NTSB Says Mike Patey ‘Knowingly’ Installed Unserviceable Engine

If this is true (and it appears so) he will start to slide down a bit on the Respect=O-Meter ...
 
He's done enough successful, cool and interesting things that I'm very interested in hearing his thought process before moving him down a peg. But, man, the one side of the story we've heard so far doesn't seem good.
 
Daleandee said:
If this is true (and it appears so) he will start to slide down a bit on the Respect=O-Meter ...
Click to expand...
Yeah. I think he was donating the plane and wanted the cheapest powerplant possible; you'd think he'd fly it in with good power, and swap engines at the museum.
"Just one more flight out of this baby ..." makes me think of TLD items on the jet engines we built.
 
The engine was purchased by the operator on July 8, 2023, 12 days before the event. A review

of the purchase document revealed that the engine was in an unserviceable condition.

According to the one-page logbook, only a 200-hour periodic inspection was conducted before

the flight.
Click to expand...

This is from the NTSB report. I'd love to see a thought process that makes that make sense.
 
Daleandee said:
If this is true (and it appears so) he will start to slide down a bit on the Respect=O-Meter ...
Click to expand...
A bit? I don't know or follow any of the YouTubers (except Bryan....) but they all start low on my Respect-O-Meter. Intentionally building/flying an unairworthy plane for clicks? That gets him to less than zero in my book
 
Salty said:
This is from the NTSB report. I'd love to see a thought process that makes that make sense.
Click to expand...
Not to mention this: "[T]he engine was found
to be in poor overall condition with missing surface protective paint and surface corrosion
noted throughout the external and internal surfaces of the engine."

Building an unairworthy plane that you plan to fly yourself is incredibly stupid. Building one to donate that someone else might fly is criminally reckless.
 
Lindberg said:
A bit? I don't know or follow any of the YouTubers (except Bryan....) but they all start low on my Respect-O-Meter. Intentionally building/flying an unairworthy plane for clicks? That gets him to less than zero in my book
Click to expand...

I was seeking to be kind but you pretty well read my mind ... :biggrin:

ETA: I've never been a follower of Mike but there has been so much said about him and his exploits that it's hard not to know some of this. @Lowflynjack reminded me of parts of a story I heard before but didn't know much about it. I have to admit that it appears he might be easing into Trevor Jacob territory ...
 
Last edited:
Go back to his crash in Draco and you start to see a pattern here. Remember he threw a fit on social media because they wouldn't insure Draco for $1M, then balled it up taking off in a very high crosswind. People crucified me for saying anything negative about him.
 
Daleandee said:
If this is true (and it appears so) he will start to slide down a bit on the Respect=O-Meter ...
Click to expand...
Didn't read the full article.

He did say weeks later that buried in the logs there was an issue. He claimed he missed it. Is the NTSB saying he knew of the issue. Or that the issue was documented?

But yeah, there's a pattern
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Building one to donate that someone else might fly is criminally reckless.
Click to expand...
I believe they had to cut it up and patch it back together to display it. That plane is never flying again.
 
Get-there-itis? Oshkosh coming up, feeling pressure to follow through and have the plane there. IIRC the Draco mishap was the same - in a hurry to depart.

The guy is obviously off the charts Type A and got where he is by always pushing harder and jumping on opportunities. That has bitten thousands of pilots and always will.
 
Racerx said:
Didn't read the full article.

He did say weeks later that buried in the logs there was an issue. He claimed he missed it. Is the NTSB saying he knew of the issue. Or that the issue was documented?

But yeah, there's a pattern
Click to expand...
It must have been really buried deep on the page...

According to the one-page logbook, only a 200-hour periodic inspection was conducted before the flight.
Click to expand...
 
Patey claims in his video that the issue was an overlooked AD against the gearbox, buried somewhere in the engine paperwork.
 
A few interesting bits from the Docket report... Pratt sold the engine with missing data....They had no clue when the set of sun gears were installed in the gearbox and they owned the engine. There is no definition of what criteria was used to determine it was unserviceable. Without knowing that information and how they measure it, it's the equivalent of them shouting "squirrel"... They apparently didn't consider it so unservicable, as they didn't condemn it and sold it as a complete engine.
 
