PA-28 down, Florida Treasure Coast

[OBrien Aviation]

Updated that the right wing became compromised, they used full rudder and aileron to stabilize the plane and then the Left wing failed.
Source: the surviving pilot. Thats horrifying

 

[Half Fast]

Updated that the right wing became compromised, they used full rudder and aileron to stabilize the plane and then the Left wing failed.
Source: the surviving pilot. Thats horrifying

Wow.

Rare to have a survivor in such a case. Do we know what happened to the right wing?

 

[Tantalum]

Wow

 

[Kyle N]

Updated that the right wing became compromised, they used full rudder and aileron to stabilize the plane and then the Left wing failed.
Source: the surviving pilot. Thats horrifying

Where did you hear that information? I'm still not seeing an NTSB prelim.

Like you said though... horrifying...

 

[Jim K]

Speculation ...

There's a youtuber who had a Warrior a couple years ago that made a series out of scrapping it, to show how it was put together. The reason the plane was condemned was that the forward spar attach point was broken and corroded to the point that repair was uneconomical. He actually discovered that the plane had been flying for some time with that attachment point completely loose. The PA28/32 have the main spar carrythrough, and also smaller attach points at the leading and trailing edges of the wing. When these break or get loose it's possible to shake the wingtip and see relative movement between the wingtip and fuselage. Not a bad preflight item if you're going to fly a high time PA28, particularly one that lives in a corrosive environment. I'm guessing that's what happened here, but it will be an interesting NTSB report for sure.

 

[tobnpr]

Updated that the right wing became compromised, they used full rudder and aileron to stabilize the plane and then the Left wing failed.
Source: the surviving pilot. Thats horrifying

Damn...loses both wings, fuselage drops like a rock from thousands of feet altitude and there's a survivor?
Just a low-time student, but I don't see how any amount of rudder/aileron could "stabilize" a plane with one wing...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Damn...loses both wings, fuselage drops like a rock from thousands of feet altitude and there's a survivor?
Just a low-time student, but I don't see how any amount of rudder/aileron could "stabilize" a plane with one wing...

Stabilize is probably an overly optimistic word.

But the idea is that if the right wing failed, the airplane is going to drop and roll to the right.

Simultaneous full upward deflection of the remaining left aileron and full left rudder will reduce lift on the remaining wing while inducing a roll moment to the left.

You could conceivably level the aircraft momentarily, but won’t be able to really keep it level with the power available to an Arrow.

An F-15 once lost greater than 75% of its right wing in a midair and the Israeli pilot was able to land it like that, but that’s because he had two jet engines with afterburners.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Stabilize is probably an overly optimistic word.

But the idea is that if the right wing failed, the airplane is going to drop and roll to the right.

Simultaneous full upward deflection of the remaining left aileron and full left rudder will reduce lift on the remaining wing while inducing a roll moment to the left.

You could conceivably level the aircraft momentarily, but won’t be able to really keep it level with the power available to an Arrow.

An F-15 once lost greater than 75% of its right wing in a midair and the Israeli pilot was able to land it like that, but that’s because he had two jet engines with afterburners.

The F15 is also fly by wire with a smart computer actually doing the flying.

Wouldn’t the lost of drag/lift of the right wing cause a yaw to the left and lost of lift a roll to the right?

 

[nauga]

You could conceivably level the aircraft momentarily, but won’t be able to really keep it level with the power available to an Arrow.

If you lose lift on one side the only way to balance the rolling moment is to lose an equivalent amount of lift on the other side. If you lose *all* of the lift on one side then the math is pretty simple. "Compromised" may not mean losing the entire wing, and until there's some kind of substantiation this is hearsay anyway.

The F15 is also fly by wire with a smart computer actually doing the flying.

Give some credit to the meat servo. The 'famous' one that lost the big chunk of wing was not FBW. (much) Later models are.

Nauga,
who has never been to Bitburg but knows their rolls

 

[OBrien Aviation]

I read that on Aviation Safety Network. just search the N number, it will come up. It has been very hush hush on this so far. If that plane had passed the eddy current inspection, i would assume the inspection criteria may be modified.

 

[Pinecone]

The F15 is also fly by wire with a smart computer actually doing the flying.

Wouldn’t the lost of drag/lift of the right wing cause a yaw to the left and lost of lift a roll to the right?

F-15 is not fly by wire.

F-16 is.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

F-15 is not fly by wire.

F-16 is.

Several new variants of the F-15 are FBW.

 

[ateamer]

I read that on Aviation Safety Network. just search the N number, it will come up. It has been very hush hush on this so far. If that plane had passed the eddy current inspection, i would assume the inspection criteria may be modified.

It will be interesting to know what maneuvers they’d been doing, if the plane had recently been through any botched recovery from maneuvering (over-G), how the convection was (a thunderstorm was building and the sky was quickly getting very dark - I live five miles south) and if the maintenance was really done by the book or if the logs were just pencilwhipped.

