of not needing full power straight away. Do they not bench run in these aviation engines at all? 36 hours ...should be run in? 36@50mph(equivalent for cars) is 1,800 miles These engines sound behind the times. From the mid 90s motorcycle engine can be thrashed straight out of the crate. They don't last as long without the careful run in but they're ready to go immediately and don't really overheat. And they're high performance- my suzuki is 1000cc and 160ish bhp. Sad loss. Apparently engine failure on take off is the worst.
Sound band is miserable and annoying to listen to, so much so that I flushed the vid although the title and was anxious to hear something new abiyt ,,naving'' niner nier niner OVER & OUT
Could he have thought that was a lake? Since he might have had oil on his windscreen
Good video. Btw, your greenscreen is super clean, how do you do that and make it look so good?
Where have you been? I enjoyed watching the videos that you were making. Hope all is well
I don’t think you should be criticising a pilot who’s passed away when you don’t know what actually happened. Loads of speculative know it all comments, if the the Pilot was a friend of mine I wouldn’t have been happy. Be more respectful.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I think it's totally possible to balance respect to those that have passed away and their families and to simultaneously discuss any possible lessons we can learn right now to prevent the same thing from happening to anyone else. There are gobs and gobs of data available right now so the lessons to other pilots can begin now. We should not throw up a roadblock to learning just because someone passed away in an accident. If it were me that had passed away in an accident, I would hope others would immediately learn from my potential mistakes and bad decisions and not repeat them. Not only can we learn lessons immediately from accidents but we can also provide closure to people that are desperately seeking relevant and valid information about an accident. There is an extreme shortage of useful information in the media after these crashes. Being tactful about these events means not making hard assumptions or throwing blame anywhere, but having a careful balance of ranking the possible causes of the accident and thinking about how we can mitigate these circumstances or make different decisions in the future.
@@MalibuMikeCFII I agree its possible to do what you said in the first paragraph of your reply above. I just don't think Mike did it. He needs to think on how listening to what he says lands with those involved. You then said: Being tactful about these events means not making hard assumptions or throwing blame anywhere, but having a careful balance of ranking the possible causes of the accident and thinking about how we can mitigate these circumstances or make different decisions in the future Which is exactly my point, again Mike failed in this regard. Regards, Clive
@@englishclive This is me, I made the video. I disagree with your opinion. I have personally heard from people who are friends and family of the pilot and they appreciated and commented on my video thanking me for this. So yes, there are many conclusions we can make, and lessons we can learn right away, and closure we can have. If you want to be critical of any of my assertions, please call them out specifically instead of name-calling (e.g. "know-it-all remarks").
Flaps are so misunderstood. Most pilots think of them as high lift devices that reduce stall speed. While that's true, you can also think of them as camber modification devices. Wings with higher camber shift all speeds lower - Vx, Vy, best glide, best endurance, and best range. Even if they add drag, there may be performance benefits utilizing small amounts of flaps. It's really hard to tell without doing analysis of the modified drag polar or flight testing. And manufacturers of light GA aircraft simply aren't going to do flight testing with partial flap settings except where it's normal like flying for best angle-of-climb. Also, giving something else for pilots to think about in an emergency is probably counterproductive. When I used to fly C152s in my much younger days, on one high DA day I decided to experiment with partial flaps in a climb. I found that adding 5°-10° of flaps improved my climb rate significantly. But anything compared to nothing was an infinite improvement :-) As a pilot and instructor, maybe it's proper to complain about their use of flaps when the POH doesn't call for it. However, as an engineer with a background in aerodynamics, flight mechanics, and aircraft design, I can't fault them without knowing more information. There's a chance they would have fallen even more short had they not used partial flaps, for example. With the engine making partial power, you could make an argument to fly at a speed where less power is required. This is obviously at lower speeds, and partial flaps makes the wing more efficient in terms of power required at lower speeds even with increases in drag up to a point. My advice is, if you're a student, follow the book. If all you do is chase $100 hamburgers, follow the book. But if you're in a constant learning mode like me, go up to a safe altitude and experiment some to understand the true capabilities of your aircraft and also learn your capabilities and limitations as a pilot. Just my $0.02.