Craig said:
They apparently didn't consider it so unservicable, as they didn't condemn it and sold it as a complete engine.
Click to expand...
Nor would they in most cases. My guess given the exterior condition and 50 hours out of an HSI and standard OH, it was one of Leasco's rental fleet that lost its logbooks and wasn't worth the cost to OH. There's still value in those engines even without the records as shown in this purchase. But it is all on the buyer. The fact he didn't even attempt a quick borescope of the wheels is rather telling at least to me. Takes a lot to crater a PT6 like that. For those interested, link to the Docket Report: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Docume...ion=pdf&FileName=ENG23LA034 - Factual-Rel.pdf
 
Lowflynjack said:
Go back to his crash in Draco and you start to see a pattern here. Remember he threw a fit on social media because they wouldn't insure Draco for $1M, then balled it up taking off in a very high crosswind. People crucified me for saying anything negative about him.
Click to expand...

Yea, I’m not a fan boy. Balling up that plane was major league stupid…with his wife onboard too.
 
Racerx said:
Didn't read the full article.

He did say weeks later that buried in the logs there was an issue. He claimed he missed it. Is the NTSB saying he knew of the issue. Or that the issue was documented?

But yeah, there's a pattern
Click to expand...
You should read the NTSB report. It isn't long. Or was marked as unserviceable on the purchase paperwork and sold as such. Surely there's a noticable price difference between serviceable and unserviceable as well
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
I believe they had to cut it up and patch it back together to display it. That plane is never flying again.
Click to expand...
That wasn't his plan though, right? No, he was planning to fly it there and donate it in "airworthy" condition, when he knew it wasn't.
 
Craig said:
A few interesting bits from the Docket report... Pratt sold the engine with missing data....They had no clue when the set of sun gears were installed in the gearbox and they owned the engine. There is no definition of what criteria was used to determine it was unserviceable. Without knowing that information and how they measure it, it's the equivalent of them shouting "squirrel"... They apparently didn't consider it so unservicable, as they didn't condemn it and sold it as a complete engine.
Click to expand...
They considered it so unserviceable that they labeled it as "unserviceable." How much more unserviceable is there than "unserviceable"?

"The purchase document stated that the engine was sold as an unserviceable engine."

Since they didn't tell him what criteria they used to determine it was unserviceable, was it ok for him to decide it wasn't actually unserviceable?

:rolleyes:
 
I fly and find I am relaxing cause it requires concentration. Always found it hard to understand people who film themselves and find all that time to talk about stuff.

I also don’t get how they get so many views. I wonder if it’s mostly other pilots? Or non pilots? I’d rather fly than watch someone else does it.
 
Craig said:
A few interesting bits from the Docket report... Pratt sold the engine with missing data....They had no clue when the set of sun gears were installed in the gearbox and they owned the engine. There is no definition of what criteria was used to determine it was unserviceable. Without knowing that information and how they measure it, it's the equivalent of them shouting "squirrel"... They apparently didn't consider it so unservicable, as they didn't condemn it and sold it as a complete engine.
Click to expand...
Buying engine cores is as easy as buying any aircraft part. Nobody in their right mind assumes a core is airworthy.
 
Stewartb said:
Buying engine cores is as easy as buying any aircraft part. Nobody in their right mind assumes a core is airworthy.
Click to expand...

I bet Pratt will be a lot more careful selling core engines and who they sell them to.
What did Patey say to Pratt and did Pratt know it was going into service as is?

Back in the day a guy named Norm Bender sold run out aircraft engines to the Air Boat guys perfectly acceptable.
 
Lindberg said:
That wasn't his plan though, right? No, he was planning to fly it there and donate it in "airworthy" condition, when he knew it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Well, it was to be donated and never flown again so he was cheaping-out on the display engine.
 
