2 killed in plane crash west of Daytona Beach

That's saying they found cracks in the sistership
 
Interesting that the sister ship that also showed fatigue was only two serial numbers away from the accident aircraft, and that none of the other planes checked (only 15, granted) showed signs of fatigue even though some had more hours and more landings in a training environment... I wonder if there might have been a bad or semi-bad batch of aluminum used at some point?

I'd be curious to locate a few more aircraft as close as possible in the same production run and test them, if that were possible.
 
Someone who's opinion I respect a lot, and who has a ton of experience operating PA-28's, is convinced that there was a metallurgy issue at play here. Probably around this one batch of wings.
 
George Mohr said:
Someone who's opinion I respect a lot, and who has a ton of experience operating PA-28's, is convinced that there was a metallurgy issue at play here. Probably around this one batch of wings.
Click to expand...

Rest assured, the rest of the fleet will pay the price though......
 
Unit74 said:
Rest assured, the rest of the fleet will pay the price though......
Click to expand...

Moral hazard? Hell, that's a staple of factory-built recreational aviation! Captive audience abounds. I cannot wait to go EAB.
 
30 + pages and my eng. hat wants to enjoy a good night sleep before I dive in.
 
Tough read. Pilot error is often the cause when I read accident reports. This guys did nothing wrong.
 
Two things:
  1. AOPA, IIRC, fought to lessen the scope of FAA's original SB 31 years ago for economic reasons. They said pipeline patrol was more stressful and other operators don't need to inspect as much.
  2. Burnside-Ott once had to have Piper come design a stronger landing gear for their Twin Comanche multi trainers because the foreign students they were training had little respect for wear and tear on the equipment. Maybe Embry Riddle's students had such a cavalier attitude too?
 
The way they abused these planes, it's not surprising this happened.

George Mohr said:
Someone who's opinion I respect a lot, and who has a ton of experience operating PA-28's, is convinced that there was a metallurgy issue at play here. Probably around this one batch of wings.
Click to expand...

It seems more like it was outright abuse, though maybe exacerbated by metallurgy.
 
What is it about Embry-Riddle that might make abuse of their airplanes more likely to happen? What about the hundreds of other flight schools in the country, UND, etc
 
Tantalum said:
What is it about Embry-Riddle that might make abuse of their airplanes more likely to happen? What about the hundreds of other flight schools in the country, UND, etc
Click to expand...

Riddle was the only one consistently using Arrows for nothing but landings, particularly power off 180s. The rest of their maneuvers and commercial XC time building was done in 172s. That is why the NTSB report heavily lays blame on the landings issue.
 
Tantalum said:
What is it about Embry-Riddle that might make abuse of their airplanes more likely to happen? What about the hundreds of other flight schools in the country, UND, etc
Click to expand...

There were over 33,000 landings over 7,600 hours. That's a landing for about every 14 minutes of flight. If you add taxi and preflight time, it's probably more. That seems excessive. That kind of use would warrant inspections for cracks at annual in my opinion.
 
PaulS said:
There were over 33,000 landings over 7,600 hours. That's a landing for about every 14 minutes of flight. If you add taxi and preflight time, it's probably more. That seems excessive. That kind of use would warrant inspections for cracks at annual in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Excessive indeed! How is that even possible. Wow
 
I hope the wrongful death suit slaps ERAU hard in the pocketbook.
 
Tantalum said:
Excessive indeed! How is that even possible. Wow
Click to expand...

hindsight2020 said:
I hope the wrongful death suit slaps ERAU hard in the pocketbook.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they are blazing new territory with that kind of use and no one anticipated a problem. Unfortunately sometimes that's how problems are found. I find it hard to blame anyone for this, but I'm sure lawyers will find a way.
 
PaulS said:
and no one anticipated a problem
Click to expand...
True. But I would also think most level headed people would take pause at the prospect of landing a plane every 10 minutes, and, at the minimum put it under a more stringent inspection cycle. How these cracks were missed is nuts!
 
denverpilot said:
How the cracks were missed was described in the report.
Click to expand...
Right, I guess my point was that whatever program was being followed was not sufficient to handle the aggressive duty cycles (some of) these planes at ER apparently face.
 