I know of no other pilot besides myself, who never departs straight out on departure over inhospitable terrain. For me, this accident is the result of bad decision making. My home airport is located with the city to the east, and surrounded by forest on the three other sides. I climb up to 3,000 feet before exiting the airport environment, and circle down into the pattern upon return. We are supposed to fly as if we EXPECT an engine failure at any time! 99% do not fly with that mindset, and will suffer the same result if this happens to them in the future. I climb until I can assure making an open area in my chosen direction, and will only depart the airport when I know it is safe to do so. Staying in the pattern for just one minute more for an extra 1,000 feet of altitude does not cost that much, and is the cheapest insurance you can buy with one gallon of fuel. Your decision decides the fate of everyone on board! Choose wisely! I have been flying for 40 years, and have had two engine failures. The first one resulted in a restart at 3,000 agl. The altitude gave me plenty of time to go through the checklist. The second one found me having to shed altitude in order to make the runway.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. For many airports, and/or many airplanes, there is typically going to be a vulnerable minute or two for departures simply because the area might be heavily congested or as Richard himself demonstrated in his video publications (e.g. for high performant aircraft), the impossible turn is truly impossible. To make a blanket statement that unless people fly the way you do, they will suffer an off-airport landing, is a little far-reaching. For GA, the fatality rate in the U.S. has been hovering around 1 in 100,000 hours the past couple of decades. I tend to believe the bottom 5% of pilots weighs that statistic down; I want to be in the top 5% to be a couple more orders of magnitude safe. You are striving for the same thing. However, with modern-day engine monitors and subsequent data analysis capabilities, oil filters, and oil spectral analysis, under most circumstances, the engine will begin to show warning signs long before a catastrophic engine-out event occurs. It's up to the pilot/owner to make sure they are listening. Back 30 years ago, they would put a single EGT and single CHT (both analog and with no data recording) into an airplane engine -- insanely insufficient to catch any troublesome patterns. We now have oil analysis that will find microscopic wear particles that hint towards possible issues. If we find a super tiny shaving of ferrous metal in oil filters we can find out where it came from. We now have boroscopy that allows us to easily inspect the condition of cylinders, pistons and valves in ways we couldn't 30 years ago. We also know more about these engines now than we did 75 years ago. Good pilots will operate their engines to not exceed certain temperature standards to prevent stacking the deck against themselves and their engine. Engines will usually give warning signs before they go kaput, and we just need to listen. Further, the new Advisory Circular 90-66C recommends to exit and enter the pattern AT traffic pattern altitude since otherwise it's too easy to descend and collide with another airplane in the pattern. Did you ever consider that maybe you are replacing engine-out risk with mid-air collision risk by enacting these practices? You certainly can't claim it's non-zero for hanging out right above an airport near the traffic pattern altitude for an extra amount of time! How many near misses have you had in 40 years?
@@MalibuMikeCFII As for near misses, I have had several. Descending down into the pattern is not illegal, and was actually done during my training. My instructor learned to fly in WW2, when engines were not so reliable and he taught me many things you will not find in the manuals. As for mid air in the traffic pattern, have you ever done an overhead entry? From 3,000 agl, you can see the entire pattern and who is in it. I myself, had rather take my chances with my overhead entry, than an engine failure over a congested city at low altitude.I also prefer climbing to 3,000 agl before turning downwind on windy days to ensure I can get back if the engine quits. If you are one of those who take an immediate turn to course, you may very well have given up any chance of return. On my first engine failure, had I been downwind of the airport when it occurred, I would not have made it back as the wind was gusting to 20 that day.
@@ConvairDart106 I strongly recommend following the new Advisory Circular 90-66C (www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf) which advises entry at the pattern altitude. The FAA has apparently done a lot of research over the past 30 years and is trying to put a stop to mid-air collisions with this new advice. It's easier to see airplanes at your same altitude than it is to see them 1000 feet below your altitude. Also, it seems like you are quite fixated on returning to the airport. There are many successful off-field landings all the time that we don't hear about because they don't become a statistic, as long as they don't stall the airplane before landing. I am suggesting there's a strong chance that your techniques are over-correcting out of fear of landing in a field somewhere. We all should prepare for where to put the airplane down if we have an engine failure at 400' AGL, and nearly every airplane needs to strategize for that, since it's likely too high to land on the remaining portions of most runways but too low to complete a turn back to the airport. The techniques I like to employ are keeping the airplane continuously within glide distance from the airport while flying a pattern wherever possible, and keeping sharp on my power-off 180 precision landings.