Salty said:
It must have been really buried deep on the page...
Click to expand...
I hate being a YouTuber apologist. The NTSB knew there was 9000+ hours on the engine. 3500 since last overhaul. And so many hours since hot section. So I don't think the full logs consisted of one page.

I think Patey had the full logs from 1987.

However I read it as he only gave the ntsb a single page of the logbook which stated what he did since he took ownership. Which sounds like it was essentially an oil change but not inspecting the gearbox.
 
bonefishpete said:
I bet Pratt will be a lot more careful selling core engines and who they sell them to.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. Leasco (P&W) and others have been selling those type engines for years. There's zero liability on their part and the reason they sell them as unserviceable. This was all on the buyer.

Racerx said:
The NTSB knew there was 9000+ hours on the engine. 3500 since last overhaul. And so many hours since hot section.
Click to expand...
I took it from the docket report P&W was able to determine the TSO, TSHSI, etc from internal records same as they knew when the sun gear assy was produced in 2003 but they didn't know when the assy was installed in the engine. If this engine had all the records I doubt it would have been at a cost this buyer would have spent for this project. At least in my experience dealing with Leasco and similar.
 
Lindberg said:
Since they didn't tell him what criteria they used to determine it was unserviceable, was it ok for him to decide it wasn't actually unserviceable?
Click to expand...
Actually, as it was an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, it WAS up to him to decide if it were actually unserviceable. I don't believe it'd be back in the Phase 1 test period if it had previously carried the same model of engine. FAA records show the plane having a Continental, but these are never updated.

The accident report says the engine had been purchased three days before the Condition Inspection, but we don't know if the old or new engine had been on the plane at the time of the inspection.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Speaking of "unserviceable," I am reminded of the F-86 that plowed into an ice-cream parlor a few decades back. IIRC, the USAF had sawed the wing spar in half before selling the plane as scrap. The new owners had repaired the "scrap" fighter....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Lindberg said:
How did he know it would never be flown again? Did he plan to tell them after flying it in that it wasn't actually airworthy?
Click to expand...
I thought EAA called to put it on display after the rapid disassembly? Or maybe that's just the story Patey was peddling?
 
wanttaja said:
Actually, as it was an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, it WAS up to him to decide if it were actually unserviceable.
Click to expand...
Wow, I am amazed that's the case, even in an experimental. Still, deciding that an engine must actually be serviceable because the manufacturer didn't tell you why it decided it wasn't is nuclear-grade stupidity.
 
Stewartb said:
For us piston guys, this would be like buying a red-tagged engine, testing compression, timing mags, changing oil, and heading off across the country. Would you do that???
Click to expand...

Bell206 said:
Doubtful. Leasco (P&W) and others have been selling those type engines for years. There's zero liability on their part and the reason they sell them as unserviceable. This was all on the buyer.
Click to expand...

The above two quotes are worthy of thought. I don’t want anyone regulating me any more than I already am. I know better whether to risk my life and how (like flying) as long as I don’t hurt others’ pocketbook or life.

I’ve flown with what I considered minor squawks or conditions I thought were ok. Glass houses and all that, but I don’t know how serious everything was in turbine context or legally either.

Maybe he thought he knew better than the book or good practices, or dismissed the problems. It’s risk management, on a spectrum of risk acceptance.

Was this EAB? More power to him and others to do whatever they want.
 
I’m not defending Patey’s actions, actually far from it, but this was an experimental aircraft. As long as it didn’t pose a risk to people on the ground, he is allowed to build it however he chooses. After all, the purpose of experimental aircraft is to allow for “experimentation,” despite the fact that most experimentals these days are sold as lower-cost alternative to certified aircraft.
 
sarangan said:
I’m not defending Patey’s actions, actually far from it, but this was an experimental aircraft. As long as it didn’t pose a risk to people on the ground, he is allowed to build it however he chooses. After all, the purpose of experimental aircraft is to allow for “experimentation,” despite the fact that most experimentals these days are sold as lower-cost alternative to certified aircraft.
Click to expand...
Who loses their ticket if you build and "fly" experimental garbage? If the answer is "no one," then that's a problem IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top