PA28 Crash in Asheboro, NC

Doug Reid

Doug Reid

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,307
Location
North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Doug Reid
Two local pilots at my home airport killed Friday night. Pilot and young student pilot...very sad.
 
Looks like they left Downtown Island in Knoxville, and headed over to Asheboro. Am I correct that the accident occurred around 8:30 pm? What were the weather conditions? Any eyewitness accounts? So sad.
 
I fly out of KHBI, but I was not in town Friday night. At this point, NTSB is gathering info. Several eyewitness accounts have been posted but they sound a bit strange to me...but I was not there. I think the ceiling was about 4000 feet, pattern altitude is 1700 feet, it was a dark night as well..waxing crescent moon.

Another pilot saw the plane approach the airport..then they said the plane disappeared and went down.
 
Last edited:
These are the types of accidents that perplex me. On the surface there looks like there should be zero reason for this flight not being routine...but it wasn't.

R.I.P.
 
Doug Reid said:
Two local pilots at my home airport killed Friday night. Pilot and young student pilot...very sad.
Click to expand...
That's very unfortunate. Prayers and sympathy for the family and friends.

That's home for me. I grew up in Seagrove and went to Southwest Randolph HS. My parents still live where I grew up.
 
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to beat the NTSB to their Job. I'm not trying to win the I guessed the cause first trophy. But 'speculations,' if that's what you want to call it, can be valuble learning tools. So I'm wondering about the two pops that sounded like gun shots to that witness. Would that be consistent with carb ice? Would the engine 'pop' like that? Forgetting to richen mixture in the descent? Would that cause 'backfires' like that? What could?
 
Sad to hear.

If I was CAP, I'm not sure I would like the media attaching a video of a CAP plane to an accident. (especially a non PA-28 lol).
 
Witnesses always report strange sounds and smoke. The only thing I believe from the eyewitness is the aircraft was low over the trees. Could be they just got a little low in their approach and clipped one. Can't see trees in the dark. I hope the NTSB can make sense of it, but I have doubts.
 
In most cases, the NTSB has devolved into nothing but speculation these days anyhow. Unless you're in a high profile investigation, they probably don't even look at the evidence.
 
I think the witness reports were a bit strange..we will just have to wait for the final evaluation. I knew the pilot, but I am not sure I met his passenger...very sad situation.
 
Skyrys62 said:
Sad to hear.

If I was CAP, I'm not sure I would like the media attaching a video of a CAP plane to an accident. (especially a non PA-28 lol).
Click to expand...

Agree, odd to make that choice considering CAP never made to the scene. I mean it isn’t like CAP is known for SAR.

The cell phone forensics team had the search area narrowed down to a small zone and teams were on their way. But with so many witnesses, they knew where the plane was anyway. But when the witnesses are not there, nice to know they can still triangulate a ping.
 
flyingron said:
In most cases, the NTSB has devolved into nothing but speculation these days anyhow. Unless you're in a high profile investigation, they probably don't even look at the evidence.
Click to expand...
And upon what basis do you draw this rubbish conclusion?
 
mryan75 said:
And upon what basis do you draw this rubbish conclusion?
Click to expand...
This "rubbish" conclusion is based on the fact that the NTSB didn't bother to send anybody out to look at the results of my incident, but had the engine shipped to Continental, and barred anybody else from looking at the evidence before Continental issued a completely bullpoop explanation for why the engine failed and destroyed any ability to determine what really happened. There supposed explanation is at odds with the observations of those on the site (me and others) after the landing.

Look at just about any minor incident. It would say the report is based on investigation done by FAA or other non-NTSBers.
 
flyingron said:
This "rubbish" conclusion is based on the fact that the NTSB didn't bother to send anybody out to look at the results of my incident, but had the engine shipped to Continental, and barred anybody else from looking at the evidence before Continental issued a completely bullpoop explanation for why the engine failed and destroyed any ability to determine what really happened. There supposed explanation is at odds with the observations of those on the site (me and others) after the landing.

Look at just about any minor incident. It would say the report is based on investigation done by FAA or other non-NTSBers.
Click to expand...
So how's the lawsuit going?
 
I have no lawsuit. This is the pathetic thing about this. The NTSB denied me access to the teardown as not being an "interested party." My only interest is finding out how I ALMOST GOT KILLED by this thing. I was no more involved in potential litigation than Continental was. We had various theories going around as to what caused this, but there was not anything that I was going to be able to legitimately sue over. I just wanted to know why an ten year old, 900 hour FACTORY NEW Continental exploded on me 45 minutes into a flight (post-annual, and about 2 hours of TIS after a cylinder replacement). Don't believe this farce isn't lost on the insurers. I got a snide comment when I told the insurer that the engine went to Continental ("like there can't possibly be a defect in the engine.").

