PA 28-235 Down in Illinois, 4 Dead, 5/31/2020

Pilawt said:
Looking at something on the ground? The speeds are much too fast for a "moose stall".
Click to expand...
That would be a terrible irony. If they were looking at something near the center of the turn they probably came quite close to hitting it.
 
Pilawt said:
Looking at something on the ground? The speeds are much too fast for a "moose stall".
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure. Could this have just been a lot of things piling up?

About 40 kts over published stall speed, 6000’ altitude, a heavily loaded plane, possibly over gross, descending turn? Which those factors going on, his stall speed could have been closer to 70 or 80.

From flight aware data, I calculated about a 35 degree bank turn in the last 30 seconds of controlled flight, then something caused it to become uncontrolled.

You usually would not see a moose stall this high up, but all the things he did nibbled away at the stall margin. Now imagine he is turning, the plane gets a little high, he starts descending a little, the left wing drops because the inboard wing is the first to stall in a descending turn.

Unreasonable to see him banking a mushy airplane 10 or 15 degrees more?
 
Is this plane similar to a 182? Capable of hauling four adults? And he had like 5000’ of altitude to work with. We don’t often practice stall spin scenarios but if they were circling a house (friend or family member) it just doesn’t make much sense from a mile up. That’s the kind of thing you do from 500-1000’. Been there done that but not carrying 800+ pounds of passengers. Just trying to wrap my head around this. Look forward to what the investigation reveals.

I need to get spin training sooner than later. Never been in one.
 
woodchucker said:
Is this plane similar to a 182? Capable of hauling four adults?
Click to expand...

One of the few 4 seat aircraft that can carry 4 adults and full fuel. They typically have ULs in the 1350+ range and iirc a fuel capacity of 84gal. It gets snug inside if you have 4 adults on board, but weight and CG is not the issue.
 
weilke said:
One of the few 4 seat aircraft that can carry 4 adults and full fuel. They typically have ULs in the 1350+ range and iirc a fuel capacity of 84gal. It gets snug inside if you have 4 adults on board, but weight and CG is not the issue.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe this is true. If the 4 adults are two men and two women then you’re probably ok. But with 4 men, you can overload.

every airplane is different, but working with a w&b calculator online, it’s clear that 4 modern grown men with baggage can overload the plane and be out of balance. Three of the guys are probably at least 220 lbs, plus luggage because they stayed the weekend. That is around 950-1000 lbs already and full fuel is another 500.
 
bflynn said:
I don’t believe this is true. If the 4 adults are two men and two women then you’re probably ok. But with 4 men, you can overload.

every airplane is different, but working with a w&b calculator online, it’s clear that 4 modern grown men with baggage can overload the plane and be out of balance. Three of the guys are probably at least 220 lbs, plus luggage because they stayed the weekend. That is around 950-1000 lbs already and full fuel is another 500.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have a -236. I once carried two men (myself included), two women, light baggage for the weekend, and full fuel. We were just under max gross.
 
Many of us PA-28 owners are worried about the condition of our wing spars and the proposed AD the FAA is working on. Something interesting I read that was linked in an AOPA article (sorry, I'm a "lurker" so I don't have enough posts to add the link) referenced an NTSB member who wrote that the PA-28-235 had the greatest risk of fatigue cracking:
======================
[From piperowner.org]
An NTSB member responded (on NTSB letterhead) to the Proposed Piper Wing Spar AD and said it would like some clarifications and changes made. A summary of the letter, written by Earl F. Weener, PhD:

While the affected airplanes all have a similar main spar design in the wing attach-point area where the fatigue cracking was found, engineering data presented by Piper separately to the FAA and the NTSB showed that the localized stress level can vary significantly depending on airplane gross weight, cruising speed, and amount and location of fuel in the wings. The data also showed that the airplanes at greatest risk for fatigue cracking are the PA-28-235 model airplanes, all PA-28R series airplanes, and the PA-32-260 and PA-32-300 model airplanes. The NTSB supports the inspection requirements of the proposed AD for these airplanes.

However, the NTSB notes that the data showed that the risk of fatigue cracking on all affected PA-28 series airplanes other than the PA-28-235 is significantly lower over their assumed useful life. We are concerned that the risks associated with disturbing the joint to complete the inspection may outweigh the risk of fatigue cracking in all affected PA-28 series airplanes other than the PA-28-235 and urge the FAA to reexamine the applicability of the proposed AD.

