Cheapest Twin on EBay Down

According to company and airport employees at Chester County G. O. Carlson Airport (MQS),
the pilot arrived around 1230 and made it clear that he was “in a hurry,” as he had a return
flight from Knoxville, Tennessee, booked for 1800 that evening. He called the fuel truck
multiple times and indicated to the linesmen that he was in a hurry and was not pleased with
their delayed response to his fuel request. The airplane’s 116-gallon fuel system was serviced
with 80 gallons of fuel, which reached “to the tabs” in each fuel tank.
According to witnesses and surveillance video the pilot did not obtain fuel samples from the
airplane’s fuel tanks prior to takeoff.
Click to expand...
The right engine carburetor was disassembled and revealed an intact float. The mixture arm,
mixture cable, and throttle arm were all secured to the carburetor. Fuel drained from the bowl
was blue in color and contained visible water and debris. The fuel was tested with waterdetecting paste, which detected water.
Both the left and right-side fuel boost pumps, one in the root of each wing, were energized with
a battery, and both pumped fuel from their respective sump tanks immediately adjacent. Both
fuel samples contained water and debris.
Samples taken from the sump tank, engine-driven fuel pump, and the carburetor bowl on the
airplane’s right side all contained water and debris.
The rubber gasket on the right-wing fuel cap was not installed.
Click to expand...
Yep....no new ways to kill ourselves.
 
"His most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) third-class medical certificate was issued on November 1, 2007."
 
MauleSkinner said:
It was noted in the report.
Click to expand...
if basic med is documented in a similar manner as class I/II/III, why would the report even need to mention his last class III ? seems odd. why not just say he was current with basic med?
 
eman1200 said:
if basic med is documented in a similar manner as class I/II/III, why would the report even need to mention his last class III ? seems odd. why not just say he was current with basic med?
Click to expand...
Why say there was no water in the left engine carburetor?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why say there was no water in the left engine carburetor?
Click to expand...
Based on findings discussed on page 3, looks like another ~20 sec and the left carb would have filled up with debris and water and failed that engine as well.
 
The whole point of the prelim is to state the facts. Left carb did not have water. The right did. The right tank didn't have a gasket.
 
I think there’s a lot of lessons that we can learn from this. All of us can be complacent in preflight or in a rush at times, or agitated and distracted by others. In addition, despite plenty of hours in the make and model of airplane, his skills were not up to the task of flying on a single engine that day. if you fly a twin, when was the last time you practiced single engine procedures? Instead of hating on this pilot and the rebuild rescue crew, I’m going to take these lessons and apply them to my own Flying
 
From the prelim:
The work included, but was not limited to, propeller governor rigging (both sides), the left side fuel quantity indicating system, alternator, alternator switch, and the left magneto on the right engine. The work was completed on the day of the accident.
Click to expand...

This breaks the most elementary approach to safety. No intention of a post-maintenance checkout flight, no proper pre-flight checks. I have no words...
 
I've watched Rebuild Rescue for quite some time. One of the things that struck me with the process around this aircraft is that no one with detailed knowledge of aircraft mx assumed overall responsibility during the repair.

The A&P presumably signed off on the repair work that was done. And did a quick annual. They fixed things that were broken.

However, I'm not sure a knowledgeable A&P ever stood back and considered the airplane had been sitting for years and maybe we need to look deeper than just fix what's broken and do an annnual.

After recently having various fuel system problems on my homebuilt, I had actually wondered when I watched these episodes if they ever went thru the fuel system from tanks to carb. There was nothing in the videos that suggest they did.

Based on the water and "detritus" in the fuel system I doubt they did. Water could have been picked up by the recent refuel, but detritus not likely.
 
And also from he NTSB preliminary report:
„The rubber gasket on the right-wing fuel cap was not installed.“
 
AV8R_87 said:
I've been told O-320s in Cherokees will make it pretty far into the takeoff process with the fuel valve set to OFF.
Click to expand...
I know someone who did do that and lucky for them the engine died just as they turn into the active.
 
Lndwarrior said:
I had actually wondered when I watched these episodes if they ever went thru the fuel system from tanks to carb. There was nothing in the videos that suggest they did.