@@MalibuMikeCFII No, you misunderstood my first post. I said I climb until I know I can make the next suitable landing area, and am always looking around for the next suitable area as I go. Also, I am now flying an experimental airplane with a non certificated engine, which has made me even more wary than ever. Take an ILS for instance, or pomola. If you are using either for approach and the engine quits, you are unlikely to make the threshold. I live in western Washington which is heavily forested, and my father was killed flying into trees spotting salmon in Alaska back in 1967. I refuse to let the FAA force me into flying low over trees, or any other dangerous terrain. We would not even be having this conversation had Mr. McSpadden not departed the airport environment at 400 feet! Had he waited until reaching 1,000 feet, he would still be alive. He was betting everything on his engine! He and I have had our disagreements on other subjects before, but had he survived, he would most likely agree, that altitude is life! I had rather have to shed excess altitude, than be forced to stretch a glide!
@@ConvairDart106 I personally don't know of any CFI that recommends you always assume an engine failure is coming and VCOA until at a safe distance to glide somewhere. That seems like a severe overreaction and introduces more mid-air collision risks (mid-airs are almost always fatal) whereas landing on a road or a field is rarely fatal. Like you pointed out, ILS procedures with a 3 degree glideslope assume you have power otherwise you will definitely not make the airport. There are many tradeoffs regarding risks in aviation that we have to learn to live with. Often the least risky thing to do is stay at home and not travel anywhere because you could get into a fatal car accident even at 30 mph. We can't live like that, though! Humans are inherently terrible at estimating risk. Some will happily cross mountains but be very sheepish thinking about crossing Lake Michigan. What about relatively flat places in PA for example that don't have roads anywhere nearby, and the clouds force you to fly at 3,000? Again, if all we did was waited for clear skies, unlimited visibilities, and climbed to 5,000 feet above an airport before going anywhere, that's no way to fly in my opinion.
Can you show where you came up with 355fpm? The POH shows, even with the 140hp engine, it should have been able to climb at 550fpm. I understand it had the 180hp engine. Either way, none of it matters because the crash has nothing to do with density altitude. Almost guaranteed this is spatial disorientation. The increase in speed before CFIT is pretty telling. I’ve flown singles out of CNY, you’re really really harping on DA but that plane should have had absolutely zero problem out climbing the terrain. It wasn’t high DA.
Feet per minute is not the same as feet per nautical mile. If you're climbing at 600 feet per minute but flying 180 knots over the ground, that's only 200 feet per nautical mile. Climb gradients are specified in feet per nautical mile because that's directly convertible to the climb angle whereas FPM isn't, since then you also need to know the ground speed. Feet per nautical mile is the climb rate (in feet per minute) multiplied by 60 then divided by the ground speed in knots.
@@MalibuMikeCFII I must have misheard. I thought you said 355 FPM. I understand the difference. Either way, my math says the plane was capable of flying the departure procedure. He needed 456 fpnm to 6700. Vx for a 140 is 68kts, Vy is 78 knots. At Vx, he should have been able to achieve pretty close to 500fpnm. Even at Vy, he would likely have cleared any obstacles. I just don’t see anything in the data given that shows climb performance has any bearing on what happened. It was not high DA. The plane was capable of flying the DP, even though there was no legal requirement to do so. This was spatial disorientation. You can see the signature descending spiral starting…
Sorry for the confusion. 355 FPM when flying approx 80 knots (IAS) and then adjusted for ground speed at a relatively high density airport is like doing almost 90 knots (TAS) so roughly you're traveling 1.5 miles per minute so divide 355 by 1.5 to get 236 feet per nautical mile. That is just over half of the requirement (456' per NM) to make an IFR departure from runway 21. Definitely severely risky business. However if the airplane had the engine upgrade as many are speculating, it would have made it less severe of a risk but still a moderately risky departure and that's only if everything goes exactly as planned. Unfortunately in these types of accidents there are often multiple links in the casual chain of events that doom a flight; spatial disorientation via somatogravic illusion was the dagger here as you said.
@@MalibuMikeCFII you’re getting pretty deep in the weeds. Of course, if he ignored the POH and flew different speeds, or there was a big tailwind, or whatever - he couldn’t make the DP fpnm. But, the plane was likely capable of doing so. Given the actual weather that day, the DA was about 5300’ and at 68 indicated, TAS about 75. Winds were 11kts from 320. So he was turning into a tailwind. Yet again, his climb performance had zero bearing on this accident. The plane, if configured within POH parameters, was 100% capable of out climbing the terrain. The DP isn’t relevant. Thousands upon thousands of planes depart safely every day from airports where they couldn’t possibly meet the DP requirements. If he had smacked a cliff 5 miles away, I think it would be relevant to discuss, but he didn’t. He entered a descending spiral at the turn to down wind. Climb performance just has nothing to do with this one
@@ragedracer1977 VFR at night into a black hole is, for all intents and purposes, IFR. If you can't see the terrain to avoid, you should be following the departure procedure. Could he have pulled this off in the day? Like I said in my video it would probably be a nail biter. At max gross, 355fpm at almost 90 KTAS is very sluggish performance. If it hadn't been so heavily loaded (keep in mind we don't know if it's overloaded for sure yet) and it had better climb performance, the accident might not have happened. So the sluggish performance of the climb at night was certainly a contributing factor to him being so close to the ground in the first place.