PaulS said:
There were over 33,000 landings over 7,600 hours. That's a landing for about every 14 minutes of flight. If you add taxi and preflight time, it's probably more. That seems excessive. That kind of use would warrant inspections for cracks at annual in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They did this in the pipeline patrol industry some time ago.

Tantalum said:
Excessive indeed! How is that even possible. Wow
Click to expand...

The way they were operating them was insane.

hindsight2020 said:
I hope the wrongful death suit slaps ERAU hard in the pocketbook.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

PaulS said:
I'm thinking they are blazing new territory with that kind of use and no one anticipated a problem. Unfortunately sometimes that's how problems are found. I find it hard to blame anyone for this, but I'm sure lawyers will find a way.
Click to expand...

How do you find it hard to lay blame here? The NTSB certainly found that the type of operation was an issue, and there had been precedent before in industries with similarly hard, though probably even less abusive, operations (pipeline).
 
Also goes to show why the springier gear design of Cessna high wings, Piper Traumahawk, Grumman, Cirrus, plus many others, are probably friendlier on the wing spar.
 
Tantalum said:
Also goes to show why the springier gear design of Cessna high wings, Piper Traumahawk, Grumman, Cirrus, plus many others, are probably friendlier on the wing spar.
Click to expand...

Actually, the gear design on the Piper, especially the fixed Pipers, is extremely forgiving. The Oleo Strut design is pretty ingenious.

I can't remember if you have much Arrow time, but you know I do. Arrow's are very easy to land well when you have practice, but it is also very easy to smash those things into the ground. Combining that with a bunch of Riddle Robots who have done nothing but fly 172s, suddenly being thrown into a cleaner, heavier frame with a ****ty glide ratio and making them do nothing but carrier landings and you have a recipe for disaster.
 
mryan75 said:
Am I the only one here absolutely shocked that a PA-28 can hold up through 33,000 landings? That is one well-built aircraft!
Click to expand...

Kind of thinking the same thing. Wow. Imagine even dropping your car from a foot or so 33,000 times at 70 mph and think what it would look like.....
 
N1120A said:
The NTSB certainly found that the type of operation was an issue, and there had been precedent before in industries with similarly hard, though probably even less abusive, operations (pipeline).
Click to expand...

It does seem like the prior incidents could have been a hint that using the Arrow this way could be problematic. But perhaps no one at ERAU was even aware of those incidents and the ADs and SBs? I guess that will likely be a subject of discovery in the lawsuit.
 
denverpilot said:
You’re being kind saying students only drop in from one foot. :)
Click to expand...

My understanding is that these aircraft were being used for the complex requirement for the commercial ticket. These planes should not be being dropped at all on landing, they should be squeakers or pretty damn close.
 
PaulS said:
My understanding is that these aircraft were being used for the complex requirement for the commercial ticket. These planes should not be being dropped at all on landing, they should be squeakers or pretty damn close.
Click to expand...

Still being kind. LOL.
 
PaulS said:
My understanding is that these aircraft were being used for the complex requirement for the commercial ticket. These planes should not be being dropped at all on landing, they should be squeakers or pretty damn close.
Click to expand...

I have had instructors who encourage letting the Arrow drop in pretty hard in order to hit the target point on a short field landing during commercial training. And a nice thing in terms of hitting the spot is they really do come right down.
 
I would hope that any airplane designed and built since the 1960's that has the wing also supporting the weight of the airplane on the landing gear would have especially visible inspection areas. Since the wing attached to the carry-through with only four bolts, those areas should be designed to be easily exposed for inspection IMHO.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I have had instructors who encourage letting the Arrow drop in pretty hard in order to hit the target point on a short field landing during commercial training. And a nice thing in terms of hitting the spot is they really do come right down.
Click to expand...

DPEs aren’t enthused by that. LOL. Better to go around and fix it right but have to let people learn a little, too.

Nobody gets them right the first time they try them. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top