Based on the water and "detritus" in the fuel system I doubt they did. Water could have been picked up by the recent refuel, but detritus not likely.
Click to expand...
For a plane that sat for a couple years, it's mind-blowing that they didn't give the fuel system a good look. I wonder if it was sheer luck that they didn't have a fuel-related failure on the way from Michigan, or if the water/debris was was introduced during/post maintenance in PA.
 
AV8R_87 said:
For a plane that sat for a couple years, it's mind-blowing that they didn't give the fuel system a good look. I wonder if it was sheer luck that they didn't have a fuel-related failure on the way from Michigan, or if the water/debris was was introduced during/post maintenance in PA.
Click to expand...
It’s almost as if they followed the model of barn-find cars you see these days-fresh gas, new plugs/wires/cap/rotor, new battery, new oil/filter, and let ‘er rip.

I would’ve hoped someone would have thought about the fact that you don’t get to coast to the side and push back to the garage in an airplane…
 
One thing to remember is youtube videos are edited for effect and not always for full context of the project and could be missing the some of the items mentioned above. Regardless, this same type scenario plays out in the real world more often than some people realize, and on occasion ends in the same manner. No youtube channel needed.
 
Bell206 said:
One thing to remember is youtube videos are edited for effect and not always for full context of the project and could be missing the some of the items mentioned above. Regardless, this same type scenario plays out in the real world more often than some people realize, and on occasion ends in the same manner. No youtube channel needed.
Click to expand...
Based on what they found in the fuel system so far, I think the balance shifts more towards the "they didn't do it" end.
schmookeeg said:
So was our influencer friend, presumably watching this go down, thinking "oh no I may have killed someone" or "oh man this is gonna get so many views"
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure his first thought was "I'm done, they'll sue me out of existence". I don't see a way that he can recover from this.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Based on what they found in the fuel system so far, I think the balance shifts more towards the "they didn't do it" end.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Wouldn't be the first time an aircraft that sat unused for extended periods had old, solidified deposits in the fuel system loosen up once it was serviced with fresh fuel. Sometimes even after several flights. I've also seen a shop towel eventually end up in an oil filter 120 hours after overhaul and 3 separate oil changes. Will be interesting what the factual and docket have to say.
 
Those engines can handle a lot of abuse. So my best guess is at the end the failure was ultimately caused by the water contamination.

I am pretty sure the report will include some language about the textbook-like hazardous attitude of the pilot
 
Hengelo said:
I don’t see any reason to speculate on what anyone’s first thoughts were, let alone to impugn a man like that.
Click to expand...

vilifying youtube influencers is its own reason. I would argue that the narcissism involved in starting up a "hey look at me" channel led straight to the death of this pilot.
 
As opposed to the narcissism involved in attacking strangers on an anonymous internet forum?
 
I don't think this accident has anything to do with YouTube. The report indicates that repairs were made the day of the flight:

The work included, but was not limited to, propeller governor rigging (both sides), the left side fuel quantity indicating system, alternator, alternator switch, and the left magneto on the right engine. The work was completed on the day of the accident.

After such maintenance, it would be prudent to do an extended run-up, fuel sample, etc. Seems like that was not done. Again, nothing to do with anything except the PIC making some bad decisions, which started with not checking for water in the fuel and being in a hurry, ultimately leading to the tragic result.
 
Darryl Snover said:
I don't think this accident has anything to do with YouTube. The report indicates that repairs were made the day of the flight:

The work included, but was not limited to, propeller governor rigging (both sides), the left side fuel quantity indicating system, alternator, alternator switch, and the left magneto on the right engine. The work was completed on the day of the accident.

After such maintenance, it would be prudent to do an extended run-up, fuel sample, etc. Seems like that was not done. Again, nothing to do with anything except the PIC making some bad decisions, which started with not checking for water in the fuel and being in a hurry, ultimately leading to the tragic result.
Click to expand...
Being in a hurry has everything to do with YouTube... in this case, it would appear, as well as trying to hard to do something on a budget.
 