Being local to the area, I am not sure how he thought he would make the trip back to the runway at such a low altitude. It's about 13-14 miles from where he lost power back to the departure airport. Experienced or not, this stuff can humble anyone. Rest easy pilot. Thank you for your analysis on this. Very detailed and informative.
Most engine fails on take off are partial power. Good to practice them. Specially the difficult one of 500 AGL LOTOT. You have to decide after troubleshooting to Turnback or Turnaround the airport. Do the "500 agl LOTOT TURNAROUND" first. Then the "500 agl LOTOT TURNBACK" later on.
Having read the preliminary report myself, I was also wondering about it being a stuck valve scenario. And as you pointed out there is often no physical evidence of the condition after the fact. I also experienced a stuck valve situation with a Millenium-rebuilt Lycoming O-360 while working for an aerial imaging company years ago, but I had the benefit of an altitude surplus for the nearest airport KBUF. It was my first flight in this particular aircraft since the rebuild several months prior. Onsite FBO maintenance didn't find anything wrong, so my boss asked me to fly it back to base. I refused. So another pilot was sent out to fly it back. He got 10 miles from KSYR night IFR when cylinder 4 detached from the block. I have a video of the destruction somewhere.
Did the valve stick open far enough this time where the piston snapped it in half?
That was our company A&P's assessment. I forgot to mention the other pilot did manage a safe dead-stick landing in night IFR (well above approach minimums for the ILS 10, but still impressive). Apparently no one told him before accepting the assignment that an emergency landing under partial power had been made only 12 hours prior. I really think your suggestion of stuck valve scenario seems the most likely given the information currently available.
I had a similar experience with a freshly overhauled engine in my Comanche where on take off it would occasionally start losing power when I was 2 to 300 feet above the ground. I had about four different engine shops, checked the engine out, and none of them could find anything wrong with the engine. There were times it would do this and they were times it would be normal and take off. I eventually found out that if I adjusted the RPMs back to climb position instead of takeoff position with the engine, running a little slower on the RPMs at full power that the engine would run. Normally it was only at high rpm that the engine occasionally would do this. I then took it back to the original shop that did the overhaul and told them the story. They found that on one of the cylinders there was an exhaust valve spring that would work normally, except occasionally on a high rpm it would not work. At high rpm, there was a weak spring that was cracked, and would not close the valve properly, thus injecting exhaust back into the induction system, which took power away from the other cylinders. They replaced that exhaust valve spring, and after that, I never had a problem. It sounds very likely that this is what killed McSpadden and his friend.
Why the engine failed is fairly irrelevant. Turning back increased their kinetic energy relative to the ground. Strong guy pulled back on the yoke trying to make the runway. The plane fell. No mystery here.
I was flying an extra 300 straight and level well inside maneuvering speed (around 130kts), and turned to fight another extra and the aircraft just stalled and fell. Knife edge and 5gs is all it took. I learned so much from that. We hear so much about accelerated stalls but until we experience and recover from one , we don't intuitively know where that edge is. I now have much more respect for my turn rate, at any speed. If I had my own airplane (doesn't matter what it is) I would practice that at a safe altitude. It might just save your life one day.
Great data point. Thanks for sharing!
Drove by this accident. Front of plane was facing north east. The freeway has one lane reactions due to bridge construction just about a mile or so north of where plane landed. Less tha a quarter mile is a bridge that laps over for about Half a mile elevated and is surround by buildings and turns. Unfortunately i saw this pilots body sitting in the plane still, lifeless before police put up a barrier. The field he chose is very flat relative to natures sake. I see why he chose it but wouldnt have much stopping room before running into a tree line. Facing south is close to no runway before bridge and buildings .. i would have probably given the spot a good consideration given then terrain. Not much options. The front of the plane did appear to be very black. I could not tell was the paint scheme or oil splatter. Didn't appear to be charing from a fire just do to lack of smoke. I think we fail to remember these are humans from time to time. My father was a private pilot and this struck home forsure. Very sad. Edit: i am not a pilot. Just local observer.