====================

Obviously, it's speculation at this point based on the eyewitness saying the wing came off as to whether the wing separated in normal flight conditions or if the plane went into a spiral and exceeded the limits of the air frame. I'm sure the NTSB is working on determining that from the wreckage.
 
bflynn said:
I don’t believe this is true. If the 4 adults are two men and two women then you’re probably ok. But with 4 men, you can overload.

every airplane is different, but working with a w&b calculator online, it’s clear that 4 modern grown men with baggage can overload the plane and be out of balance. Three of the guys are probably at least 220 lbs, plus luggage because they stayed the weekend. That is around 950-1000 lbs already and full fuel is another 500.
Click to expand...

The guy posted a pic of them in the plane. Not a single one of them looks over 180 pounds. Still don’t know for sure but looking at the actual pic is slightly better than guessing and throwing random numbers out there.
 
bflynn said:
I don’t believe this is true. If the 4 adults are two men and two women then you’re probably ok. But with 4 men, you can overload.

every airplane is different, but working with a w&b calculator online, it’s clear that 4 modern grown men with baggage can overload the plane and be out of balance. Three of the guys are probably at least 220 lbs, plus luggage because they stayed the weekend. That is around 950-1000 lbs already and full fuel is another 500.
Click to expand...

Those 4 were on a day-trip. I have flown two 235s and they were both north of 1350 for UL. If 'modern grown men' means everyone is north of 200lbs, sure then you are going to run out of UL at some point. Yet they got in the air and managed to climb to altitude with what comes out to 510fpm climb rate, so I dont see how weight is a likely culprit.

The 235 is the one plane that doesn't have enough room to fill up the UL. Short of jugs of mercury in your luggage or an attempt to relocate a collection of vintage ammunition, you are going to be ok.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the flightaware flying characteristics, I agree with some to suggest that this may be a case of overloading rather than purely a wing failure. But the numbers are not as clear regarding that.
Curious what other pilots think.
I am seeing plane sustaining a proper climb rate and although his speed is not great he gets to and stays at about 1200feet. Perhaps to be well below the KSTL airspace. Once he gets beyond the low restrictions of KSTL he initiates a climb. Eventually he made it to 5200ft...but again the plane looks slow for this high performance plane. I think eventually he decided to turn back but his turn was at about 100kts which is perhaps close to stall (depending on the angle of bank). A stall spin at that point was probably not recoverable. CLEARLY ALL Speculation as we try to find some closure as to the cause. This was a terrible tragedy and too many young lives lost.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Then don’t buy a Low winged Piper...
Click to expand...
Or buy a Comanche which has a massive spar and both spars are strapped together in the middle of the plane and the fuselage attached to it. That is the Lock Haven why of doing things, as opposed to the Vero Beach way of doing things.
 
weilke said:
Those 4 were on a day-trip. I have flown two 235s and they were both north of 1350 for UL. If 'modern grown men' means everyone is north of 200lbs, sure then you are going to run out of UL at some point. Yet they got in the air and managed to climb to altitude with what comes out to 510fpm climb rate, so I dont see how weight is a likely culprit.

The 235 is the one plane that doesn't have enough room to fill up the UL. Short of jugs of mercury in your luggage or an attempt to relocate a collection of vintage ammunition, you are going to be ok.
Click to expand...

Just a thought..did they really have a good climb rate? I noticed their airspeed at the initial climb rate of 500fpm or so,
weilke said:
Those 4 were on a day-trip. I have flown two 235s and they were both north of 1350 for UL. If 'modern grown men' means everyone is north of 200lbs, sure then you are going to run out of UL at some point. Yet they got in the air and managed to climb to altitude with what comes out to 510fpm climb rate, so I dont see how weight is a likely culprit.

The 235 is the one plane that doesn't have enough room to fill up the UL. Short of jugs of mercury in your luggage or an attempt to relocate a collection of vintage ammunition, you are going to be ok.
Click to expand...


Perhaps he thought the same way, that the plane can carry a lot of weight....and did not do a weight and BALANCE. In a PA28A I always check weight especially since its always an issue once you get past 2 guys and full tanks. I think the problem with this plane IS that it can carry its own weight. So it could be easy to sort of say...well it can carry alot we will be fine and rush. But balancing is critical in these heavy load carrying planes. Of course we don't know anything and are just guessing through this desperately looking for a reason that we can live with. Perhaps trying to find a mistake that was made that we will never make etc.
 