Here I was only interested in my own personal curiosity and wanting to advance aviation safety SUPPOSEDLY WHAT THE NTSB was about. I'd have gladly signed whatever waivers they wanted. But no way. They let Continental without any supervision from them or the FAA rip into the engine and make up a cock and bull story about bad maintenance which is a slap in the face of the three mechanics who actually have done my maintenance over the time period. in t

Continentals line is that a "crush washer" was installed backwards which caused all the oil to leak from the engine. Well, there wasn't any signs of leaks in the previous 3 hours of run time (let alone the last time anybody touched the oil cooler lines). Since I was breaking in a new cylinder, I was watching the oil consumption carefully. It defies logic that 10 qts of oil were pumped out of a leaky fitting in 45 minutes without any signs of problems. There was still lots of oil pouring out of the crankcase breaches when I set down (me and a bystander threw open the cowl to see what was up and their was oil everywhere). I didn't get any sign of oil on the windscreen or anything until after the engine handgrenaded. The bearings etc... around the replaced cyl (#2) looked good which let out the theory that they had spun a bearing when they changed a cylinder. What's clear looking at what Continental returned to me is that something disrupted the oil flow badly in the engine which caused one of the cylinders up front to start to fail which caused the vibration I initially experienced before the thing handgrenaded about 45 seconds later. I was on the ground within 3 minutes of the first sign anything was wrong.

The NTSB was also incompetent at pulling the data from my JPI 830 which MIGHT have given some indication, but also discredits the oil leak theory as the thing would almost certainly have shown an oil temperature alert BEFORE the failure in that case.
 
Is the Navion going to fly again?
 
flyingron said:
This "rubbish" conclusion is based on the fact that the NTSB didn't bother to send anybody out to look at the results of my incident, but had the engine shipped to Continental, and barred anybody else from looking at the evidence before Continental issued a completely bullpoop explanation for why the engine failed and destroyed any ability to determine what really happened. There supposed explanation is at odds with the observations of those on the site (me and others) after the landing.

Look at just about any minor incident. It would say the report is based on investigation done by FAA or other non-NTSBers.
Click to expand...
Let's assume your incident wasn't handled to the standards you expected. That's anecdotal. You can in no way draw the broad conclusion which you did from that based solely on your own singular experience.
 
mryan75 said:
Let's assume your incident wasn't handled to the standards you expected. That's anecdotal. You can in no way draw the broad conclusion which you did from that based solely on your own singular experience.
Click to expand...
You obviously failed to read the entire post. Look at the bulk of the minor accidents. You'll find that the NTSB invents a result without any first-hand knowledge of the situation.
In fact, things have gotten so bad, that there is a lawsuit pending against the government (not my favorite attorney, but he does have a point in what he alleges).
 
flyingron said:
I have no lawsuit. This is the pathetic thing about this. The NTSB denied me access to the teardown as not being an "interested party." My only interest is finding out how I ALMOST GOT KILLED by this thing. I was no more involved in potential litigation than Continental was. We had various theories going around as to what caused this, but there was not anything that I was going to be able to legitimately sue over. I just wanted to know why an ten year old, 900 hour FACTORY NEW Continental exploded on me 45 minutes into a flight (post-annual, and about 2 hours of TIS after a cylinder replacement). Don't believe this farce isn't lost on the insurers. I got a snide comment when I told the insurer that the engine went to Continental ("like there can't possibly be a defect in the engine.").

Here I was only interested in my own personal curiosity and wanting to advance aviation safety SUPPOSEDLY WHAT THE NTSB was about. I'd have gladly signed whatever waivers they wanted. But no way. They let Continental without any supervision from them or the FAA rip into the engine and make up a cock and bull story about bad maintenance which is a slap in the face of the three mechanics who actually have done my maintenance over the time period. in t

Continentals line is that a "crush washer" was installed backwards which caused all the oil to leak from the engine. Well, there wasn't any signs of leaks in the previous 3 hours of run time (let alone the last time anybody touched the oil cooler lines). Since I was breaking in a new cylinder, I was watching the oil consumption carefully. It defies logic that 10 qts of oil were pumped out of a leaky fitting in 45 minutes without any signs of problems. There was still lots of oil pouring out of the crankcase breaches when I set down (me and a bystander threw open the cowl to see what was up and their was oil everywhere). I didn't get any sign of oil on the windscreen or anything until after the engine handgrenaded. The bearings etc... around the replaced cyl (#2) looked good which let out the theory that they had spun a bearing when they changed a cylinder. What's clear looking at what Continental returned to me is that something disrupted the oil flow badly in the engine which caused one of the cylinders up front to start to fail which caused the vibration I initially experienced before the thing handgrenaded about 45 seconds later. I was on the ground within 3 minutes of the first sign anything was wrong.

