Piper airplane in-air breakups article

flyzone

flyzone

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
111
Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
There is a pretty nasty article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today about an asserted tendency for Piper airplanes to break up due to the stabilator design. A lawyer named Wolk who has been ambulance chasing aviation cases for years is hawking this one. The article says the NTSB has never found the design to be flawed but he asserts otherwise. Piper and the NTSB assert that pilot error has been the cause of such accidents. (You need a digital subscription to access). Below is a link upon which the story is based.

Does anyone have any experience or information about how robust the stabilator design is?

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/law/Defect-charged-in-midair-breakups.html
 
A. Noticed he likes to use the video of the flutter test on the Twin Comanche as evidence. That was an intentional test and was setup to do exactly what it did.

B. Any actual failures of the stabilator can usually be traced back to maintenance, or lack there of. I was always trained during preflight to try to move the end of the stabilator up and down to ensure the stabilator bearing was tight and had no play. This is something that should be routinely checked. Every aircraft has its own areas of importance during maintenance and preflight, this just happens to be one on most Pipers.
 
C products DO feel like they are built a lot more stout. Doesn't mean there's any truth to the article however.
 
Isn't there a tail-section AD out there for PA28s? Seems to me that I've heard of some cracking ahead of the rudder assembly but not the stabilator
 
Used to be a spar AD on Cherokees after a high time breakup occurred. Believe the FAA removed it after they realized they overreacted a bit.
 
Velocity173 said:
Used to be a spar AD on Cherokees after a high time breakup occurred. Believe the FAA removed it after they realized they overreacted a bit.
Click to expand...
There is a spar inspection SB on PA-28s. I don't believe it was ever an AD.
 
I would be careful what you say about this lawyer no matter how truthful. Some readers of AVweb wrote letters to the site ridiculing him and he sued and made them pay up for liable. Come to think of it AVweb has not been as good since then. Apparently the truth is not sufficient defense in this country.
 
Last edited:
labbadabba said:
Isn't there a tail-section AD out there for PA28s? Seems to me that I've heard of some cracking ahead of the rudder assembly but not the stabilator
Click to expand...
IIRC there was one regarding the jack screw.
 
jimwomble said:
I would be careful what you say about this lawyer no matter how truthful. So readers of AVweb wrote letters to the site ridiculing him and he sued and made them pay up for liable. Come to think of it AVweb has not been as good since them. Apparently the truth is not sufficient defense in this country.
Click to expand...
Craziness.
 
Last edited:
Bad maintenance could show up in more than just worn stabilator pivot bearings. The jackscrew and all the stuff between it and the anti-servo tab wear, too, and if it falls apart, that tab would flutter and instantly rip the tail off. Even enough free-play in the system could do it.
 
jimwomble said:
I would be careful what you say about this lawyer no matter how truthful. Some readers of AVweb wrote letters to the site ridiculing him and he sued and made them pay up for libel. Come to think of it AVweb has not been as good since then. Apparently the truth is not sufficient defense in this country.
Click to expand...

FTFY. And Jim, I think you may be right on this.
 
Arthur Wolk is a real piece of work. Not only is he not content to sue aircraft manufacturers over alleged deficiencies, he sues aviation forums (like Avweb) that allow people to express their opinion about just what sort of person he is.

Wolk is a pilot, by the way, so he knows better.
 
Sounds like a certain other lawyer-cum-aviator that posted a few years back. His name escapes me, but he tried to sue the LSA manufacturer because he ran out of gas.
 
NTSB Reports for incidents in the article:

Report on the Angel Flight crash, says the plane’s “fiberglass nose assembly failed for an undetermined reason.” - No smoking stabilator here.

For the 2013 Crash cited in the article. The pilot’s loss of control due to spatial disorientation in instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in an exceeded the airplane’s design stress limitations, and a subsequent in-flight breakup. Nope, no smoking stabilator.

The 1976 Seneca break-up had some after-market modifications.
 
midwestpa24 said:
A. Noticed he likes to use the video of the flutter test on the Twin Comanche as evidence. That was an intentional test and was setup to do exactly what it did.

