Dale Snodgrass crash in Idaho

Here's a drawing of the L-19 Birddog gust lock. It is quite ingenious since it locks everything, including the brakes. I found it almost impossible to access the front seat with the gust lock in place. If the gust lock for the SIAI Marchetti 1019 is anything like this, it would be impossible for the pilot to miss. I understand that the SM 1019 is basically a highly-modified Birddog, but I'm unfamiliar with the SM 1019 and don't know how much of the L-19 was adopted, modified or re-engineered; consequently, I don't know if the gust lock shown in Juan Brown's video is anything like the L-19's. The photo of the gust lock that Juan Brown posted, does not look like the L-19's. I have been hoping that someone with access to an SM 1019 could post a video or photo of its gust lock, so that we can either pursue the gust lock as a factor or put it to bed.

upload_2021-8-15_17-14-34.png
 
Capngrog said:
Here's a drawing of the L-19 Birddog gust lock. It is quite ingenious since it locks everything, including the brakes. I found it almost impossible to access the front seat with the gust lock in place. If the gust lock for the SIAI Marchetti 1019 is anything like this, it would be impossible for the pilot to miss. I understand that the SM 1019 is basically a highly-modified Birddog, but I'm unfamiliar with the SM 1019 and don't know how much of the L-19 was adopted, modified or re-engineered; consequently, I don't know if the gust lock shown in Juan Brown's video is anything like the L-19's. The photo of the gust lock that Juan Brown posted, does not look like the L-19's. I have been hoping that someone with access to an SM 1019 could post a video or photo of its gust lock, so that we can either pursue the gust lock as a factor or put it to bed.

View attachment 99200
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Here’s a good video on it.

 
RyanB said:
Exactly.

Here’s a good video on it.
Click to expand...
It isn't. He has his mind made up and ruled out the control lock on the basis of not being able to taxi with it engaged. What if it wasn't engaged during taxi? Why couldn't the pilot have used it as a parking brake and forgot to release it? Looks like his legs could have straddled the latching mechanism, but he doesn't address it at all. In my experience, parking brakes are not reliable under much power.

Then he launches into the electric trim system, saying it could have been wired backwards. Well, why isn't the elevator deflected to compensate for that? Not a well thought out analysis, IMO.
 
dtuuri said:
It isn't. He has his mind made up and ruled out the control lock on the basis of not being able to taxi with it engaged. What if it wasn't engaged during taxi? Why couldn't the pilot have used it as a parking brake and forgot to release it? Looks like his legs could have straddled the latching mechanism, but he doesn't address it at all. In my experience, parking brakes are not reliable under much power.

Then he launches into the electric trim system, saying it could have been wired backwards. Well, why isn't the elevator deflected to compensate for that? Not a well thought out analysis, IMO.
Click to expand...
You seem to have things figured out before the rest of the crowd, so I’ll leave you with it.
 
RyanB said:
You seem to have things figured out before the rest of the crowd, so I’ll leave you with it.
Click to expand...
I have nothing "figured out". I think Brown should keep more of an open mind to possibilities. If you look at the one minute frame on the video posted here the plane is in knife edge flight and the pilot is not able to deflect any of the three control surfaces. That isn't explained by trim system malfunction. Controls locked for takeoff isn't dismissed by the ability to taxi to the runway either. I've engaged the control lock in windy conditions while awaiting takeoff and I'm sure I'm not the only one who ever thought of it. However, I'd keep my hand on it as a reminder in addition to the design feature that blocked the throttles from advancing.
 
Anyone have METAR or other wind data at the time of the accident?

Personally, I think the notion of engaging a gust lock while waiting to take off is the second most bonkers thing I have seen on the internet today. Most days it would win, but today our incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan takes the prize.
 
Here’s another thought, though a number of years removed, a ‘control check’ was near & dear to a carrier pilot’s procedure. That would be the ‘wipe-out’ before the cat shot.

Does that bring us back to ‘building materials’ and then some sliding during the early portion of the reported STOL takeoff? I also find it hard to believe a lock was in place, tailwheel pilots like to move that stick around.

An unknown by me if any work was done with the plane, while it was there for 3+ weeks, reportedly.
 
