• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

That bribery case is a great example of why maintenance personnel need to be 'boarded' by other maintenance types. If you were this kid, how would you like to see a jury of high time mechanics judging your case?

Web
 
Interesting then report stated hit the wire. Rumor was he saw the wire and like Steve dove under but flipped it as a result. (Assuming on water contact)

That was the scenario I was thinking given the lack of apparent damage. All in all, a good outcome from a bad situation.
 
For C-206s there's a known issue with egress through the rear cargo doors after upset for passengers, especially when the flaps are still extended. I'll add no more and let those interested read the following Canadian accident report and FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet. CA is proposing an AD. Note the pilot's experience and training offered. And note the pilot's left hand forward door remained closed while the pilot and one rear passenger exited the left forward window.

Canadian Final Report: https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2018/a18w0129/a18w0129.html
FAA: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2020/Mar/ACS_Cessna_206_Cargo_Door_Exit.pdf

Gary
 
Last edited:
Never had the experience hitting wires, but spent many years banner towing along the beaches of NJ and NY. Kites are the biggest issue there. Hit a kite string and it will act like a whip saw and cut your wing off! One day after a long day of towing, I found about 100’ of kite string wrapped around the prop hub. Never saw the kite, string, or the fool flying it. I was fortunate I hit it with the prop and not the wing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
in the comments on facebook, said jet engine part... would think you'd miss having it installed... lots of missing bolts... I don't speak jet engine...

Anyone know what this is ?? Was thinking it came off a rocket, its about 4 feet in the ground


IMG_7555.JPG

IMG_7556.JPG

IMG_7557.JPG

IMG_7558.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7555.JPG
    IMG_7555.JPG
    216.7 KB · Views: 359
  • IMG_7556.JPG
    IMG_7556.JPG
    236.6 KB · Views: 271
  • IMG_7557.JPG
    IMG_7557.JPG
    185.8 KB · Views: 2,292
  • IMG_7558.JPG
    IMG_7558.JPG
    234.7 KB · Views: 262
Just a loose guess with a 78% chance of error,

A N Korean nose cone from a missile. Could be an old Chinese or other nation's. Personally I lean towards N Korean since they are still crawling out of the dark ages where Chinese are currently putting most all of our governments satellites in space with multiple launches a month.
 
Just a loose guess with a 78% chance of error,

A N Korean nose cone from a missile. Could be an old Chinese or other nation's. Personally I lean towards N Korean since they are still crawling out of the dark ages where Chinese are currently putting most all of our governments satellites in space with multiple launches a month.
Look at the open bolt holes. This was removed from something else. There is no evidence of destructive removal. Where was this found?

attachment.php
 
For C-206s there's a known issue with egress through the rear cargo doors after upset for passengers, especially when the flaps are still extended. I'll add no more and let those interested read the following Canadian accident report and FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet. CA is proposing an AD. Note the pilot's experience and training offered. And note the pilot's left hand forward door remained closed while the pilot and one rear passenger exited the left forward window.

Canadian Final Report: https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2018/a18w0129/a18w0129.html
FAA: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2020/Mar/ACS_Cessna_206_Cargo_Door_Exit.pdf

Gary

Maybe 20 years ago or more the guy who taught me to fly let a student (owner of the plane) land an amphib equipped 206 with the gear down in the East River in NYC. The two in the front got out but the girl in the back couldn’t get the door open because flaps were down. When he realized she was still in the plane he went under and guided her out through the front. Then he swallowed a large helping of river water. She popped up ok, he popped up like a harpooned whale. My buddy ended up in the hospital but they were all ok.
 
Re C-206: "The (left) window-retaining arm had been removed from the occurrence aircraft" The window could then be fully opened and likely saved some. Bubble windows don't open as much. Pilot seat still full forward? (that's how she flew due to height plus wore no shoulder harness) and all the doors still locked. Reach in through open window and unlatch door? Lots of potential tangles to get caught on (belts and loose floor covering). I rode in C-205 and 206 on floats but never flew. Was told to unazz the plane via the pilot door if possible and kept a knife handy to cut things.

Edit: Found another review of C-206 egress issues: https://smartpilot.ca/airmanship/ai...p-articles/166-surviving-a-sinking-floatplane

And apparently they offered a left cargo door on the earlier C-205 (https://www.marvgolden.com/downloads/dl/file/id/65/cessna_206_training_manual_book_excerpt.pdf).

Gary
 
Last edited:
Look at the open bolt holes. This was removed from something else. There is no evidence of destructive removal. Where was this found?

attachment.php


Looks to have lost all top bolts and still bolted to bottom attachment ring??

