Mike Patey PT-6 Explosion on way to OSH

Kenny Phillips

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
5,492
Display Name

Display name:
Kenny Phillips
This guy has adventures.
This is in the Turbulence race plane.
 
He is pushing the envelope with everything he does … I remember a few years back he barely escaped his Draco crash in Reno.
I would be afraid that one day my luck would run out …
 
I give him credit for wanting to be high profile celebrity status. Everyone at Oshkosh will now have someone to beat up on all week. :deadhorse:
 
I know he's got the hordes of sycophants and Musk-like idolation/blind following as some sort of innovator savior of GA, but I find his "look at all the expensive sh%t that gets blown up like it's nothing" shtick just low-key $ humblebrag tbh. 2/10 would not recommend. Flame away.
 
I know he's got the hordes of sycophants and Musk-like idolation/blind following as some sort of innovator savior of GA, but I find his "look at all the expensive sh%t that gets blown up like it's nothing" shtick just low-key $ humblebrag tbh. 2/10 would not recommend. Flame away.
I agree but I would not compare him to Musk - this guy is creating Frankenstein-like contraptions for his own use while Musk runs companies selling hundreds of thousands of advanced cars, continuously delivering ****load of cargo into space with reusable rockets at half the cost, providing fast and reliable Internet access to most remote locations on this planet and now even running a glorified internet message board so yeah … both of these guys play completely different ball.
 
I know he's got the hordes of sycophants and Musk-like idolation/blind following as some sort of innovator savior of GA, but I find his "look at all the expensive sh%t that gets blown up like it's nothing" shtick just low-key $ humblebrag tbh. 2/10 would not recommend. Flame away.
Well huh… I thought it was just me. He does impressive work, yet I just can’t stand to watch his videos.
 
Wow he can talk. Your turbine blades came from together dude. It happens and especially on an engine he seemed not to know much about judging from the first part of the video. What he needs to know is what they may have found on the last hot section inspection instead of praising Garmin on something that does nothing but monitor engine parameters until it doesn’t. I don’t have anything against him as I’ve been impressed with the innovation he’s introduced in his builds. Just glad he’s okay and can easily afford to fix his airplane.
 
Not sure id have the nerves or the juevos to suffer an engine out and immediately start shooting a video on the event.

Kiss the ground. Call family. Figure out how to finish the trip. But not turn up the influencer. Not everything needs to be shared. At least not immediately. Especially not from a guy with his means where the influencer thing is not top 5 on the income list.
 
I see its described as a "race plane". Where does it race? What class or organization?
 
I see its described as a "race plane". Where does it race? What class or organization?
"In the quest for even more speed, Mike continued to modify his Legacy. In the unlimited category, he finished the 2013 Sport Air Racing League season as the only undefeated racer, setting multiple track records. At the Mojave Experimental Fly-In in 2014, he broke speed records in the 1,000- and 2,000-kilometer courses with a top speed of 319 mph. The following year, he took second place in the AirVenture Cup Race and didn’t like it. He came back in 2016 with Turbulence, a heavily modified Lancair Legacy and set a world record for the fastest single-engine turboprop with a speed of 438.02 mph. Turbulence has an 850-hp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-42 engine, custom five-blade MT propeller, and custom cowling, wings, and tail section. The entire fuselage is reinforced, and the airframe is 7 inches wider and 4 feet longer than a Legacy with a 32 percent larger rudder and tail."
 
I agree but I would not compare him to Musk - this guy is creating Frankenstein-like contraptions for his own use while Musk runs companies selling hundreds of thousands of advanced cars, continuously delivering ****load of cargo into space with reusable rockets at half the cost, providing fast and reliable Internet access to most remote locations on this planet and now even running a glorified internet message board so yeah … both of these guys play completely different ball.
Actually, Mike and Mark have several businesses, and they talk about only one, Best Tugs, in videos.
 
Not sure id have the nerves or the juevos to suffer an engine out and immediately start shooting a video on the event.

Kiss the ground. Call family. Figure out how to finish the trip. But not turn up the influencer. Not everything needs to be shared. At least not immediately. Especially not from a guy with his means where the influencer thing is not top 5 on the income list.
Doesn't that make it more valuable? There were those looking to see Turbulence at OSH. He explained why he wouldn't be there. He's as outgoing as I am introverted—that is to say, very much. Heart-on-sleeve.
 
