Our day with NTSB

"The mechanic revealed to the NTSB IIC during the interview that he felt that the crankshaft gear bolts had failed as a result of a sudden engine stoppage when the airplane collided head-on with a tree. As such, the failure of the crankshaft gear bolts was not the cause of the accident, however, was as a result of the accident. The mechanic further opined that he felt there was nothing wrong with the engine, and that what probably precipitated the loss of engine power was carburetor ice. He added that the accident pilot told him earlier that morning that he had to wait about 30 minutes or so for the fog to lift so he could take off."

Tom - you almost killed your customer because you forgot to tighten some bolts. But it wasn't just a few bolts. We sure are glad you have said you are not accepting new customers. Your attitude is insane - the bolts failed because of fatigue, that is a completely different failure mechanism than sudden stoppage. Obviously you won't accept this either. It is your fault. You fckd up.
Shame on you. And thank whoever you believe in, that the poor pilot and passenger are alive. And that they won't use the legal system to take everything you have ever owned to recoup their suffering.

"The engine had an oil filter and adapter installed"
"The original engine oil screen remained installed, despite the fact that the engine was equipped with an oil filter. When the oil screen was removed, a significant amount of contaminates consistent with metallic material as well as a significant amount of unidentified black colored substance was observed."

^ Well done signing off that engine.

" It was noted that there was black sealant applied to the crankcase halves mating surfaces, and there was no silk thread noted on the crankcase halve mating surfaces. It was also noted that the black sealant material was found in several of the oil galleys"

^ Well done overhauling it. Jezzes!

"The four crankshaft gear bolts all exhibited overstress fractures in their threaded portion. Two of the four bolts, referred to as bolts #1 and #2, exhibited gross plastic deformation in the shank portion. Bolt #1 had broken free of the safety wire, and bolt #2 had a portion of safety wire still attached. Both of these two bolts exhibited fractures consistent with overstress. The remaining two bolts, referred to as bolts #3 and #4, remained safety wired to each other, and did not exhibit gross plastic deformation. These two bolts exhibited flat fractures and crack arrest marks consistent with fatigue fractures.

The bolt holes in the crankshaft gear had become elongated. This effect was less pronounced on the face of the gear that would have mated to the crankshaft, and more pronounced on the opposing face. The crankshaft gear teeth appeared to be well formed, and did not exhibit any irregularities or uneven wear.

The crankshaft gear dowel pin was fractured, and partially missing. The portion that was submitted to the laboratory contained a flat fracture surface. Examination of the fracture surface using a stereo microscope revealed crack arrest marks and ratchet marks consistent with a fatigue fracture. There were three prominent ratchet marks indicating a fatigue fracture with multiple origins. Examination of the body of the dowel pin revealed wear marks on one side."

No reason to not tighten the bolts all the way with a torque wrench. 80ish hours after OH, I'm guessing they were finger tight = forgotten to put on properly at all. Scary.

I mean hello. I'm sorry to be critical, but he built an engine that was nowhere near airworthy, and almost killed people doing it.

I am so very happy Tom isn't accepting new customers. This is dangerous. I hope they take his A&P/IA away.

......... you know... at first I wanted to go off on you about how he who is without sin cast the first stone etc etc etc...

Then I remembered other threads where Tom-D presented a scenario in which he ****ed up, then blamed everyone but himself for it.

The report is pretty damning.
 
......... you know... at first I wanted to go off on you about how he who is without sin cast the first stone etc etc etc...

Then I remembered other threads where Tom-D presented a scenario in which he ****ed up, then blamed everyone but himself for it.

The report is pretty damning.

We can all see a trend in his behavior.
This time he almost killed someone. It is scary that I don't think he will learn from this, and he will keep on putting his "customers" in danger.

You can go off at me about this, I'm fine with that :)
 
He forgot to mention the plastic oil bottle cap found in the sump.
 