Somewhere in the world, someone is missing part of a jet engine..... hopefully they noticed...

IMG_7578.JPGIMG_7579.JPGIMG_7580.JPG



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7578.JPG
    IMG_7578.JPG
    28.3 KB · Views: 211
  • IMG_7579.JPG
    IMG_7579.JPG
    44.3 KB · Views: 201
  • IMG_7580.JPG
    IMG_7580.JPG
    108.9 KB · Views: 220
Re C-206: "The (left) window-retaining arm had been removed from the occurrence aircraft" The window could then be fully opened and likely saved some. Bubble windows don't open as much. Pilot seat still full forward? (that's how she flew due to height plus wore no shoulder harness) and all the doors still locked. Reach in through open window and unlatch door? Lots of potential tangles to get caught on (belts and loose floor covering). I rode in C-205 and 206 on floats but never flew. Was told to unazz the plane via the pilot door if possible and kept a knife handy to cut things.

Edit: Found another review of C-206 egress issues: https://smartpilot.ca/airmanship/ai...p-articles/166-surviving-a-sinking-floatplane

And apparently they offered a left cargo door on the earlier C-205 (https://www.marvgolden.com/downloads/dl/file/id/65/cessna_206_training_manual_book_excerpt.pdf).

Gary

Gary,

The 205 and P-206 both had a much smaller passenger door on the left for back seat pax to use. The much more common U-206 is the subject of these discussions. I don’t believe the 205 or P-206 were float approved, though I seem to recall someone at Wipaire was trying to get a P 206 approved on floats.

Wipaire also offers a right side Co-pilot door, which would help in an upset.

MTV
 
...Wipaire also offers a right side Co-pilot door, which would help in an upset. MTV

Thanks Mike. It was 1966 so the 205 might have been a 206, although I recall a cowl nose bump. Afton Coon had it in Sitka plus an assortment of floatplanes including a Norseman and twin Piper.

A second door would be nice but it's also a good idea to try to open the pilots door if pressure and time allow. It seems like a quick up-flap command might help unless it's jammed against the fuselage.

What pre-flight briefing did you do when flying a similar plane?

Gary
 
Thanks Mike. It was 1966 so the 205 might have been a 206, although I recall a cowl nose bump. Afton Coon had it in Sitka plus an assortment of floatplanes including a Norseman and twin Piper.

A second door would be nice but it's also a good idea to try to open the pilots door if pressure and time allow. It seems like a quick up-flap command might help unless it's jammed against the fuselage.

What pre-flight briefing did you do when flying a similar plane?

Gary

Gary,

I decided that the aft cargo door was not a viable emergency exit. Also, since I was nearly always carrying both passengers and their gear, plus some gas, I never used the third row (aft) seats. A lot of times, because of big loads and two pax, with stuff like rafts and motors, etc, in fact we were operating with just three up. In that case, I removed the right side middle seat, and put the one rear passenger in left center row seat.

As a result, I briefed passengers that the cargo door was not a viable emergency egress point. They all got briefed on how to open it with flaps down, in case it got really weird, by lowering flaps during pre flight and demo. That generally convinced them that upside down under water, that is not an exit.

Point is, Any of the above loading scenarios resulted in essentially the same situation as a 185. Egress through pilots door.

Really the only situation where you can use those aft seats is air tours, where there’s no gear and little gas. I wouldn’t use all those seats in a 206 in that situation. Find a better tool for that job.

MTV
 
Lets add in these facts about the Collings family and the many unnecessary airplane crashes,
https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2019/10/03/collings-foundation-plane-crash-record

Other things not listed here were failed ramp checks such as at Bradley Field about 15 or 20 years back where these two planes were grounded for months due to lack of maintenance and documentation. I can not pull up the articles on this due to the band width from today's news but I am personally aware of that event.

I am sure Bob Collings will lash out with all his financial might since he will never let authority stand in his way.
 
Dan Gryder, DC3 instructor, has weighed in on the Collings Foundation. The pilot could really fly a B-17, to the point he flew it all by himself, with ballast in the right seat. There was no CRM, and the organization had no SMS as required at any warbird ride operation. Not insufficient, just none. The pilot was also the maint chief, conflict of interest.

He thinks Mac feathered 4 on reflex, as that was the one they were fiddling with. But it was really 3, and unfeathering takes forever. Feathering is a quick push of a button, the copilot might not have known what was going on. The 3rd guy survived and has said he was clueless. It was Mac's airplane.
 