Actually, Mike and Mark have several businesses, and they talk about only one, Best Tugs, in videos.
I can get annoyed at click-bait very quickly, and while I don't at all consider myself a Mike Patey sychophant, I honestly don't get the haters viewpoint on this guy. While there's an absolute glut of YT channels out there whose owners have no productive life in the real world, this guy has a ton of real world accomplishments that started long before his YT channel heated up.
Doesn't that make it more valuable? There were those looking to see Turbulence at OSH. He explained why he wouldn't be there.
Otherwise he would have been mobbed all the time he was at OSH with questions as to what happened and why it's not there (probably still will be). Now he can just say, "check out my YT video where I tell the whole story".
 
Doesn't that make it more valuable? There were those looking to see Turbulence at OSH. He explained why he wouldn't be there. He's as outgoing as I am introverted—that is to say, very much. Heart-on-sleeve.
It would be valuable if it was a primary source of income. I suspect his youtube bucks are a pittance to his other sources. Like you, I'm very introverted and so I don't understand peoples incessant need to put out "look at me" things
 
While there's an absolute glut of YT channels out there whose owners have no productive life in the real world, this guy has a ton of real world accomplishments that started long before his YT channel heated up.
What if, now hear me out...

What if ALL the YouTube celebrity pilots suck?
 
Well, at least Mike Patey is more interesting than that “Raptor” guy. Mike’s stuff is pretty well engineered and most discussions aren’t centered around what he is doing wrong, but what Mike is doing.
 
I met this guy irl. I should get a prize! A POA badge!

No, wait, does the new software have polls? I’ll have chatAI write up a few stories and everyone can vote on which one is true

Yes I’m just joking around. Surprised a bit by the reactions up thread
 
While the threads about the OSH T-6 crash and helicopter/gyroplane collision have commentary about Dan Gryder's blather regarding the incidents, no one has mentioned his dissection of Patey's engine failure and dead stick landing on RWY 31 at Rochester International Airport (KRST) from FL27. I'll be that guy. It might not be precise and all encompassing, but I'm just SGOTI.

It would be too boring to discuss all of his nonsense, so I'll stick to Gryder's incorrect first impressions of the incident and just two of his explanations (there were many others) of how Mike violated good ADM standards and made questionable decisions after the engine failure and during his emergency descent.

After viewing the video Patey released shortly after he landed at KRST, Gryder was initially critical of his apparent failure to declare an emergency. It wasn't until he interviewed Mike that he discovered the radio communications inserted into Patey's video did not include all of the transmissions between controllers and N707MM, and that he had declared an emergency just seconds after the engine exploded.

The criticism of flying at 27,000' above a cloud layer in an experimental aircraft powered by a untested engine:

Gryder: There was "just five hours" of flight time on the PT-6. That was unacceptable risk, and when the engine failed, he had to descend through IMC for an extended time. Patey should have been aware of the possibility of failure, and should have been at lower altitude and flying VFR.

Me: Five hours in that aircraft, and a few thousand on the wing of a commuter. It had been on scheduled maintenance and inspections were current. The catastrophic failure of a PT-6 at altitude is almost unheard of. The aircraft's altitude gave Patey time and distance to choose an airport with long runways and a ARFF Index B rating. Gryder wouldn't know proper risk assessment and mitigation if it was a salmon filet that slapped him in the face.

Besides all that, Patey built the airplane to go fast in the flight levels, not to chug along using flight following and burning lots of Jet A. That wouldn't make for an impressive flight and arrival at AirVenture, which was the reason for flying on oxygen and traveling at 493 MPH. (I'll note the irony of that statement. He did indeed make an impression. :D )

Next, his comments on the landing:

Gryder: Ignoring Patey's smooth deadstick touchdown and rollout on RWY 31, DTSB expert says he should have landed the aircraft wheels up in the grass at KRST. He claims it would have been safer, because Mike touched down at 140 kts, and the gear and brakes could have been compromised by the engine explosion. There was also the danger of fire, because if the gear had failed, the airplane would have been showering sparks on the concrete runway. A nice sliding stop on the manicured grass would have been the correct choice.