Three PA28-235s for sale on Barnstormers of the same vintage of the accident aircraft list useful loads of 1320, 1329, and 1349. Four 200-pound occupants and full fuel still gives them a few pounds to spare. The climb from 3,000 to 5,000 averaged 453fpm which does not seem unreasonable, but is a little less than book.

I don't think a stall/spin explains the crash, although a stall/spin followed by a botched recovery could. Furthermore, the high speed (airspeed above VNO), high descent rate, and tight turn makes wing separation seem more likely to be the result than the cause. It looks like a graveyard spiral but it's hard to imagine how that happens in clear VMC.
 
weilke said:
Those 4 were on a day-trip.
Click to expand...

According to the news article, "Sweers, Schlosser and Camilleri flew down to see Dan Shedd on Friday and they all spent the weekend at his home in St. Charles before heading to the airport on Sunday", so it wasn't a day trip. Someone was riding a motorcycle back from Michigan to St Louis, a 7+ hour trip. Maybe doing that the same day, but a 3 hour flight, then 7 hour motorcycle trip? Must be youthful energy.

eman1200 said:
The guy posted a pic of them in the plane. Not a single one of them looks over 180 pounds. Still don’t know for sure but looking at the actual pic is slightly better than guessing and throwing random numbers out there.
Click to expand...

Judging that is difficult. They look heavy to me because of the faces, except for the guy in the back right seat.

Regardless, the airplane is near the top of the loading range. if you want to take 30 lbs off each of them and make them 160, 170, 190 ,190, I think you're under the weight but it still comes out almost at gross with full fuel. Not certain he had full fuel.

My thinking doesn't change, this looks like a moose stall to me. The weight, the altitude and a steepening turn - you're much closer to stalling than you'd expect.

Checking out in a 180 a few weeks ago, I got a stall warning in a 45 degree turn because I had slowed in the turn. The FlightAware track data says he was below cruise speed but steady and decreasing his turn radius. Same speed, tighter turn means increasing the bank. I can relate to how easy that is to do.

My reason for this thinking is that I want to avoid this. Steeper turns at lower speeds...bad juju.

I really hope when I have my own plane I have a black box and cvr so you guys don't have to wonder what happened if you're ever discussing me this way. BTW, I will go ahead and encourage that if it ever happens. Have a beer for me and then rake me over the coals for being so dumb as to mess up. I won't mind, especially if it becomes a lesson to someone else.
 
Kristin said:
Or buy a Comanche which has a massive spar and both spars are strapped together in the middle of the plane and the fuselage attached to it. That is the Lock Haven why of doing things, as opposed to the Vero Beach way of doing things.
Click to expand...

And zinc chromated to keep that pesky corrosion at bay.
 
I put what may be an expected load(of course speculative) here because some have said weight is prob not a factor in this plane that can carry its own weight: 180lbs/each for the 4 people. 50 Gal/300lbs Fuel( Capacity is 82) Baggage: 200lbs. In this scenario they are just under weight limits but quite a bit past the max aft limit of 91.5 CG in. (at 92.52 in). No matter how I move the numbers the plane must have been close or past limits.

Regardless of what actually happened here it reminds me to never get complacent about doing a weight and balance even when flying in a very familiar plane, where you may think you know your math and take off on a guesstimate.
 
Last edited:
Flying Doc said:
Just a thought..did they really have a good climb rate? I noticed their airspeed at the initial climb rate of 500fpm or so,
Click to expand...

He cruise-climbed at 90-100kts and achieved 510fpm to get from 1700 to 5400. That sounds about right for a 235hp fixed gear aircraft.


Perhaps he thought the same way, that the plane can carry a lot of weight....and did not do a weight and BALANCE. In a PA28A I always check weight especially since its always an issue once you get past 2 guys and full tanks. I think the problem with this plane IS that it can carry its own weight. So it could be easy to sort of say...well it can carry alot we will be fine and rush. But balancing is critical in these heavy load carrying planes. Of course we don't know anything and are just guessing through this desperately looking for a reason that we can live with. Perhaps trying to find a mistake that was made that we will never make etc.
Click to expand...

/wild speculation.
 
weilke said:
He cruise-climbed at 90-100kts and achieved 510fpm to get from 1700 to 5400. That sounds about right for a 235hp fixed gear aircraft.