Sorry to hear this impacted you personally so much from directly observing this. It pains me to see so many crashes where pilots overlook easier places to land while hoping they can make it back to the airport without a scratch on the airplane. A life is worth so much more than an airplane!
@MalibuMikeCFII in your experience what is the general rate of speed/altitude in an engine failure? Was he over estimating the plane glide ability or was his decrease rate considered abnormal? 60 mph in 10 seconds doesn't give you much problem solving time. The wasatch front is grossly populated.. he really only had a couple options and. A short amount of time to decide it seems. Hard to judge a man's ability to perform under panic/stress as well as computer his options at such a decrease of air speed. Hind sight is 20/20 so to speak. None the less tragic.
@@Alixxusa it's almost impossible to say and varies based on how much power is lost and whether the propeller is windmilling or stopped, and also if it's a constant speed prop if the lever is full aft which can increase glide performance by 20-40%. By the looks of this accident it looks like partial power was still available at least at some point.
Good analysis and sad loss is about all I want to say. I'll add that with a four banger, losing a cylinder means a twenty five percent power loss. Given there altitude of 2000 msl or so that became a thirty percent power loss. So, an IO360 that could develop 180hp at sea level is down to 120hp with loss of a cylinder at 2000 msl. 70 percent power means the airplane is flying like it's at 10,000 feet. Now, we have two big guys and I'm assuming full fuel in a turn back to the airport with gear in transit. I've seen the satellite photos for that airport. The options taking off from RWY 32 aren't great with neighborhoods and wooded areas. As well, a pilot with an engine still running is always going to choose an airport. I think any of us could have found ourselves in this situation. Again, this is a sad loss for both of these gentlemen and to the aviation community.
Losing one cylinder is absolutely not a 25% power loss. This is not a mathematics equation. In a 4 cylinder it means you have almost no power at all. This is primarily because there is now a gap and asymmetry in the power production of the engine that the other 3 cylinders cannot overcome. You don't have to look far into examples of valve failures in 4 cylinder engines to verify this. In a normally operating 4 cylinder 4 stroke (suck, squeeze, boom, blow) engine, the cylinders take turns making power. When one cylinder takes a vacation, imagine a tug of war rope where nobody's holding the rope for 1/4th of the time. It's not hard to imagine the other team winning no matter how strong the other 3 people are.
I'm not an engineer and don't pretend to be. I'm not convinced you are either. I had a dead cylinder on an O320 from a broken ring and oil fouled plug. It flew although not great. I'm sure you're going to say the plug was still firing. I had a dead cylinder on a R985 which still put out power. Yeah, I had eight others. I'm not going any further with this. cheers! @@MalibuMikeCFII
A broken ring is a problem but is probably not going to severely affect cylinder compression unless it shatters. An oil fouled plug might cause the engine to run rough during a mag check (when the fouled plug is selected) but you still have one other good spark plug in the cylinder (there are 2 per cylinder). I encourage you to watch webinars from Mike Busch (most respected A&P/IA in the world AFAIK) on the Savvy Aviation youtube channel to help form a better foundational base of your theory of engines. There you will uncover a popular quote of Mike's that if you lose a cylinder in a 4-cylinder engine, you'll have to put it down in a field, but if you lose a cylinder in a 6-cylinder engine, you'll just have to change your underwear after making it to the nearest airport.@@scottw5315
The POH for the Piper Cherokee shows takeoff data for 25 degrees of flap. I routinely fly a Cherokee 160 out of Carson City NV (4700’ altitude, 6100’ runway) using no flaps for takeoff so I am in best rate of climb configuration at liftoff. WIth a similar altitude and longer runway at Canyonlands, Col Larsen I think would have been better off with a clean wing on that 7000’+ runway. Less to contend with, climb straight ahead until 74 knots, then turn. These old POHs… over 50 years old in this case… have not been refined or improved and do not provide the degree of guidance one is used to in more modern aircraft, or mililtary aircraft that this pilot was used to. Just my opinion. As Mike implies, this was almost an impossible flight with no margin of safety on a takeoff & climb performance aspect alone.