I'm in the middle of a similar incident. But now the FAA is pointing the finger at two mechanics. I had a cylinder changed in the IO-550 with Mechanic J. Immediately afterwards I had an annual with Mechanic K. Engine catastrophically failed 45 minutes after the annual (at least I was uninjured in the off field landing). I'm pretty sure the fault is with J, but K is getting heat for signing off the annual in between.
 
Things are never as the appear on face value.
There is no way - with what has been presented - that anyone, even the NTSB, can say with assuredness that the bolts were inadequately tightened.
We have all seen some strange, even unbelievable things happen and made the wrong conclusion.
With the poor metallurgy coming from manufacturers these days I always have to consider that.
This year I was accused (online) of overtightening a case through-bolt
during cylinder change (which happened over 7 years ago) because the bolt had failed.
(I found it during preflight and replaced it, all has been well since.)
I remember checking the final torque of each of those bolts 3X, and testing my torque wrench before (and I have checked it after as well).
Not ready to throw anyone under the bus based upon NTSB findings.
 
He forgot to mention the plastic oil bottle cap found in the sump.
 
He forgot to mention the plastic oil bottle cap found in the sump.

That would be on the owner.

I wonder whether black RTV is approved to mate case halves and seal cylinder bases.
 
He forgot to mention the plastic oil bottle cap found in the sump.

when
I was interviewed, they showed me that picture, it was a plastic water bottle cap, every one in the room agreed it was placed there by a salvage crew. this wreckage was removed from the golf course by the locals and placed in storage for nearly a month prior to tear down by the NTSB. There were my PMI, the NTSB recorder, two from TCM, two from Cessna on that inspection crew. I know the aircraft was kept in my friends hangar at BVS when not in use, and that cap did not get put there by him.
 
or the bolts sheered as in quick stoppage. have you ever tried to turn a mag with impulse couplings on it. they turn hard.
I saw the NTSB pictures of this engine, the end of the crank showed the threaded portion still in the crank, and sheered clean, Dowlpin and all. stereo typical of quick stoppage.
If it was sudden stoppage, how do you explain the damage done to the inside of the crankcase from the sheared bolts?

And why was there that much metal in the filter and oil filter screen on an engine with less than 100 SOH?
 
The takeaway here is that everyone makes mistakes and to stay humble. This does not mean you. It means me. Yes, read it aloud in the mirror. If I can't, then I'm in denial.

If you (I) think this is about someone else (you), then you (I) don't get it.

Get it?
 
Last edited:
Two points:

1. This report is a "probable cause", not definitive.
2. The conclusions made during the course of an NTSB investigation are not admissible in civil lawsuits.

So Tom, I'd say ignore all that is said here and don't comment any further. Let the self proclaimed experts here run their mouths like they usually do and just ignore it all.
 
cavo i don't know who you are referring to but a good rule of thumb is stfu and dont put anything on the interwebs that could be twisted 180
 
Last edited:
when
I was interviewed, they showed me that picture, it was a plastic water bottle cap, every one in the room agreed it was placed there by a salvage crew. this wreckage was removed from the golf course by the locals and placed in storage for nearly a month prior to tear down by the NTSB. There were my PMI, the NTSB recorder, two from TCM, two from Cessna on that inspection crew. I know the aircraft was kept in my friends hangar at BVS when not in use, and that cap did not get put there by him.
Are you suggesting that someone tampered with the evidence and planted the bottle cap? It's not as if the oil sump was sitting out in the field; according to the report it was damaged but still attached prior inspection. How would the salvage crew get a cap in the oil sump during removal?
 
If it was sudden stoppage, how do you explain the damage done to the inside of the crankcase from the sheared bolts?

And why was there that much metal in the filter and oil filter screen on an engine with less than 100 SOH?
where did you see damage to the crank case? you did read the engine had less than 50 hours since major.

or are you just heaping on ?
 
Are you suggesting that someone tampered with the evidence and planted the bottle cap? It's not as if the oil sump was sitting out in the field; according to the report it was damaged but still attached prior inspection. How would the salvage crew get a cap in the oil sump during removal?
I'm saying nether the owner or I put it there, the NTSB certainly didn't put there. Who else had opportunity?
 