 

[Tantalum]

..came to post that the F15 in that incident was not FBW, but people beat me to it! (I posted it anyway)

It will be interesting to know what maneuvers they’d been doing

I was trying to guess this from the ADSB track. Huge grain of salt with that data but none of the speeds seemed crazy.

I must admit, flying small planes now 15-30 hrs a week, nearly all of them mid at least 50 years old, I hate to hear about these. Maybe I'm flying it perfectly within the envelope but with these renters and trainers who knows if some prior person over the last 50 years brought that plane into the "bend" territory that's been unnoticed. Awful.

How many 'adventures' did a plane take into that orange zone.



Perish these thoughts you must when flying. Gratuitous photo from the pattern last night.. note the right wing firmly in place

 

[Fearless Tower]

If you lose lift on one side the only way to balance the rolling moment is to lose an equivalent amount of lift on the other side. If you lose *all* of the lift on one side then the math is pretty simple. "Compromised" may not mean losing the entire wing, and until there's some kind of substantiation this is hearsay anyway.

Give some credit to the meat servo. The 'famous' one that lost the big chunk of wing was not FBW. (much) Later models are.

Nauga,
who has never been to Bitburg but knows their rolls

Didn’t say it would work. Just explaining the pilots reaction - why someone in that situation would apply those inputs

 

[tobnpr]

An F-15 once lost greater than 75% of its right wing in a midair and the Israeli pilot was able to land it like that, but that’s because he had two jet engines with afterburners

Just read about that one...wow.
260 knots over the threshold. More fun than a T-38 with a couple thousand pounds of fuel on a no-flaps.

 

[Kyle N]

Prelim: https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/192890/pdf

Some were suspecting they were performing commercial maneuvers, and seems like they were doing that (and then some). The explanation given by the pilot doesn't sound overly stressful on the aircraft, but who knows how accurate that representation was.
Also looks like there was some witnesses and even a cell phone video.

According to the flight instructor seated in the left seat, the purpose of the flight was to conduct a Title 14 CFR Part 141 proficiency check in order for the flight instructor seated in the right seat to begin instructing at the flight school. The flight departed from Treasure Coast International Airport (FPR), Fort Pierce, Florida and proceeded about 10 miles southwest to perform a variety of training maneuvers. The left seat instructor reported that the right seat instructor satisfactorily demonstrated maneuvers including chandelles, lazy eights, and slow flight. Subsequently, the right seat instructor asked him, “Can you show me something new? ”The left seat instructor responded that given he was already an instructor, there were no new maneuvers, but added, “I can show you an EASA [European Union Aviation Safety Agency(EASA)] maneuver.” He described that the maneuver involved a power-off aerodynamic stall and recovery without the use of engine power. The left seat instructor took the flight controls and initiated the demonstration; he pitched up and entered a full aerodynamic stall, with power at idle. After the airplane stalled, he recalled pitching to “Vg” (glide airspeed, 73 knots) to recover from the stall. During the recovery, with power at idle, he stated, “the right wing came off” and there was an “abrupt banking tendency” to the right.

He recalled that he retracted the flaps, and added rudder and aileron application, but his “eyes were getting blurry,” he was starting to see “white,” and the airplane was “losing altitude like crazy.” He also noticed that a lot of wind was entering the cockpit. Subsequently, his next memory was awaking in the hospital. He did not recall observing any other components depart the airplane.

Edit - There is a lot of information about the wings, spars, and previous inspection & AD compliance. Factored service hours were 15,405 hours back in 2021 when the AD was complied with.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Is anyone able to figure out how these two paragraphs make sense? Which one is right?

According to the airplane’s maintenance records, the most recent 100-hour inspector was
competed on June 29, 2023. The endorsement noted that Airworthiness Directive AD 20-26-16
Wing Spar Integrity was complied with, and at the time of this inspection, the factored hours
were 1,199.1. The endorsement noted that no further AD action was required until the airplane
had accumulated 5,000 factored hours.

On March 22, 2021, an eddy current inspection per AD 2020-26-16 was completed and both
wings, and forward and aft spars were marked as accepted. At this inspection, the airframe
was noted to have a time in service of 15,572.9 hours. The factored service hours for both
wings were 15,405.02 hours. The endorsement noted that during the non-destructive testing,
no defects were found and new wing spar bolts and nuts were installed.

 

[Kyle N]

Is anyone able to figure out how these two paragraphs make sense? Which one is right?

It's saying that since the AD was complied with in 2021, the aircraft had accumulated 1,199 FSH at the time of the 100-hour in June 2023.

The AD inspection is required to be performed every 5000 FSH.

 

[Eric Pauley]

I believe the inspection is required to be performed every 5000 FSH. So, the AD was initially complied with in March 2021, and during the June 2023 100-hr it was noted that the AD had been complied with.