/wild speculation.
Click to expand...
Yup, like that of a wing coming off in flight due to age of plane. ;) But look at his climb speed to 5000 as low as 84kts. However I believe that it is ground speed not airspeed we see on flightaware and thats a little less clear.
 
Flying Doc said:
Eventually he made it to 5200ft...but again the plane looks slow for this high performance plane. I think eventually he decided to turn back but his turn was at about 100kts which is perhaps close to stall (depending on the angle of bank).
Click to expand...

It's a cherokee. It stalls at 55kts clean. That's a lot of bank angle you can pull from 100kts.
 
Flying Doc said:
Yup, like that of a wing coming off in flight due to age of plane. ;)
Click to expand...

You may have noticed that my second post in this thread was one where I pointed out the irony of the wild speculation on POA when the newspaper and everyone they interviewed refrained from doing so.
 
Flying Doc said:
I put what may be an expected load(of course speculative) here because some have said weight is prob not a factor in this plane that can carry its own weight: 180lbs/each for the 4 people. 50 Gal/300lbs Fuel( Capacity is 82) Baggage: 200lbs. In this scenario they are just under weight limits but quite a bit past the max aft limit of 91.5 CG in. (at 92.52 in). No matter how I move the numbers the plane must have been close or past limits.
Click to expand...

200lbs of luggage for a weekend ? Those were 4 guys on a weekend trip, not Imelda Marcos moving her shoe collection.
 
weilke said:
You may have noticed that my second post in this thread was one where I pointed out the irony of the wild speculation on POA when the newspaper and everyone they interviewed refrained from doing so.
Click to expand...

I think speculation here on POA can be healthy, and clearly thats what is happening here. The good thing, is that Its not meant to insult anyone and for the most part hopefully most are pilots eager to learn from mistakes or just share ideas. For example I never knew that PA28 have issues with the wings.
 
Flightaware is GPS based ground speed.

In an earlier post I was curious about the ground speed...but a 15kt headwind would explain his cruise speed in that plane. But...since the first 180deg of the final turn was fairly flat then he should picked up speed in that part of the turn...something to go back and check.
 
what's going on with kathryn's report? No updates since May 31....
 
Flight aware has columns for kts and mph.

the 235 has a higher stall speed because it is heavier. I think it’s 63, but referencing things on the internets, not because I know it.
 
bflynn said:
Flight aware has columns for kts and mph.

the 235 has a higher stall speed because it is heavier. I think it’s 63, but referencing things on the internets, not because I know it.
Click to expand...

Vso is 60 mph, Vsi is 70 mph.

For those commenting on the climb rate on the accident aircraft, keep in mind that a constant speed prop was an option from the factory. Many 60's era 235s (mine included) have the fixed pitch prop. At full gross the 235 with the fixed pitch prop is NOT going to set any time to altitude records.

I'll be following this one closely.
 
Flying Doc said:
Looking at the flightaware flying characteristics, I agree with some to suggest that this may be a case of overloading rather than purely a wing failure. But the numbers are not as clear regarding that.
Curious what other pilots think.
I am seeing plane sustaining a proper climb rate and although his speed is not great he gets to and stays at about 1200feet. Perhaps to be well below the KSTL airspace. Once he gets beyond the low restrictions of KSTL he initiates a climb. Eventually he made it to 5200ft...but again the plane looks slow for this high performance plane. I think eventually he decided to turn back but his turn was at about 100kts which is perhaps close to stall (depending on the angle of bank). A stall spin at that point was probably not recoverable. CLEARLY ALL Speculation as we try to find some closure as to the cause. This was a terrible tragedy and too many young lives lost.
Click to expand...

The track looks pretty normal for a departure from 1H0. He went right over the airport I fly out of and that 1200 foot reading is about right to stay clear of the STL shelf. Basically you can start a climb once you get a little bit north of the river. There is one controller on STL approach that almost never lets GA into the Bravo. Even for instrument approaches at other airports, my CFII and I heard that particular voice when we called them up and we were both like, "well we're getting nothing done today." So he either had a controller that didn't want to let him in or he just didn't want to talk to them.

The other part is, that if he did have flight following he was most likely talking to SPI approach when whatever problem they had occurred. If you're headed northbound you get handed off to SPI pretty quick. IJX is 51 nm away from my school so if students there need to build xc hours for IR or Commercial they will often fly to IJX and back because it's quick and you'll log 1 hour xc pretty easy. You end up talking to Springfield before you get to IJX.
 