I've been staring at the film in slo mo on a large monitor. It's hard to tell and admittedly there is confirmation bias at work, but I think you can see significant down elevator deflection in the video from the time the aircraft begins to pitch up until the wing over. Take a close look at 0:56 to 0:57.

snort.JPG
 
dtuuri said:
I have nothing "figured out"...the pilot is not able to deflect any of the three control surfaces.
Click to expand...
That is what's known in engineering circles as a "glaring contradiction." Well, technically it isn't because you really haven't figured it out, but you seem to think you have.

Nauga,
with cause and effect
 
Ed Haywood said:
Anyone have METAR or other wind data at the time of the accident?

Personally, I think the notion of engaging a gust lock while waiting to take off is the second most bonkers thing I have seen on the internet today. Most days it would win, but today our incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan takes the prize.
Click to expand...

It would never occur to me to do that, and Holy ### are you right about the other thing. Also IBTL.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I've been staring at the film in slo mo on a large monitor. It's hard to tell and admittedly there is confirmation bias at work, but I think you can see significant down elevator deflection in the video from the time the aircraft begins to pitch up until the wing over. Take a close look at 0:56 to 0:57.

View attachment 99205
Click to expand...

I’ve been doing the same thing and have concluded that the resolution just isn’t clear enough to rule out optical illusions from lighting and such. Same with thinking I can’t see him in the cockpit; possibly tricks of the light just make it look like he’s not there. I still think there is a good chance he’s bending down trying to fix something. There just isn’t enough info without knowing what the NTSB found wrt the controls.
 
nauga said:
That is what's known in engineering circles as a "glaring contradiction." Well, technically it isn't because you really haven't figured it out, but you seem to think you have.

Nauga,
with cause and effect
Click to expand...
Y'know, you seem to think you know what I'm thinking, but you don't. All we have is what we can see (and hear) and our experience. I spent two years doing nothing else but rigging flight controls. It wouldn't be the first time someone ever took off with the rigging pins left in, so that's just one more possibility. If you can believe what you see at 1:00 in the video none of the controls are deflected and there's a highly experienced pilot at the controls with his hand on the stick and finger on the mic button and he knows he's going to crash. Is he trying to disable the trim and has the wrong button? Why no rudder then? Why is the plane descending, not climbing, if he intentionally rolled in the bank to pull the nose down? All he'd need do is let off some forward pressure and bank less. Etc, etc,.

All I thought I'd do is point out how some of these theories don't carry water, if you can believe your eyes, that is. The only place I know where the three flight controls connect is at the control lock. Every other idea I've read so far doesn't explain the streamlined control surfaces. But I don't "know" what caused the crash and you don't know what I'm thinking.
 
To me, the audio means that he was aware of whatever the situation was, and knew it was bad. That suggests to me that something was mechanically wrong, or CG was way off. The video seems to show no effective elevator movement to me, but I'm not sure about the rudder. Having the elevator stuck could cause this, but I wouldn't jump to assume it was locked or jammed before the takeoff roll. My bet is still on something happening during the takeoff roll that jammed the elevator or controls. Either shifting cargo, or a mechanical problem that froze the controls or disabled the use of forward stick. Yes, that's rare, but when you eliminate the other possibilities, rare can become the most likely option.
 
dtuuri said:
Y'know, you seem to think you know what I'm thinking, but you don't.
Click to expand...
All I have is your words in your posts describing what the pilot could and could not, was and was not doing. You're not involved in the investigation and you weren't with him in the cockpit, so you don't have facts, only opinions. Yes, from your own words I know what you are thinking, unless you're being deceptive.

Nauga,
who reads words not minds
 
nauga said:
All I have is your words in your posts describing what the pilot could and could not, was and was not doing. You're not involved in the investigation and you weren't with him in the cockpit, so you don't have facts, only opinions. Yes, from your own words I know what you are thinking, unless you're being deceptive.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure if he could move the controls he would have saved his own life. If that's an opinion not a fact, I'm guilty. Other than that, I have no opinion on the cause of this accident, but I've thrown out some possibilities that theorists here haven't seemed to consider.
 