Hengelo said:
I don’t see any reason to speculate on what anyone’s first thoughts were, let alone to impugn a man like that.
Click to expand...
In our amazingly litigious environment, it's one of the first thoughts people have when involved in serious mishaps. People have been sued for a lot less, and had to work hard to defend themselves. I think it was someone on this forum that had to put up with some guy renting (or stealing) a plane he was leasing back to a flight school, crashing it (on purpose?) and killing himself and his child. Took years to clear his name, and he was the textbook definition of being innocent. This is our wonderful (< - sarcasm) legal system, where such drivel can be brought in court and you have to spend your own money to defend yourself.
Darryl Snover said:
I don't think this accident has anything to do with YouTube.
Click to expand...
It has a lot to do with the youtube reality tv model. I bought "the cheapest plane on ebay". Can I "flip it for a profit"? Shoestring budgets and corner cuts don't do well in aviation. Especially when paired with lack of experience.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Being in a hurry has everything to do with YouTube... in this case.
Click to expand...
That's pretty wild speculation, especially since witnesses quoted the pilot as saying he was in a hurry because he had a return flight.

"According to company and airport employees at Chester County G. O. Carlson Airport (MQS), the pilot arrived around 1230 and made it clear that he was “in a hurry,” as he had a return flight from Knoxville, Tennessee, booked for 1800 that evening. He called the fuel truck multiple times and indicated to the linesmen that he was in a hurry and was not pleased with their delayed response to his fuel request."

I suppose it doesn't matter why, though. As PIC, he bore all the responsibility for ensuring the plane was airworthy, and on that, he failed.
 
Pilot was in a hurry and called for fuel several times and was upset with the time it was taking. Well hell he could of done a preflight while he was waiting. I spoke to someone who knew the pilot and he said "This will come back as 100% pilot error, and I bet he didn't even sump the fuel before he got in the plane, its just the way the guy is, a super guy to know, but just one of those jump in and go pilots" That was 2 days ago, before the prelim came out.
Damn
 
Darryl Snover said:
That's pretty wild speculation, especially since witnesses quoted the pilot as saying he was in a hurry because he had a return flight.

"According to company and airport employees at Chester County G. O. Carlson Airport (MQS), the pilot arrived around 1230 and made it clear that he was “in a hurry,” as he had a return flight from Knoxville, Tennessee, booked for 1800 that evening. He called the fuel truck multiple times and indicated to the linesmen that he was in a hurry and was not pleased with their delayed response to his fuel request."

I suppose it doesn't matter why, though. As PIC, he bore all the responsibility for ensuring the plane was airworthy, and on that, he failed.
Click to expand...
And why would the return flight matter if they didn't "need" to fly it that day? Why did they "need" to fly it if not for the cameras, and keeping interest on their project?

I've done "test" flights before - on new engines for break-in, after heavy maintenance, and once on a "new" used engine installation on an RV-6 before a ferry flight. I've never ONCE been in a "hurry" to fly an airplane that I think has a higher probability of killing me. If anything, I'd rather push it off if there's the tiniest smidge of a hint that something's off.
 
RyanShort1 said:
And why would the return flight matter if they didn't "need" to fly it that day? Why did they "need" to fly it if not for the cameras, and keeping interest on their project?

I've done "test" flights before - on new engines for break-in, after heavy maintenance, and once on a "new" used engine installation on an RV-6 before a ferry flight. I've never ONCE been in a "hurry" to fly an airplane that I think has a higher probability of killing me.
Click to expand...
You're right - the PIC didn't NEED to fly it that day. Likely felt some pressure, though:

"The purpose of the flight was to deliver the airplane to its new owner."

Has to do with a failure to do a preflight, which has killed pilots whether or not 'on YouTube'. Especially after maintenance. No mention of cameras having been fitted to the plane, although if there were, the FAA will no doubt use that as part of the final report evidence.
 
Hengelo said:
As opposed to the narcissism involved in attacking strangers on an anonymous internet forum?
Click to expand...

Which has the higher body count? Are you pleased with how this whole thing shook out? Seemed like a basic day in general aviation, or something preventable and pressured into being?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top