Me: What the hell are you talking about? RWY 31/13 is 9,034' of 150' wide smooth concrete. Brakes were not needed. Sparks? The aircraft is constructed with composite materials. Even if the gear had folded up, the airplane almost certainly would have quickly skidded to a stop without the danger of a fire. Landing in the grass? The airport site is over 400 acres, and the crossing RWY 20/2 is 7,301'.

That much acreage and paved area requires a massive drainage system with concrete inlets, culverts, and sloped grading parallel to the runways and taxiways. In addition to those obstacles, there are also other structures adjacent to RWY 31/13 visible in satellite photos. Land in that nice green grass at 140 kts, and an element of the drainage system will at least rip off the wings. It might cause a fire or destroy the entire aircraft.

Which is a safer choice, the runway, or the grass? Duh.

Gryder's video is 41 minutes of nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Gryder's video is 41 minutes of nonsense.
I appreciate you taking one for the team and watching it so we don't have to.

[...] wouldn't know proper risk assessment and mitigation if it was a salmon filet that slapped him in the face.
We aren't worthy.
 
Gryder's video is 41 minutes of nonsense
Beginning with the nonsense of including Mike's event in a compilation titled "10 more senseless GA losses"... :rolleyes:
Could Mike have done some things better? Sure... maybe. The fact remains the plane, pilot, and passenger made a runway without a scratch (or, additional scratches, at least), and did it without closing said runway. That's a success in my book.
 
Yeah, that gear-up land-in-the grass comment was dumb. To the uninitiated, it might sound smart.

I wonder if some of the things I give him credit for are just because I am uninitiated on certain things. I thought his AQP stuff was pretty good, me coming from the safety side career-wise, but is it really? Now I’m not so sure.
 
Landing gear up should be on a hard surface, like a runway. Uneven surfaces, like the grass between the runways will toss the airplane up and down and cause lots of damage. A smooth surface and a gentle(-ish) landing will likely only tear up the points of contact.

Seen it many times...
 
Gryder: Ignoring Patey's smooth deadstick touchdown and rollout on RWY 31, DTSB expert says he should have landed the aircraft wheels up in the grass at KRST. He claims it would have been safer, because Mike touched down at 140 kts, and the gear and brakes could have been compromised by the engine explosion. There was also the danger of fire, because if the gear had failed, the airplane would have been showering sparks on the concrete runway. A nice sliding stop on the manicured grass would have been the correct choice.

Me: What the hell are you talking about? RWY 31/13 is 9,034' of 150' wide smooth concrete. Brakes were not needed. Sparks? The aircraft is constructed with composite materials. Even if the gear had folded up, the airplane almost certainly would have quickly skidded to a stop without the danger of a fire. Landing in the grass? The airport site is over 400 acres, and the crossing RWY 20/2 is 7,301'.

That much acreage and paved area requires a massive drainage system with concrete inlets, culverts, and sloped grading parallel to the runways and taxiways. In addition to those obstacles, there are also other structures adjacent to RWY 31/13 visible in satellite photos. Land in that nice green grass at 140 kts, and an element of the drainage system will at least rip off the wings. It might cause a fire or destroy the entire aircraft.

Which is a safer choice, the runway, or the grass? Duh.
Even keeping in mind that we're talking about a guy that threatened to run over a police car with a DC3, demanded that the police allow him to refuel and fly away, was suspended from delta, publishes videos in which he refuses to turn over pieces of crash debris to the NTSB for their investigation, got suspended from YT for spreading covid misinformation, is charged with tax evasion, nearly blew over a cub at airventure (is he banned from the event for that?) - this is "he should have landed in the grass" thing is still the dumbest thing he's yet said.

Everything quoted above is true, and to add to it: There is also the very real risk of some piece of the bottom of that plane digging into the turf and taking the plane from 140kt to 0kt in about 18 inches. And that's true in the case of a simple engine failure. In the case of an explosion, when the pilot doesn't know what the bottom of the cowl looks like, it would be even more of a fools errand.

But this is a guy who thinks he saved the day flipping a plane in a cornfield. So there is no reasoning with him. I was there that day, BTW. And *way* before he wrecked the plane, when he was approaching the STOL strip in a plane not equipped to use it, the three of us watching collectively had comments along the lines of "what is this jackass doing" (not knowing at the time that it was DG. He's also been uninvited from hosting that event ever again, BTW).