Ed Haywood said:
On a plane? Never use 'em, don't trust 'em.
Click to expand...
The reason you don't trust them is the same as me, no doubt. But this plane had a powerful (I presume) turbine engine and if the prop can't be managed to render zero thrust or reverse there could be a lot of residual thrust making brake holding uncomfortable. I don't know if it would be a factor, but then how many here know better? So, it is conceivable to me, in the absence of actually knowing how the power management on the ground really is, that a pilot might use the control lock to hold the brakes. Maybe it isn't needed or isn't recommended, I don't know. But it is something to be considered as possible.
 
dtuuri said:
The reason you don't trust them is the same as me, no doubt. But this plane had a powerful (I presume) turbine engine and if the prop can't be managed to render zero thrust or reverse there could be a lot of residual thrust making brake holding uncomfortable. I don't know if it would be a factor, but then how many here know better? So, it is conceivable to me, in the absence of actually knowing how the power management on the ground really is, that a pilot might use the control lock to hold the brakes. Maybe it isn't needed or isn't recommended, I don't know. But it is something to be considered as possible.
Click to expand...
I had considered that also ..... engaging the gust-lock-brakes once he was lined up on the runway ... presumably to to an extended run-up of his engine or something.

However , just before the takeoff run the plane had slowly and easily rolled ahead until full power was applied , and takeoff run did not appear restricted by brakes etc. I think we can rule that out
 
Albany Tom said:
Yes, that's rare, but when you eliminate the other possibilities, rare can become the most likely option.
Click to expand...
Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth......:rolleyes:
 
I watched the video and it appears to me that there may have been an attempt to lift the tail as power was first applied. Perhaps, like others, I'm seeing things (or wanting to see things) that aren't there. It may just be an illusion from the lighting and shadows.

It also appears that the initial pitch up was near normal before suddenly increasing. This may indeed indicate a cargo shift that left the plane too tail heavy.

I also wonder why the power wasn't immediately pulled back. I know that things were happening in a hurry and he would have had a great startle factor but he is also a highly seasoned & professional pilot. Keeping the throttle covered during take offs was taught early in my training.

Regardless of the reason ... this is such a horrific tragedy!
 
Daleandee said:
I watched the video and it appears to me that there may have been an attempt to lift the tail as power was first applied. Perhaps, like others, I'm seeing things (or wanting to see things) that aren't there. It may just be an illusion from the lighting and shadows.

It also appears that the initial pitch up was near normal before suddenly increasing. This may indeed indicate a cargo shift that left the plane too tail heavy.

I also wonder why the power wasn't immediately pulled back. I know that things were happening in a hurry and he would have had a great startle factor but he is also a highly seasoned & professional pilot. Keeping the throttle covered during take offs was taught early in my training.

Regardless of the reason ... this is such a horrific tragedy!
Click to expand...

Pilots screw up....it happens.

The Caribou video I posted had two highly experienced pilots on board. The Gulfstream article I posted had two professional pilots on board.

Prelim is out https://t.co/5xi7BOxW3P?amp=1
 
Last edited:
Daleandee said:
I watched the video and it appears to me that there may have been an attempt to lift the tail as power was first applied. Perhaps, like others, I'm seeing things (or wanting to see things) that aren't there. It may just be an illusion from the lighting and shadows.

It also appears that the initial pitch up was near normal before suddenly increasing. This may indeed indicate a cargo shift that left the plane too tail heavy.

I also wonder why the power wasn't immediately pulled back. I know that things were happening in a hurry and he would have had a great startle factor but he is also a highly seasoned & professional pilot. Keeping the throttle covered during take offs was taught early in my training.

Regardless of the reason ... this is such a horrific tragedy!
Click to expand...

I see the same things on initial roll and initial pitch up. The tail attitude is really hard to tell because of pixelization, but the pitch definitely increases dramatically as the aircraft leaves ground effect.

Pulling power would be a counterintuitive and non-reflexive reaction. Maybe it would have made an accident more survivable by stopping the climb and causing the aircraft to pancake rather than nose dive. But that conclusion belongs to hindsight. I strongly doubt anyone could process that OODA loop in the 2 seconds it took for events to play out.
 
There has been A LOT of back and forth on this forum concerning the control surface gust lock(s). I think that from the drawing of the L-19 gust locking mechanism I included in my Post #202, it's pretty evident that a pilot would have had just about all of his sensory input circuits shut down not to notice that such a locking mechanism was engaged. I have searched the internet "far and wide" looking for information about the SM-1019 gust lock system, but have found nothing other than the unclear photograph included in Juan Brown's video. I'm surprised that there isn't anyone on this forum who is familiar with the SM-1019 or knows of someone familiar with the airplane. Without that knowledge, we don't now how much, if any, the SM-1019 gust lock system varies from that of the L-19 Birddog.