One of the first "Eye witness reports" said the plane flew over him and he called out #3 was misfiring. So there is a fair bit of logic to this comment. But in the time it took to fly the downwind leg should have been enough to get #4 back online, if they recognized the issue and if it was even able to. Keep in mind #4 had it's share of issues and bringing it back online might have been the wrong thing to do.
Either way 2 or 3 people up front there made mistakes during the flight not to mention the many that have been done for decades in that organization.
I still question why they did not shorten their run and bring it in on 33.
 
He was turning away from the two good engines, banking so slightly they were 4 miles out on downwind. Cutting power and cranking for 33 would leave him 4 mi out at 800ft. He did well getting it around to 6 and not over banking.
 
Last edited:
These multi engine accidents make me think about training, and the need to do it often. I don't know anything about the organization that owns the B-17, but I see a similar pattern of behavior as the local Twin Comanche crash a couple years ago: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/195708.

Maneuvering with engines out is a challenge, and as we can see has serious consequences. One thing I did figure out in my training is that an unfeathered engine is much less burden and danger than shutting down an engine giving you power.

Without being in the plane and knowing all that was going on, hard to say a different runway was a better option. Sometimes it might be better to bank into the good engines and turn 270 instead of a 90 to keep your bank in, but we can not know-

Maybe we can learn, and those of you with time in big birds like these can help us understand lest we make the same mistakes.
 
I'm going to throw out a differing opinion......How to read between the lines. The ONLY thing the FAA knows, or cares about, is the paperwork. I spent time in the military and that is all that matters.

Specifically, the FAA found that Collings failed to train the aircraft crew chief, as specified in its operating guidelines. “In an interview with the FAA on March 2, 2020, the crew chief verified that he received no initial training and was unaware of basic information concerning operations under the exemption. Instead, he only received on-the-job training. This lack of training indicates Collings failed to fulfill the terms of condition and limitation Nos. 4 and 7,” the FAA’s document said. The two limitations require specific training and "documentation". What this means is someone did not make a form on Microsoft word that said So and So received training in the following subjects..... Then you make a bunch of lines with little boxes that the employee initials and put that "form" in a black notebook with TRAINING in big black letters on the spine of the notebook. Further, the crew chief told the FAA he was unaware that a safety and risk management program existed at all for the foundation. “This absence of awareness and lack of training establishes that Collings failed to maintain and apply on a continuous basis a safety and risk management program that met or exceeded the criteria specified in the FAA Policy,” the rescission document said. Again....you create a form that says...This foundation adheres to all safety regulations and Safety is the highest priority etc ad
nauseaum. Then you take the same document and add a signatory line and have each employee sign it so you have 30 papers in the notebook. Then you add a few more BS items in the notebook....write SAFETY PROGRAM is big black letters on the spine and Presto you have a "safety culture and program". Oh yeah....you need a safety poster on the wall....that is really important....

I have no doubt there may have been problems but read between the lines folks. Perhaps I'm cynical but I have seen it over and over. In a beauacracy all that matters is the paperwork. Not the actual maintenance or anything else. No paperwork.... it did not happen....regardless of the actual facts. They did not have a safety notebook, or a poster on the wall, therefore they had no safety culture.

After all.....( and how many times have you seen this) "the mishap pilot did not file a flight plan" (like that had ANYTHING to do with the mishap) and therefore he must have not done any planning at all.

Just something to consider.....

Cynically yours

Bill
 
Last edited:
Bill, I see and understand your points. But it looks to me like there are real functional airworthiness gaps also.
 
These multi engine accidents make me think about training, and the need to do it often. I don't know anything about the organization that owns the B-17, but I see a similar pattern of behavior as the local Twin Comanche crash a couple years ago: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/195708.

Maneuvering with engines out is a challenge, and as we can see has serious consequences. One thing I did figure out in my training is that an unfeathered engine is much less burden and danger than shutting down an engine giving you power.

Without being in the plane and knowing all that was going on, hard to say a different runway was a better option. Sometimes it might be better to bank into the good engines and turn 270 instead of a 90 to keep your bank in, but we can not know-

Maybe we can learn, and those of you with time in big birds like these can help us understand lest we make the same mistakes.

One big mistake is they let the plane slow down. Obviously not good especially when you need to turn into the two bad engines, the two critical engines on that plane.
Second, dragging the plane 10-15+ miles with two engines down while doing two 180s into the bad engines.
Runway 33 is 6700 feet and was just a simple 270 turn from where they were and still had momentum.

And Bill, there are no flight plans filed at these events, ever.
 
Back
Top