The NTSB was also incompetent at pulling the data from my JPI 830 which MIGHT have given some indication, but also discredits the oil leak theory as the thing would almost certainly have shown an oil temperature alert BEFORE the failure in that case.
Click to expand...
One thing that I can postulate with great confidence is that replacing the cylinder had something to do with it, as it went hundreds of hours and a decade before the failure.
 
Call that an N of 2. I recall Ben Haas having a very unpleasant experience with them before his untimely passing.
 
flyingron said:
I have no lawsuit. This is the pathetic thing about this. The NTSB denied me access to the teardown as not being an "interested party." My only interest is finding out how I ALMOST GOT KILLED by this thing. I was no more involved in potential litigation than Continental was. We had various theories going around as to what caused this, but there was not anything that I was going to be able to legitimately sue over. I just wanted to know why an ten year old, 900 hour FACTORY NEW Continental exploded on me 45 minutes into a flight (post-annual, and about 2 hours of TIS after a cylinder replacement). Don't believe this farce isn't lost on the insurers. I got a snide comment when I told the insurer that the engine went to Continental ("like there can't possibly be a defect in the engine.").

Here I was only interested in my own personal curiosity and wanting to advance aviation safety SUPPOSEDLY WHAT THE NTSB was about. I'd have gladly signed whatever waivers they wanted. But no way. They let Continental without any supervision from them or the FAA rip into the engine and make up a cock and bull story about bad maintenance which is a slap in the face of the three mechanics who actually have done my maintenance over the time period. in t

Continentals line is that a "crush washer" was installed backwards which caused all the oil to leak from the engine. Well, there wasn't any signs of leaks in the previous 3 hours of run time (let alone the last time anybody touched the oil cooler lines). Since I was breaking in a new cylinder, I was watching the oil consumption carefully. It defies logic that 10 qts of oil were pumped out of a leaky fitting in 45 minutes without any signs of problems. There was still lots of oil pouring out of the crankcase breaches when I set down (me and a bystander threw open the cowl to see what was up and their was oil everywhere). I didn't get any sign of oil on the windscreen or anything until after the engine handgrenaded. The bearings etc... around the replaced cyl (#2) looked good which let out the theory that they had spun a bearing when they changed a cylinder. What's clear looking at what Continental returned to me is that something disrupted the oil flow badly in the engine which caused one of the cylinders up front to start to fail which caused the vibration I initially experienced before the thing handgrenaded about 45 seconds later. I was on the ground within 3 minutes of the first sign anything was wrong.

The NTSB was also incompetent at pulling the data from my JPI 830 which MIGHT have given some indication, but also discredits the oil leak theory as the thing would almost certainly have shown an oil temperature alert BEFORE the failure in that case.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering what the outcome of all this was..
 
flyingron said:
You obviously failed to read the entire post. Look at the bulk of the minor accidents. You'll find that the NTSB invents a result without any first-hand knowledge of the situation.
In fact, things have gotten so bad, that there is a lawsuit pending against the government (not my favorite attorney, but he does have a point in what he alleges).
Click to expand...
Nope, I read the whole thing. Your story is still anecdotal, and you still can't possibly draw the broad conclusion that you do. But you can keep repeating yourself if you'd like. This is fun.
 
Well, unlike you, flyingron has personal experience with the FAA on this specific subject. This certainly provides more credibility than your dismissive tone.

Also, to consider, the FAA, if nothing else, is an animal of "process".

They don't invent new procedures on the fly. It is more than reasonable to conclude that the same process that applied to flyingron, would be applied to similar accidents. In fact, it would be rubbish to assume otherwise.

What is rubbish is snarky comments from those with no direct experience denigrating those who have.

"This is fun"? So you enjoy attacking other people, because you think you have superior intellect? Perhaps you do, have superior intellect. However, taking joy in attacking other people is probably not something I would brag about. It would suggest I have a serious personality disorder.
 
Lndwarrior said:
Well, unlike you, flyingron has personal experience with the FAA on this specific subject. This certainly provides more credibility than your dismissive tone.
Click to expand...
Once again, the anecdote as fact. Sigh.
Lndwarrior said:
"This is fun"? So you enjoy attacking other people, because you think you have superior intellect? Perhaps you do, have superior intellect. However, taking joy in attacking other people is probably not something I would brag about. It would suggest I have a serious personality disorder.
Click to expand...
"Attacking"? Don't be so dramatic. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.
 
mryan75 said:
Once again, the anecdote as fact. Sigh.