As to engaging parking brakes via a gust lock system while awaiting takeoff ... a bad idea in my opinion. Remember we're talking about a very powerful tailwheel aircraft here. My theory (guess) is that had the wheel brakes been engaged as Snort began his takeoff roll, the airplane would have immediately started to nose over. Even if the brakes were not locked, but merely dragging, the sluggish acceleration and tendency to nose over would have alerted Snort that something was amiss. Trying to pull the stick aft in an attempt to prevent the nose over would have encountered the locked control, again sending a message that something was not right. The only thing I've ever locked while awaiting take off, was the tail wheel lock in a DC-3.
 
dtuuri said:
I'm pretty sure if he could move the controls he would have saved his own life. If that's an opinion not a fact, I'm guilty.
Click to expand...
That you are pretty sure of it is a fact, that it is true is an opinion. Using that opinion to develop scenarios to investigate is a valid technique, basing conclusions on that opinion is not. There is way too much of the latter in these accident threads.

Nauga,
after the fact
 
texasclouds said:
I know pulling power wouldn’t have been my reaction with the nose high.
Click to expand...

I do concede that point. Probably wouldn't have done it either. I guess my hope is to watch the video and see a different outcome ...
 
nauga said:
That you are pretty sure of it is a fact, that it is true is an opinion. Using that opinion to develop scenarios to investigate is a valid technique, basing conclusions on that opinion is not. There is way too much of the latter in these accident threads.

Nauga,
after the fact
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I'm a bit of an accident investigation junkie, having been involved with such work most of my working life. I frequently encounter posts by people feeling that these accident discussions involve too much opinion and conjecture and that we should wait for the official report. Well, as far as U.S. Aviation accidents are concerned, we wait a couple of weeks for the NTSB Preliminary, then 1-2 years for the final. That's a long time considering that what may have been the cause of that particular accident would be still out there, just lurking to claim more lives. Knowledgeable opinion and speculation (as found on this forum for example), can be very useful and can even save lives. For example, in the case of Snort's tragic crash, I'll bet there is a lot of speculation and opinion circulating throughout the aviation community, and NO ONE involved in those discussions is presently ignoring pre-flights, post maintenance pre-flights, gust locks, loose items in the cockpit fouling the controls etc. Well, I'm sure some are still ignoring these things, but to put it gently: "Those folks just can't be helped".

To shorten an overly long and wandering narrative: "Keep it up with the opinion and conjecture guys".
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
That you are pretty sure of it is a fact, that it is true is an opinion.
Click to expand...
Whatever. :rolleyes: In my opinion he didn't want to die, but couldn't save himself. Most would probably say that's a fact. I have not made any conclusions, despite your insistence to the contrary, and stand by what I said the other day:

"You'd think something would be deflected if it was at all possible. So, I'm pretty sure they'll find the controls were locked. Perhaps by external gust locks? Perhaps the pilot temporarily set the control lock before takeoff and forgot to release it?"​
 
I think if his controls worked, he could easily fly out of it, the high attitude.
 
Capngrog said:
Knowledgeable opinion and speculation (as found on this forum for example), can be very useful and can even save lives.
Click to expand...
Knowledgeable opinion and speculation has a place in accident investigation. We may differ on where that place is, and we certainly differ on what constitutes 'knowledgeable.' I think trying to learn from sheer conjecture based largely on "what I would have done" or "What I've seen in a completely different airplane' is akin to studying for a written exam using an answer key with wrong answers for all the questions. It might make you think, but there's no assurance that there's any validity in what you're thinking about and no assurance that you aren't missing something even more important.

Capngrog said:
To shorten an overly long and wandering narrative: "Keep it up with the opinion and conjecture guys".
Click to expand...
Nauga's corollary: Don't be offended when someone calls you on your BS. Try to learn from it.

Nauga,
who is not inexperienced, but prefers to trade resumes in person
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
It seems like an examination of the wreckage or even a report by someone who saw the wreckage intact would quickly indicate whether here was a large cargo load that might have shifted.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...maybe someone who has access to the wreckage will do that. I wonder who that might be....?

Nauga,
methodically
 
dtuuri said:
I have not made any conclusions, despite your insistence to the contrary, and stand by what I said the other day: [...] "You'd think something would be deflected if it was at all possible.
Click to expand...
You appear to have reached a conclusion that the controls were not deflected. If you agree that they may be deflected and that you just can't discern it from your sources then I am in error, as is your 'analysis' that follows.

Nauga,
unstuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top