One can think of ways to explain any one of those incidents away, but the pattern with this guy has been established for years at this point. I think he's a menace to the industry and will be glad when he just goes away and attends full time to his fake animal charity (which isn't a registered charity, so who knows what happens to the money he collects as there are no filing requirements).
 
Gryder comes across as a sim player who’s never been in a real airplane. Juat another Youtube commenter, like the gamers who try to “correct” real fighter pilots for not wearing gloves.
 
Gryder comes across as a sim player who’s never been in a real airplane. Juat another Youtube commenter, like the gamers who try to “correct” real fighter pilots for not wearing gloves.
Not to me. But then again, I know his history and experience, and somewhat demented sense of humor.
 
Landing gear up should be on a hard surface, like a runway. Uneven surfaces, like the grass between the runways will toss the airplane up and down and cause lots of damage. A smooth surface and a gentle(-ish) landing will likely only tear up the points of contact.

Seen it many times...

As someone who has spent a career maintaining those grass areas on an airport, I vote pavement every time! Yes the grass safety areas are supposed to be maintained smooth and free of unnecessary obstructions, but there are still signs, lights, drain intakes, manholes, animal holes, survey stakes, and lord knows what else. You have no idea what all could be out there, and most is hard if not impossible to spot from an aircraft. Not to mention it can make emergency response and recovery more difficult if the heavy equipment isn't able to get there without getting stuck.

There is zero advantage to landing in the grass, the aircraft is still going to be damaged. The pavement is a sure thing. The only risk on pavement is sparks on the pavement, of which aluminum and composite don't spark, so the risk is minimal. 99% of intentional gear up landings result in zero injuries, and superficial damage to the airframe. The worst part is the prop and engine.
 
Even keeping in mind that we're talking about a guy that threatened to run over a police car with a DC3, demanded that the police allow him to refuel and fly away, was suspended from delta, publishes videos in which he refuses to turn over pieces of crash debris to the NTSB for their investigation, got suspended from YT for spreading covid misinformation, is charged with tax evasion, nearly blew over a cub at airventure (is he banned from the event for that?) - this is "he should have landed in the grass" thing is still the dumbest thing he's yet said.

Everything quoted above is true, and to add to it: There is also the very real risk of some piece of the bottom of that plane digging into the turf and taking the plane from 140kt to 0kt in about 18 inches. And that's true in the case of a simple engine failure. In the case of an explosion, when the pilot doesn't know what the bottom of the cowl looks like, it would be even more of a fools errand.

But this is a guy who thinks he saved the day flipping a plane in a cornfield. So there is no reasoning with him. I was there that day, BTW. And *way* before he wrecked the plane, when he was approaching the STOL strip in a plane not equipped to use it, the three of us watching collectively had comments along the lines of "what is this jackass doing" (not knowing at the time that it was DG. He's also been uninvited from hosting that event ever again, BTW).

One can think of ways to explain any one of those incidents away, but the pattern with this guy has been established for years at this point. I think he's a menace to the industry and will be glad when he just goes away and attends full time to his fake animal charity (which isn't a registered charity, so who knows what happens to the money he collects as there are no filing requirements).
His hot take on this particular incident has me concluding that if he stays online spewing this kind of nonsense long enough, one of his followers has a good chance of being featured in one of his videos.
 
I can get annoyed at click-bait very quickly, and while I don't at all consider myself a Mike Patey sychophant, I honestly don't get the haters viewpoint on this guy. While there's an absolute glut of YT channels out there whose owners have no productive life in the real world, this guy has a ton of real world accomplishments that started long before his YT channel heated up.

Otherwise he would have been mobbed all the time he was at OSH with questions as to what happened and why it's not there (probably still will be). Now he can just say, "check out my YT video where I tell the whole story".
I met Mike at my local airport during an air race. I liked him, seemed like a very genuine guy. He obviously has a lot of money to throw at his toys and they're fun to watch.