No margin-of-safety in this incident. 1) Fatigue. 3 hour flight from Scottsdale, likely at high cabin altitudes around 8000 feet or more. 6 hour flight ahead to Bismarck, with even higher altitudes possibly required. Was there supplemental oxygen on board? AIM recommends supp O2 above 5000’. 2). Night, single piloted, single engine over terrain and very forbidding country. Where do you go with an engine failure? Even, say, a voltage regulator failure? You have 30 minutes at night to get it down before your battery goes. 3) Inadequate climb performance at this DA with this load. No margin of safety. 4) Pilot may have been instrument rated, but did he have instrument currency or recency of experience? 5). The Black Hole scenario for this takeoff is an extreme challenge for an instrument rated, instrument current pilot. 5) The POH numbers from 1966 in this case are demonstrated on a brand new airplane with a test pilot at the controls. What will YOUR 57 year old airplane do? Do you know? Have you test flown it against the POH numbers? 6). As Mike mentioned, the aircraft has probably slipping through the air, requiring right rudder, at the departure end of the runway. Out-of-balanced flight kills climb performance. Again, Martin of Safety. If you don’t have a 25% to 50% margin above the POH performance numbers, reconsider. Yes, if flown at all, this flight should have been a daytime flight with a very fresh pilot. Very sad, my condolences to the family and friends. Margin of safety, people, margin of safety.
One very important technical piece: the speeds on the ADS-B track are GROUND speeds. Note at around the 14 minute mark when Mike zooms in, the adsbexchange software actually adds “ground” to the speed annotation. This means, since winds were basically calm, that these are TRUE Airspeed numbers on the ground track readout. Indicated Air Speed, which is what drives aircraft performance through the air, is about 8%, or 6 knots LESS, than each of the numbers presented on the ground track. Vy, or best-rate-of-climb speed for this aircraft, is 85 mph per the POH, or 74 knots, with a CLEAN wing. In my opinion, the IAS of the aircraft at the departure end of the runway associated with the 68 kt and 72 kt readouts of the ground track is therefore 62 kts and 66kts, respectively. For this Piper Cherokee, this is compatible with struggling in ground effect with 25 degrees of flap still out. Likely Col Larsen retracted the flaps after the turn. To get best performance for climb, an IAS of 74 kts should have been maintained, or GS/TAS (assuming no wind) of 80 kts.
Water in the fuel.
Contrary to evidence in the NTSB report.
Here are all the facts of the crash: kzread.info/dash/bejne/i2lot9NtZ5WrlaQ.html
Your words are very informative, but I respectfully wonder if you care to comment as to whether YOU would have made a takeoff from that airport after experiencing an engine outage on the ground while taxing out as a witness supposedly described. Or, would you have taxied back to h15:40 15:46 😅
We're not sure why they restarted their engine. If I had experienced engine roughness right after starting up, depending on the severity and assuming I noticed it, I would have cancelled. We do need to raise awareness of what morning sickness is for engines and ensure people are aware of how it's an early warning sign. But again, we don't know if this is what they experienced in the flight that prompted them to restart their engine on the ground. I hope the NTSB can definitively figure it out.
Mike, I feel honored you answered my comment. After many years of Flying little airplanes , I feel so confident that if I were taxing an airplane to the run up area and the engine quit through no fault of my own. I would have run the airplane back. to the FBO and I would not fly it until they figured out what was wrong with it, and could assure me that it would not happen again. Most of the time it’s so easy to do armchair quarterbacking, but in this case, I hope you and I know that airplane in our hands would not have been flown on that day. Thank you for all your good work. Mort.
@@mortonrobinson6408 Again, we don't even know if the engine quit on them. They might have been spooked by something, maybe a rough running symptom, and decided to see if it would replicate if they shut it down and restarted it. Hard to say though.
It is indeed hard to say. The unnecessary loss of two very kind beautiful men makes me weep. My heart breaks for the misery. Their families are going through. “😊What to do”.
Mike, excellent video and debrief. I too had several alternator failures in my C177B but every time I could cycle the alternator switch and it would come back on with no further issues. I reported the incident to my A&P and because it was an intermittent problem he could only suggest replacing the alternator or voltage regulator and see if that cured the problem. I wasn't interested in his shot gun approach so I continued to fly the plane. The last time it happened was on an Angel Flight mission with 1 pax and as luck would have it I was over my home airport about half way through the mission and cycling the alternator switch did not bring it back on. I was VMC at the time so, without declaring an emergency I told ATC I had an alternator problem and diverted to my home airport. After arranging alternate transportation for my pax I walked down to my A&P's shop and he was still in the shot gun mode as far as troubleshooting. Long story short, I did some trouble shooting and found a loose connection at the voltage regulator. Problem solved! With regard to your decision to declare an emergency, who would find fault in that. Declare and use all the resources available to you. Personally, I would not have chosen to fly a low instrument approach back into the departure airport. If I was on top in VMC with plenty of fuel and VMC airports nearby, I would have headed for it. Just my 2 cents. Nice job in managing the situation and landing safely. New subscriber looking forward to the next videos!