Tom apparently can't help himself. Man I'd be quiet as a mouse. Especially the ****s he's been taking here.
 
Two points:

1. This report is a "probable cause", not definitive.
2. The conclusions made during the course of an NTSB investigation are not admissible in civil lawsuits.

So Tom, I'd say ignore all that is said here and don't comment any further. Let the self proclaimed experts here run their mouths like they usually do and just ignore it all.
I really don't give much credence to what is posted here.
 
Tom,you are a gift that keeps on giving ! But take everyone's advice and ask the mods to make this and its sister thread disappear asap.
do really believe anything posted here would make any difference anywhere?
 
QUOTE="Fearless Tower, post: 2169506, member: 6927"]If it was sudden stoppage, how do you explain the damage done to the inside of the crankcase from the sheared bolts??[/QUOTE]
How do you know it was done by the sheared bolts. the accessory case was a mess from the accessories that were broken free. starter attaching plate was completely broke in half. metal debris was every where. carb and vac pump completely broken of the engine. and you think a couple little 1/4 inch bolts did some damage.
 
That would be on the owner.

I wonder whether black RTV is approved to mate case halves and seal cylinder bases.
Get it right, there was no RTV in this engine. (zero, nada, zip) Not every sealer is RTV.
The 0-200 cases are known for fretting and leaking at the center seam, so that's why it was added, notice how any sealer that was loose got carried to the screen, that is why that was there.

Keep in mind this engine had not had its first oil change yet.
 
Tom,you are a gift that keeps on giving ! But take everyone's advice and ask the mods to make this and its sister thread disappear asap.
So, why do you care, or did you have to add to your $.02 ????
 
Two points:

1. This report is a "probable cause", not definitive.
2. The conclusions made during the course of an NTSB investigation are not admissible in civil lawsuits.

So Tom, I'd say ignore all that is said here and don't comment any further. Let the self proclaimed experts here run their mouths like they usually do and just ignore it all.

The report and conclusions are inadmissible. But Tom's statements on here, even those regurgitating or summarizing the NTSB findings, might be admissible. A perfect reason to not get online and spout off about this stuff.
 
The report and conclusions are inadmissible. But Tom's statements on here, even those regurgitating or summarizing the NTSB findings, might be admissible. A perfect reason to not get online and spout off about this stuff.
I really doubt any court or jury will give much credence to the internet experts here. No name, No credentials, = No credibility

Now if anyone here wants to swear a statement that can be used in court I'd love to hear from you.
 
Two points:

1. This report is a "probable cause", not definitive.

I also linked to the factual report issued after, it comes to the same conclusion.


2. The conclusions made during the course of an NTSB investigation are not admissible in civil lawsuits.

Who cares! it still says Tom forever changed the lives of two people! he nearly got them killed and he can't even say something MIGHT have been is fault.


So Tom, I'd say ignore all that is said here and don't comment any further. Let the self proclaimed experts here run their mouths like they usually do and just ignore it all.

I don't claim to be a expert, no one here does, but the NTSB is kinda a "expert" in these matters, but don't worry Tom doesn't listen to anyone and is quite good at ignoring facts, even scientifically proven ones supplied by the foremost experts in aircraft crash analysis, the NTSB.
 
Get it right, there was no RTV in this engine. (zero, nada, zip) Not every sealer is RTV.
The 0-200 cases are known for fretting and leaking at the center seam, so that's why it was added, notice how any sealer that was loose got carried to the screen, that is why that was there.

I am sorry. I thought I had read 'black RTV'. I don't know where I thought I had seen that. Its #2 Permatex.
 
I also linked to the factual report issued after, it comes to the same conclusion.

Who cares! it still says Tom forever changed the lives of two people! he nearly got them killed and he can't even say something MIGHT have been is fault.

I don't claim to be a expert, no one here does, but the NTSB is kinda a "expert" in these matters, but don't worry Tom doesn't listen to anyone and is quite good at ignoring facts, even scientifically proven ones supplied by the foremost experts in aircraft crash analysis, the NTSB.