"Attacking"? Don't be so dramatic. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how valid Ron’s claims are... I can only speak to my personal interactions with the NTSB. It was frankly awful. They were dishonest, unethical and not at all motivated to find real answers. My opinion is in no way anecdotal. It’s from direct interaction. In fact the FAA’s investigation resulted in a finding that contradicted the NTSB and was substantiated with evidence. Not so with the NTSB.

Think whatever you want. Doesn’t make it accurate. I truly hope you never experience anything to change your opinion. It’s a very unpleasant experience.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I have no idea how valid Ron’s claims are... I can only speak to my personal interactions with the NTSB. It was frankly awful. They were dishonest, unethical and not at all motivated to find real answers. My opinion is in no way anecdotal. It’s from direct interaction. In fact the FAA’s investigation resulted in a finding that contradicted the NTSB and was substantiated with evidence. Not so with the NTSB.

Think whatever you want. Doesn’t make it accurate. I truly hope you never experience anything to change your opinion. It’s a very unpleasant experience.
Click to expand...
I hope I don't as well, and I'm not saying your nor Ron's experiences aren't valid and accurate as described. But direct interaction is exactly anecdotal. My only point is that you can't paint a broad brush from your individual experience. The notion that the entire NTSB engages in mostly speculation and doesn't even look at the evidence is just preposterous on its face. I've been around four accident investigations in the past several years (five now that I think about it), and the NTSB nailed it each time. One time they made me look like a complete fool for buying some of the speculation.

I'm simply saying you can't paint an organization of tens of thousands of professionals by one personal experience. Or two. Notwithstanding whether your and Ron's stories are 100% true.
 
mryan75 said:
I hope I don't as well, and I'm not saying your nor Ron's experiences aren't valid and accurate as described. But direct interaction is exactly anecdotal.
Click to expand...
Right now the N stands at 3. Enough to do some stats even.
 
mryan75 said:
I hope I don't as well, and I'm not saying your nor Ron's experiences aren't valid and accurate as described. But direct interaction is exactly anecdotal. My only point is that you can't paint a broad brush from your individual experience. The notion that the entire NTSB engages in mostly speculation and doesn't even look at the evidence is just preposterous on its face. I've been around four accident investigations in the past several years (five now that I think about it), and the NTSB nailed it each time. One time they made me look like a complete fool for buying some of the speculation.

I'm simply saying you can't paint an organization of tens of thousands of professionals by one personal experience. Or two. Notwithstanding whether your and Ron's stories are 100% true.
Click to expand...
Well then say exactly that instead of being a smarty pants and calling someone out. Then you won’t get shoved back in the Internet contest.

Your initial responses in this exchange carried an very insulting and “you’re an idiot” tone in the language and context of your response. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that was unintentional.

Your last post should have been your first post.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Well then say exactly that instead of being a smarty pants and calling someone out. Then you won’t get shoved back in the Internet contest.

Your initial responses in this exchange carried an very insulting and “you’re an idiot” tone in the language and context of your response. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that was unintentional.

Your last post should have been your first post.
Click to expand...
I did say exactly that. Although perhaps I should consider my tone more. Your feedback and thoughtfulness in not continuing the antagonism is noted and appreciated.
 
NTSB investigations of major aircraft accidents are extremely detailed and conducted very professionally by highly qualified and experienced individuals. Unfortunately not the same level of effort is put in investigating a C-150 crash, specially when there is no loss of lives. More of a cursory investigation, if at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
mryan75 said:
Nope, I read the whole thing. Your story is still anecdotal, and you still can't possibly draw the broad conclusion that you do. But you can keep repeating yourself if you'd like. This is fun.
Click to expand...
You could at least acknowledge that Flyinron has reason for complaint. I would be angry if the same thing happened to me and I guess, so would you.
 
luvflyin said:
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to beat the NTSB to their Job. I'm not trying to win the I guessed the cause first trophy. But 'speculations,' if that's what you want to call it, can be valuble learning tools. So I'm wondering about the two pops that sounded like gun shots to that witness. Would that be consistent with carb ice? Would the engine 'pop' like that? Forgetting to richen mixture in the descent? Would that cause 'backfires' like that? What could?
Click to expand...
Not sure if someone answered your question. Hard to sift through the banter that came after you asked but one thing that will make the engine pop is after-fire. When an adjustable pitch prop is pitched to fine pitch on descent with throttle at idle, unburned fuel may pass through the exhaust valve and ignite when reaching the exhaust. It is known as after-fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-fire This will result in pop sounds like gunfire. I will sometimes experience it when pitching to fine pitch using the prop as a speed brake in the pattern preparing for landing.
 
You could at least acknowledge that Flyinron has reason for complaint. I would be angry if the same thing happened to me and I guess, so would you.

I appreciate the fact that the guy is willing to share his experience which helps all of us... and deserves a pass from any criticism this early in the proceedings. There but for the grace of God...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top