The report didn't seem to indicated any abnormalities with the spark plugs or the cylinders. From the report: "The top sparkplugs were all found intact, undamaged, and tightly installed in each cylinder. The top sparkplugs were removed, and a lighted borescope examination was conducted on each cylinder. No abnormalities were noted within the cylinders. The engine crankshaft was rotated by the propeller in its normal direction of rotation, and suction and compression were noted on all cylinders through the top spark plug holes, with movement of all rocker arms noted during rotation. All 8 sparkplugs were removed and compared to a Champion Aerospace AV-27 “Check-A-Plug” Chart. Coloration across the plugs was from normal to black carbon fouled, with normal wear to the electrodes. No mechanical electrode damage was noted or observed on any of the sparkplugs. The bottom sparkplugs for cylinders No. 1 and No. 3 were oil soaked, consistent with orientation of the engine at the accident site and oil within the cylinders"
I explained this in the video. A stuck valve doesn't necessarily result in a damaged cylinder nor permanent loss of compression. It can un-stick after the engine cools off. There are ways, though, to ascertain the probability of a stuck valve by performing the Lycoming wobble test that the manufacturer outlines.
Thank you for sharing this strategy Malibu Mike
I found this extremely interesting. I owned a 1976 Cardinal RG for about 4 years and flew it about 600 hours on a fresh Major Overhaul. I had this exact valve problem that you discuss and one of my valves stuck about 20 hours in to the breakin. It would unstick almost immedialtely after running it for just 10 or 15 seconds however, I took it immediatley to our mechanic and he confirmed the issue and made a minor adjustment to the valve. He may have just removed deposits. I am not sure. The issue never occurred again but as I was listening to this video, it struck me that this issue may have been quite likely. As a note, my 1976 Cardianl had the Lycoming A1B6D engine which I think was the case for all of the 1976 177RGs. One other note, I flew my Cardinal out of Lake Placid several times and performance could be questionable at that altitude in the 177RG as I found out one day with 3 souls on board. No issue occurred but the rate of climb was not great.
Very interesting that your valve stuck 20 hours into the break-in. That was one of my key variables that I couldn't solve for -- how often do valves stick right after a major overhaul? You've at least partially answered it (regarding tractability) with a data point that illustrates the possibility. Thank you!
Dan Gryder posted a video about this incident about a week ago. I didn't actually watch it because I think the guy is just looking for more views and doesn't care anymore about the facts. However, after seeing the preliminary report I thought it would be interesting to see what he'd actually said. Turns out, he removed that video. Something that makes me say....hmmm.
every accident every lost soul thw value oh the victims are of equal value. The better the pilot yeah, bigger deal bigger shock. PIC didn't do my hunch this xase that Richard was trapped with little say little time to say in plane owners dumb decision trying to save his beautiful baby bird suddenly trying the impossble turn at way way too low agl for the Cardinal.. Having said so we should get say we're turning back.? I'm just Talking dont mind me. I would like to suggest upon every take off someone should be calling out agl until a 200 + feet above a possible turn agl . Below that agl The landing must be straight ahead 20° into the wind if available . Why doesn't someone come out and say it? An accident like this one is an embarrassment to AOPA. We expect ordinary pilots to admit they made mistakes if they survived. I think richard would want AOPA to speak for him honestly WHY? To save lives. That would be the biggest Tribute to him.❤
Low-time sport pilot and “study” style flight simmer ( on the Bonanza which is a very similarly configured airplane). Inexperienced and undoubtedly naive. Like everyone else, I was gut punched by the news. Would never presume to second-guess these highly experienced pilots. Just some thoughts and a question. 1. Cowl flaps and takeoff flaps (assuming that’s a thing in the 177RG) are exactly the sort of items that pilots sometimes forget to reconfigure after takeoff/climb. I’ve done it many times IRL (flaps) and in the sim Bonanza (both) despite having drilled and drilled. I would expect these items to go by the wayside very quickly after the startle of a climb-out emergency. 2. The steep slope at the end of the runway. I wonder if pilots subconsciously assume that if they make it to the vicinity of the airport in an emergency turn back, they’ll have a cushion of clear ground prior to the paved surface. This looked like a carrier ramp strike, something most pilots probably don’t consider part of their possible outcomes… 3. I believe there was a golf course a little to the right? But it sounds like there was a near-instantaneous decision by the PF to return to the airport. Thinking about the old navy thing of “winding the clock.” Obviously not much time here, but a less rapid reaction might have opened up more options. And the question: Lean for taxi. Usually that’s all you get. I’d like some pointers on, how much? What indication are you looking at: just the rpm? It starts to drop, push in a little mixture? Any science to this? Thanks.