Kristin said:
Or buy a Comanche which has a massive spar and both spars are strapped together in the middle of the plane and the fuselage attached to it. That is the Lock Haven why of doing things, as opposed to the Vero Beach way of doing things.
Click to expand...

Or an Aztruck, another Lock Haven product constructed the same way as described above. ;)
 
Last edited:
Flying Doc said:
I put what may be an expected load(of course speculative) here because some have said weight is prob not a factor in this plane that can carry its own weight: 180lbs/each for the 4 people. 50 Gal/300lbs Fuel( Capacity is 82) Baggage: 200lbs. In this scenario they are just under weight limits but quite a bit past the max aft limit of 91.5 CG in. (at 92.52 in). No matter how I move the numbers the plane must have been close or past limits.

Regardless of what actually happened here it reminds me to never get complacent about doing a weight and balance even when flying in a very familiar plane, where you may think you know your math and take off on a guesstimate.
Click to expand...

As a former owner of 4 different Cherokees, including an Arrow and a 235 hp, a Piper 235 is one of the most difficult single engine light airplanes to load outside the back of the CG range. Not impossible, but damn difficult.

The Arrow was the most fun to fly, the Dakota was the most useful of the four (but that is in the context that I fly out of a 4000 ASL airport in mountainous terrain).
 
Flying Doc said:
I put what may be an expected load(of course speculative) here because some have said weight is prob not a factor in this plane that can carry its own weight: 180lbs/each for the 4 people. 50 Gal/300lbs Fuel( Capacity is 82) Baggage: 200lbs. In this scenario they are just under weight limits but quite a bit past the max aft limit of 91.5 CG in. (at 92.52 in). No matter how I move the numbers the plane must have been close or past limits.

Regardless of what actually happened here it reminds me to never get complacent about doing a weight and balance even when flying in a very familiar plane, where you may think you know your math and take off on a guesstimate.
Click to expand...

I just did the math with only 100#s luggage (probably more realistic, I have never had more than 80#s in the back in 24 years flying the 235), and FULL fuel. In my aircraft it would still be in the envelope.
 
GRG55 said:
As a former owner of 4 different Cherokees, including an Arrow and a 235 hp, a Piper 235 is one of the most difficult single engine light airplanes to load outside the back of the CG range. Not impossible, but damn difficult.

The Arrow was the most fun to fly, the Dakota was the most useful of the four (but that is in the context that I fly out of a 4000 ASL airport in mountainous terrain).
Click to expand...

The Cherokee 235 is what we could afford back in the 90’s. But if anyone ever stole my 235, I would buy a Dakota to replace it in a heartbeat.
 
MD2105 said:
However, the NTSB notes that the data showed that the risk of fatigue cracking on all affected PA-28 series airplanes other than the PA-28-235 is significantly lower over their assumed useful life. We are concerned that the risks associated with disturbing the joint to complete the inspection may outweigh the risk of fatigue cracking in all affected PA-28 series airplanes other than the PA-28-235 and urge the FAA to reexamine the applicability of the proposed AD.
Click to expand...

I wonder what is special about the 235 that makes it the biggest risk? Some difference in manufacturing or simply a matter of having the highest gross weight of all the models? Not that I believe a wing failure caused this accident, but the above info is interesting.
 
dmspilot said:
I wonder what is special about the 235 that makes it the biggest risk? Some difference in manufacturing or simply a matter of having the highest gross weight of all the models? Not that I believe a wing failure caused this accident, but the above info is interesting.
Click to expand...

The 235 has a different wing than all other hershey bar PA28s... same wing as the Cherokee 6. It has two 17 gallon tip tanks added. I suspect that has something to do with it...
 
NTSB just published the prelim. All major components were located in the 455ft debris field. Also NTSB depicts a left 360 turn followed quickly by a tight 360 right before impacting ground / end of data points. A couple good images in the prelim, and also mention of a GoPro that is being analyzed (video footage would be very helpful in the investigation).


Longtime lurker, just made an account. I own a 235 so looking at this one carefully.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, according to the preliminary report, all major components were located at the accident site. Guess that spoils the long running theory of an in-flight wing separation...
 
Ryanb said:
Yeah, according to the preliminary report, all major components were located at the accident site. Guess that spoils the long running theory of an in-flight wing separation...
Click to expand...

What is to stop the wing from landing in the vicinity of the rest of the crash?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top