B. Any actual failures of the stabilator can usually be traced back to maintenance, or lack there of. I was always trained during preflight to try to move the end of the stabilator up and down to ensure the stabilator bearing was tight and had no play. This is something that should be routinely checked. Every aircraft has its own areas of importance during maintenance and preflight, this just happens to be one on most Pipers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, I am planning on adding this to my preflight because of what yu wrote, but I need to be sure I understand... When you say "try to move the END of the stabilator" are you meaning trailing edge, or you mean out at the stabilator wing tip, trying to move stabilator up and down in its normal motion from the side?
 
LongRoadBob said:
Thanks for this, I am planning on adding this to my preflight because of what yu wrote, but I need to be sure I understand... When you say "try to move the END of the stabilator" are you meaning trailing edge, or you mean out at the stabilator wing tip, trying to move stabilator up and down in its normal motion from the side?
Click to expand...

The latter.
 
LongRoadBob said:
Thanks for this, I am planning on adding this to my preflight because of what yu wrote, but I need to be sure I understand... When you say "try to move the END of the stabilator" are you meaning trailing edge, or you mean out at the stabilator wing tip, trying to move stabilator up and down in its normal motion from the side?
Click to expand...

Yes the tip of the stabilator, but not in its range in motion, you try to lift the entire stabilator up and down. You don't have to be too aggressive, just try to move it up and down a bit and feel if there is any looseness or wiggle in the bearing. If there is, that is a no-go in my book.
 
jimwomble said:
I would be careful what you say about this lawyer no matter how truthful. Some readers of AVweb wrote letters to the site ridiculing him and he sued and made them pay up for liable. Come to think of it AVweb has not been as good since then. Apparently the truth is not sufficient defense in this country.
Click to expand...

I'll say whatever I feel, 1A rights, if he doesn't like that he should move to china or some other place without freedom of speech.


With all the injustice and unlawful crap done by our government Id think lawyers would have work ontop of work, yet this scumb bag goes after windmills and is a part of the destruction of GA, what a subhuman piece of trash.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Yes the tip of the stabilator, but not in its range in motion, you try to lift the entire stabilator up and down. You don't have to be too aggressive, just try to move it up and down a bit and feel if there is any looseness or wiggle in the bearing. If there is, that is a no-go in my book.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand and will be checking that from now on. Many thinks for this!
 
James331 said:
I'll say whatever I feel, 1A rights, if he doesn't like that he should move to china or some other place without freedom of speech.


With all the injustice and unlawful crap done by our government Id think lawyers would have work ontop of work, yet this scumb bag goes after windmills and is a part of the destruction of GA, what a subhuman piece of trash.
Click to expand...
Problem is, the suit would also name POA...
 
Is my understanding of aerodynamics incorrect or are the nose up and nose down pictures in the article the wrong way round?
 
James331 said:
I'll say whatever I feel, 1A rights, if he doesn't like that he should move to china or some other place without freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
1A rights don't protect against libel lawsuits.
 
So my opinion on some Internet forum is libel lol!

How are jury's letting these things happen? Is it like something in the water, government indoc/public schools, or are people just getting dumber??

I'd have a hard time sitting in that jury without laughing.
 
The NTSB report is vague at the best. Nose assembly broken apart ? My guess is that nose cowling was not attached properly , flew off at some point hits left wing and causing the crash.
I agree with stabilator wiggle. I was told that there should be 0/0 play to prevent flutter
 
I'll keep flying Pipers (with a good preflight of those stabilators) and just keep my opinions to myself.

RE the AvWeb libel suit, this makes for interesting reading: AvWeb Apology
 
James331 said:
So my opinion on some Internet forum is libel lol!
Click to expand...
Several people now on POA (including myself) were hit with a defamation lawsuit ("Conspiracy to Defame") in exactly that way. It's called a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation" (SLAPP) suit. The intent is not to win in a trial, but to intimidate the targets into silence and to discourage others from making similar comments. Fifteen of us were included in the suit. Some of us were targeted for obvious reasons, while others had apparently just made minor comments.

It's funny until you're facing legal bills...and having to explain about them to your spouse.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You need to govern yourself accordingly, Ron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top