Talk about drag, wasn't the gear down?
Your presentation demonstrates great clarity of thinking, kudos
Hey Mike - thanks for the insight. Help me understand why the pilot would stop and restart the engine on taxi, excessive EGT? And would a restart clear that somehow? Or was it a idle stall? Trying to understand the mind set of the pilot.
The answer is contained in the video. My hypothesis was that they restarted the engine due to "morning sickness", a rough running engine that occurs soon after starting, a symptom that goes away after a period of time. The two critical pieces of information that we still don't have yet is whether there is any engine monitoring data available, and secondly if any valves fail the wobble test (danger of stuckness).
This may force them to make G100UL and get the lead out of our fuel. Rich mixtures with leaded gas kills engines, and people. Prop setting, Climb perhaps wad said as Fine? Same thing unless he meant feathered. Did they pull the prop to full course? I think it provides better glide. I know on my Arrow it provides less thrust on simulated engine failures. Engine surging on takeoff/climb may have been the prop being moved from climb to takeoff when the issue began. On my Arrow that is 2500 rpm for climb to 2700 for takeoff. I have a new engine in my Arrow IO 360 C1C, we run lean. Did the break in, rings were seated at 25 hours. At 120 hours compression was 80 over 80 on all 4. I fear lead build ups. My Arrow has been accused of not making takeoff power by people on the ground. It is one of the quietest plane I have been around, I don’t know why it is so quiet, exhaust is new. Engine monitor says it is making full power. The 900 foot take off near max gross says it is making full power. Listening too it on the ground I question if it making full power.
I don't know what you mean by rich mixtures kill engines and kill people. What do you mean you run your engine lean? Lean for the appropriate altitude to develop peak power? Run too lean and you won't develop peak power. 100LL used to be called 100/130 octane. I30 octane is rich and 100 octane is lean. So, you're saying that without lead engines will be more reliable? Where is that analysis?
It’s incomprehensible that experienced pilots would attempt a takeoff after an engine failure while taxiing. Eye witness testimony is always questionable especially if the witness is not very close and/or not an experienced pilot. How far did they fly with a malfunctioning engine? Were they able to at least maintain altitude once the engine stopped producing full power? Were they able to climb even just a little bit? These are questions, if they could be answered, would give insight into their decision to attempt to return to the airport.
The big issue about this crash in my mind is not that this plane might have had an engine failure or that if so, the exact nature of that event, it is how an experienced pilot like Richard McSpadden could attempt to return to the airport instead of putting the plane down in one of the relatively safe areas that were available. There will always be unexpected events with mechanical/electrical devices and it is not possible to avoid them. How you react in that kind of situation is a life or death decision. Everything else is secondary.
I decided to focus on the NTSB factual report and not put emphasis on pilot decision making. There are already many opinions out there about not turning back.
Look at the satellite photos. It looked like buildings and neighborhoods off the departure end. What are these relatively safe areas you mention.
The hypothesis of an initial partial power loss certainly could explain the reasoning to try to make it back to the field. It's possible that there was an engine condition alerting the pilots but also giving the impression that they had more latitude than they actually had. Engines do not always fail catastrophically without warning. They could have had power fluctuations before the total loss. The flaps and cowl flaps are a little surprising.
Over this summer I found the podcast Richard hosted called “There I was” and the episode 28 with Doug Stewart dealt with a 177 that had loss/reduce power on takeoff they thought they had an exhaust system issue in that case luckily Doug and the other person onboard both survived. I immediately thought of Richard’s situation though, such a sad time. Richard will be greatly missed. He provided so much knowledge to the GA community through his work that we will continue to learn from for years to come.
www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2010/avoidable-3-ar-2010-055 Avoidable Accidents No. 3: Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft
Prop full forward? Full back would be much less drag. It’s a huge difference in my Bonanza. So sorry for the loss. My condolences to families and friends!
Excellent analysis! I'm finding this channel to be one of the best GA accident analysis.
I wonder if the flaps were dropped at the end when they realized they weren't going to make the field to try and crash a couple of knots slower? Good chance we'll never know i suppose -