Ever stop to think It's just you and other internet experts I don't listen. And how lovely it is to know you are the expert on how/why this accident occurred.
My opinion on you, If your head wasn't swelled up so much you be able to pull it out and look around.
I have talked to my PMI, the owner, NTSB, and the TCM accident investigators, I really do believe I know about what happened much more than you.

I know the gears were new, the bolts were new the torque wrench was in cal. and the pictures show that the bolts were safetied.
And you have avoided tell us what you could have done better.
I disturbs me deeply when a friend gets hurt, I just don't know what I could have done better and I don't believe you do either yet you keep throwing the blame.
SO tell us what I could have done to prevent this accident or STFU.
 
I am sorry. I thought I had read 'black RTV'. I don't know where I thought I had seen that. Its #2 Permatex.
Thanks for that.

Yes there is a big difference between #2 permatex and RTV. #2 can be passed thru a oil passage and any oil pump with out damage. RTV is what many plugs are made from.
 
where did you see damage to the crank case? you did read the engine had less than 50 hours since major.

I dont think the accessory case came from the factory with those notches:

accessory_case.JPG
 
I really doubt any court or jury will give much credence to the internet experts here. No name, No credentials, = No credibility

Now if anyone here wants to swear a statement that can be used in court I'd love to hear from you.

I'm not talking about the statements of others, but your own statements.
 
The engine had an oil filter and adapter installed. The oil filter was removed, and the housing cut open. The filter pleats were inspected, with a minute amount of metallic material observed within the pleats. It was reported that the engine had been overhauled within the last 100 hours.

The original engine oil screen remained installed, despite the fact that the engine was equipped with an oil filter. When the oil screen was removed, a significant amount of contaminates consistent with metallic material as well as a significant amount of unidentified black colored substance was observed.
Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20150928X72825&ntsbno=WPR15FA268&akey=1

Is it common to leave the original screen when an oil filter is installed? I was under the impression the filter was more efficient than the screen as a filter?
 
If it was sudden stoppage, how do you explain the damage done to the inside of the crankcase from the sheared bolts?

And why was there that much metal in the filter and oil filter screen on an engine with less than 100 SOH?
There just is no evidence that points to any sudden stoppage theory. I mean..the prop is perfect..that prop did *not* strike anything under power. The engine came from together before the airplane made contact with the ground.

E9C7YWd.jpg

0gr8C
 
The report and conclusions are inadmissible.
That is not entirely true. The conclusions/probable cause findings are not admissible, but the evidence and analysis obtained from the investigation can indeed be used in court.
 
Ever stop to think It's just you and other internet experts I don't listen. And how lovely it is to know you are the expert on how/why this accident occurred.
My opinion on you, If your head wasn't swelled up so much you be able to pull it out and look around.
I have talked to my PMI, the owner, NTSB, and the TCM accident investigators, I really do believe I know about what happened much more than you.

I know the gears were new, the bolts were new the torque wrench was in cal. and the pictures show that the bolts were safetied.
And you have avoided tell us what you could have done better.
I disturbs me deeply when a friend gets hurt, I just don't know what I could have done better and I don't believe you do either yet you keep throwing the blame.
SO tell us what I could have done to prevent this accident or STFU.


This will be me repeating what I wrote in black and white just a few posts up, I'm not a expert, and I already acknowledged you don't listen to anyone, even real life crash experts, however I am able to read simple English, and in simple English the NTSB said the cause of the crash was the mechanic.

What would I have done different? Well based on the findings on the NTSB, guess I'd have removed the point of failure and used a different mechanic, sadly there was no way for the pilot to know that problem existed in his fresh OH until his plane chit the bed at low altitude :(

Believe it or not, I honestly feel for you Tom, I can't imagine what you must feel like reading that NTSB report, my question to you is; will you continue to work on other peoples aircraft engines now?
And do you honestly believe you made no mistakes on that overhaul?
 
Back
Top