PA-28 down, Florida Treasure Coast

Is there a site where radar can be played back slowly enough to see what it was showing at the time of the crash? Storms were building at the time, but where I’m at six miles south, it was still decent VFR and nothing really happened for at least a couple hours. But these Florida t-storms can be very localized and change rapidly.
 
Trying to understand the ADS-B data.
115 kts to 314 kts to 91 kts in 3 seconds?
How can that be correct- I can't believe the aircraft wouldn't have fallen apart at that speed.
 
tobnpr said:
Trying to understand the ADS-B data.
115 kts to 314 kts to 91 kts in 3 seconds?
How can that be correct- I can't believe the aircraft wouldn't have fallen apart at that speed.
Click to expand...
Simulated emergency (Maybe Fire?) gone bad??
 
My basic understanding of high school physics, and of the characteristics of the airplane tells me that the only way a PA-28 can horizontally go 314 knots is if someone were to stuff it into a C-5 sideways. Seems much more likely that there's a bad data point there, either time or position.
 
I checked the nearby airport (KFPR) tower radio on liveatc.net around the time of the crash, there’s nothing unusual and planes were in the traffic pattern. So I doubt this is weather related.
 
Am I reading that correctly…..airplane came strait down according to witness, the wings landed in a field away from the rest of the plane, and one of the two people onboard survived???
 
She said she yelled for her husband, as she called 911. ​

“He said, ‘look out, there's still pieces falling,'” Jones said. “So more pieces fell after it crashed into the building.” ​


Yep, sure sounds like an in-flight breakup. School plane, so it was almost certainly subject to the spar AD. This one will raise lots of questions and concerns.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Am I reading that correctly…..airplane came strait down according to witness, the wings landed in a field away from the rest of the plane, and one of the two people onboard survived???
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking…
 
A view of the failure point. I'm not sure but it looks like the center section failed.

70621569007-plane-crash-wings.jpg
 
My thought on "transported to hospital alive" is that it unfortunately doesn't always mean in a very good state. EMS people are really good, and can often get someone to a hospital still with a heartbeat that may not have a chance. Really hope I'm wrong and that the survivor ends up coming out OK. The links folks have put up didn't have any updates when I last looked.

That wing pic is both a bit spooky and a lot sad. I learned to fly tricycle in PA-28's.
 
Last edited:
Man... I'll be following this one closely
 
While probably not the cause (I hope) as a PA28-181 owner, a person who has replaced said aircraft wings, and a person with quite a bit of experience extending big truck frames, who at Piper a long time ago thought it was a good idea to put bolt holes through the flange? It could have been bolted through the web via the spar box with some simple spacers with the existing design. Bolt holes through the flange is a cardinal sin (at least in the trucking industry) when dealing with I-Beams. Few wings have fallen off but fewer could have been. Carry on.
 
There have been, IIRC, three PA-28s that lost a wing in flight. One was in the 80s and was a pipeline patrol plane - very rough duty. The second was the Arrow at Embry-Riddle. It had 33,000+ landings on it. The one that happened the other day is from an unknown cause. My money is that is was most likely due to extreme turbulence from convection, or from severely over-G caused by pilot input during unapproved maneuvers.

More than 32,000 PA-28s and 7,000 PA-32s have been built. There isn’t an endemic problem.
 
But the moral hazard is real, which is why the life limit of -28 and -32 wings via AD will eventually happen imo. To your point though, it's suuuuuch an existential emergency they can't even get around to publishing the final AD already..... more than 5 years (and counting) since the accident in question. :rolleyes:

As a current user/owner of the affected fleet type, I DGAF about the FAAs planned obsolescence proclamations. I fly happily over the mountains, night, bermuda triangle (2021), without giving the wing attachments much thought.

My 10 yo has a GI bill waiting for him to cover his undergrad, dealer's choice. Only string? No ERAU. I'll update ya guys in 8 years if I'm still wasting time on here by then. Cheers!
 
ateamer said:
More than 32,000 PA-28s and 7,000 PA-32s have been built. There isn’t an endemic problem.
Click to expand...
True, and I too happily fly in and teach in PA-28. I've long felt the low wings generally fly nicer. However, the PA-28 is not without comparison. There have been over 40,000 C172 built and are also routinely abused, rode hard, and put away wet. Any comparative data on inflight breaksups, namely wing departures, of 172?
 
Tantalum said:
Any comparative data on inflight breaksups, namely wing departures, of 172?
Click to expand...
In this thread you have two anecdotes and one datum on PA28 breakups. A cursory search in the usual areas turned up the attached report, a confirmed example of a 172 breakup.

ETA: Looking a little harder turned up two more, also attached.

A determined pilot can pull the wings off of anything.

Nauga,
oilcanning
 

Attachments

Last edited:
nauga said:
In this thread you have two anecdotes and one datum on PA28 breakups. A cursory search in the usual areas turned up the attached report, a confirmed example of a 172 breakup.