He lost me when he started whining that his insurance company wouldn't insure Draco for $1M. I replied to him that they shouldn't insure it at all. He purposely slams it into the ground over and over trying to win STOL competitions. He didn't like my response! Weeks later he balled it up taking off in a gusty 40kt crosswind. He had many pilots try to talk him out of taking off. I had a friend who was sitting in his tied down T6 just to get out of the horrible wind. Mike lined up and realized the crosswind was so strong it was compressing his opposite landing gear leg. He said he wanted to turn 90 degrees and take off, but didn't want to make the tower mad! For all of those who worship him though, right after the crash, he got out and started filming. I lost all respect for him. The only thing he does is get more attention to general aviation, not sure it's good, but I can't argue he has the followers.

YouTube can be a great source of entertainment, even education, but it's all about making money. This is why DG has to comment so quickly about an accident before he has any facts. This is why Stevie Triesenberg bends over in her short shorts so much while preflighting (not complaining).
 
While the threads about the OSH T-6 crash and helicopter/gyroplane collision have commentary about Dan Gryder's blather regarding the incidents, no one has mentioned his dissection of Patey's engine failure and dead stick landing on RWY 31 at Rochester International Airport (KRST) from FL27. I'll be that guy. It might not be precise and all encompassing, but I'm just SGOTI.

It would be too boring to discuss all of his nonsense, so I'll stick to Gryder's incorrect first impressions of the incident and just two of his explanations (there were many others) of how Mike violated good ADM standards and made questionable decisions after the engine failure and during his emergency descent.

After viewing the video Patey released shortly after he landed at KRST, Gryder was initially critical of his apparent failure to declare an emergency. It wasn't until he interviewed Mike that he discovered the radio communications inserted into Patey's video did not include all of the transmissions between controllers and N707MM, and that he had declared an emergency just seconds after the engine exploded.

The criticism of flying at 27,000' above a cloud layer in an experimental aircraft powered by a untested engine:

Gryder: There was "just five hours" of flight time on the PT-6. That was unacceptable risk, and when the engine failed, he had to descend through IMC for an extended time. Patey should have been aware of the possibility of failure, and should have been at lower altitude and flying VFR.

Me: Five hours in that aircraft, and a few thousand on the wing of a commuter. It had been on scheduled maintenance and inspections were current. The catastrophic failure of a PT-6 at altitude is almost unheard of. The aircraft's altitude gave Patey time and distance to choose an airport with long runways and a ARFF Index B rating. Gryder wouldn't know proper risk assessment and mitigation if it was a salmon filet that slapped him in the face.

Besides all that, Patey built the airplane to go fast in the flight levels, not to chug along using flight following and burning lots of Jet A. That wouldn't make for an impressive flight and arrival at AirVenture, which was the reason for flying on oxygen and traveling at 493 MPH. (I'll note the irony of that statement. He did indeed make an impression. :D )

Next, his comments on the landing:

Gryder: Ignoring Patey's smooth deadstick touchdown and rollout on RWY 31, DTSB expert says he should have landed the aircraft wheels up in the grass at KRST. He claims it would have been safer, because Mike touched down at 140 kts, and the gear and brakes could have been compromised by the engine explosion. There was also the danger of fire, because if the gear had failed, the airplane would have been showering sparks on the concrete runway. A nice sliding stop on the manicured grass would have been the correct choice.

Me: What the hell are you talking about? RWY 31/13 is 9,034' of 150' wide smooth concrete. Brakes were not needed. Sparks? The aircraft is constructed with composite materials. Even if the gear had folded up, the airplane almost certainly would have quickly skidded to a stop without the danger of a fire. Landing in the grass? The airport site is over 400 acres, and the crossing RWY 20/2 is 7,301'.

That much acreage and paved area requires a massive drainage system with concrete inlets, culverts, and sloped grading parallel to the runways and taxiways. In addition to those obstacles, there are also other structures adjacent to RWY 31/13 visible in satellite photos. Land in that nice green grass at 140 kts, and an element of the drainage system will at least rip off the wings. It might cause a fire or destroy the entire aircraft.

Which is a safer choice, the runway, or the grass? Duh.

Gryder's video is 41 minutes of nonsense.
You could just call out the entire history of Gryder as disrespectful BS and save a lot of typing. As an expert in the accident investigation field I can't watch two seconds of any of his videos without throwing something at the screen.
 
Back
Top