Maybe it should say " ...no further AD action was required until the airplane had accumulated 5,000 factored hours since previous inspection"?

Yes, but the two entries have vastly different TIS and factored hours. Is the top (later) entry implying 1200 factored hours *since* the ECI in 2021? That would be 600h/yr which is possible. The interim AD is one-time, though, so this doesn't really make sense either.

 

[Kyle N]

My understanding is once you hit 5,000 factored service hours and perform the inspection your clock resets. If you reach 5,000 again you would have to perform the inspection again. But I will re-read the AD because maybe I am thinking of the SB.

 

[Eric Pauley]

My understanding is once you hit 5,000 factored service hours and perform the inspection your clock resets. If you reach 5,000 again you would have to perform the inspection again. But I will re-read the AD because maybe I am thinking of the SB.

See https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID159830425420221019132116.0001

The SAIB clarifies that the inspection is (currently) one-time.

 

[Kyle N]

Yes, but the two entries have vastly different TIS and factored hours. Is the top (later) entry implying 1200 factored hours *since* the ECI in 2021? That would be 600h/yr which is possible. The interim AD is one-time, though, so this doesn't really make sense either.

It was at a flight school, so 600 factored service hours per year would be totally possible. Honestly if it was flying daily I would expect more than that. If it flew 1000 hours per year (20 hrs/week), and had 10 100-hr inspections that year it would equate to 1000 factored service hours.

I'm wondering if the AP/IA who made the entry incorrectly thought it was required every 5,000 FSH and not just one-time for any aircraft >5,000.

 

[tceq24443]

Two items of interest to me:

Right wing:

"The lower main spar wing fitting was fractured through the outboard wing attach bolt holes and there was slight upward deformation at the fracture location." The weak point on that wing

"Preliminary examination of the wing fracture surfaces, conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory, found that by unaided eye and by stereo microscope, all fracture surfaces displayed features that were consistent with overstress separation. There were no indications of fatigue fractures observed." I wonder if the left seat pilot is telling the investigators the full details of the recovery from the EASA maneuver since from my understanding there wasn't fatigue involved?

 

[Eric Pauley]

Two items of interest to me:

Right wing:

"The lower main spar wing fitting was fractured through the outboard wing attach bolt holes and there was slight upward deformation at the fracture location." The weak point on that wing

"Preliminary examination of the wing fracture surfaces, conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory, found that by unaided eye and by stereo microscope, all fracture surfaces displayed features that were consistent with overstress separation. There were no indications of fatigue fractures observed." I wonder if the left seat pilot is telling the investigators the full details of the recovery from the EASA maneuver since from my understanding there wasn't fatigue involved?

My thoughts exactly. It's easy to jump to conclusions on the spar bolt hole because there's an AD, but if the wing is going to fail that's (one of) the first place it will. If we trust the metalurgical conclusions (no fatigue), then that would seem to imply the airframe was overstressed. It's a little annoying the preliminary report didn't include more images, e.g., of the fracture through the spar bolt holes.

 

[Bell206]

I'm wondering if the AP/IA who made the entry incorrectly thought it was required every 5,000 FSH and not just one-time for any aircraft >5,000.

Given they were compliant with the initial AD requirements, my guess is they were proactively repeating the AD requirements on a new 5000 TIS clock. Using the AD as a reference for the 2nd time track one method of doing this. Have seen similar rechecks at the 135 levels.

Two items of interest to me:

Same here. However, its mainly the picture of the uniformly distorted center main spar box that I think is very telling. And the fact its mentioned no visible signs of fatigue cracking at the breaks. The 2018 Piper wing failure center spar box was not deformed and I believe it only lost one wing vs both in this accident.

 

[23103a]

Two items of interest to me:

Right wing:

"The lower main spar wing fitting was fractured through the outboard wing attach bolt holes and there was slight upward deformation at the fracture location." The weak point on that wing

"Preliminary examination of the wing fracture surfaces, conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory, found that by unaided eye and by stereo microscope, all fracture surfaces displayed features that were consistent with overstress separation. There were no indications of fatigue fractures observed." I wonder if the left seat pilot is telling the investigators the full details of the recovery from the EASA maneuver since from my understanding there wasn't fatigue involved?

That certainly makes this part of the accident flight more interesting, approximately 2.5 minutes before the wing came off.



600 feet of descent in 5 seconds with a calculated vertical rate of -7200FPM. The airplane gets moving pretty quick (133 kt ground speed) and levels off. I would imagine arresting a descent of that magnitude so quickly would create a lot of positive Gs...?

 

[tobnpr]

^^^

all fracture surfaces displayed features that were consistent with overstress separation.

Yep. Sure appears that he over-G'd the airplane. 100 ft/sec descent abruptly arrested.