ETA: Looking a little harder turned up two more, also attached.

A determined pilot can pull the wings off of anything.

Nauga,
oilcanning
Click to expand...
Thanks! I found one of these Googling around as well. I think what is startling on the ERAU accident (and maybe this one pending what we learn) was the relative innocuous nature. 'He flew into a thunderstorm' is one thing, vs 'he was turning crosswind' (or some other less 'exciting' action) is another..

I've matured in some of my accident and flying beliefs this year
 
Tantalum said:
...and maybe this one pending what we learn...
Click to expand...
The last I'll say is that it's too early to attribute this accident to an 'innocuous' breakup, and will now bow out of the thread.

Nauga,
who has seen and said it all before
 
ateamer said:
There have been, IIRC, three PA-28s that lost a wing in flight. One was in the 80s and was a pipeline patrol plane - very rough duty. The second was the Arrow at Embry-Riddle. It had 33,000+ landings on it. The one that happened the other day is from an unknown cause. My money is that is was most likely due to extreme turbulence from convection, or from severely over-G caused by pilot input during unapproved maneuvers.

More than 32,000 PA-28s and 7,000 PA-32s have been built. There isn’t an endemic problem.
Click to expand...
There's also this one from a few years ago.

www.kathrynsreport.com

Aircraft Structural Failure: Piper PA-28-235, N8991W; fatal accident occurred May 31, 2020 in Carlinville, Macoupin County, Illinois

Daniel Shedd, front left, texted his mother this photograph on May 31, 2020 shortly before he left Creve Coeur Airport with his college frie...
www.kathrynsreport.com www.kathrynsreport.com

I'll spare you the reading...

Airplane bank angles reached 50° and 60° in the left and right turns, respectively. As the right turn continued, the airplane entered a descent and the airspeed increased. The bank angle ultimately reached about 110° (right wing down), the pitch attitude reached 63° nose down, and the airspeed increased to over 200 kts during the descent. The maximum computed load factor based on the available data was 4.72 G
 
Not sure why we're talking about innocuous breakups.

Airplanes without wings don't make 270 degree turns at 12,000 fpm. More likely wings came as a result, not cause.
 
dmspilot said:
Not sure why we're talking about innocuous breakups.

Airplanes without wings don't make 270 degree turns at 12,000 fpm. More likely wings came as a result, not cause.
Click to expand...
I think that is what many people's perception is though when they hear that a wing came off probably made especially true from Embry Riddle..

Racerx said:
4.72 G
Click to expand...
Isn't the load limit 4.4? The poh is not in front of me but that number sticks out

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the results. One of my favorite planes in the club is a low wing
 
4.4 is utility category max. But there is supposed to be a 50% safety factor.
 
Tantalum said:
I think that is what many people's perception is though when they hear that a wing came off probably made especially true from Embry Riddle..


Isn't the load limit 4.4? The poh is not in front of me but that number sticks out

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the results. One of my favorite planes in the club is a low wing
Click to expand...
normal 3.8, utility 4.4. That's yield limit. Ultimate limit is 50% safety factor. Problem is I don't know if any/all/none PA-28 variants have a utility category published (usually a stipulation of weight and load distribution in the cabin, or both). It's probably in the TCDS and I don't care enough to look it up rn.

Another thing people forget is that load factor is usually published for max gross weight; the instantaneous load factor to the yield limit is in fact higher at lower weights. For spam cans that weight progression is small enough the manufacturer doesn't bother publishing it. Other airplanes purpose-built to aerobatics do observe large swings in max g-load as a function of weight, and those sliding limits are published.
 
A unconfirmed rumor is it was two CFIs on a checkout flight.

The adsb data almost shows commercial maneuvers maybe a lazy/hard 8s or Chandells.

I know I did some asininely stupid stuff in a Arrow back in my early CFI days. I wanted to show my CFI student a cross controlled stall but all the plane would give us was a slight bank followed by it mushing over. So I went full aileron and full opposite rudder at the same moment I popped it back. It stalled, snapped rolled, and put us into a spin. Let’s just say we got lucky with altitude and a brand new airframe…

My older self would have kicked my younger self a$$ raw…
 
hindsight2020 said:
I don't know if any/all/none PA-28 variants have a utility category published (usually a stipulation of weight and load distribution in the cabin, or both). It's probably in the TCDS and I don't care enough to look it up rn.
Click to expand...
It is in the tcds. Some have utility category certification and some don't (notably the arrow iv and dakota). Generally for those that do, the utility w&b range is limited to less than half of the normal cat. gross weight and a tiny corner of the forward CG range. One smallish person and half a tank of gas is about the max.
 
Jim K said:
It is in the tcds. Some have utility category certification and some don't (notably the arrow iv and dakota). Generally for those that do, the utility w&b range is limited to less than half of the normal cat. gross weight and a tiny corner of the forward CG range. One smallish person and half a tank of gas is about the max.
Click to expand...
FYI I'm pretty sure no Arrow has utility category certification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top