Embry Riddle - April 4,2018

[goldeneagle]

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/T ... 565-1.html

An Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University training flight crashed shortly after takeoff from Daytona Beach International Airport shortly before 10:00 a.m. EST this morning, killing the student pilot and FAA pilot examiner on board. The Piper PA-28 went down in a pasture, with some witnesses saying that they saw the aircraft’s wing separate from the fuselage in the air. The wing was reportedly located 150-200 yards away from the primary wreckage site. No distress call was received prior to the crash.

[JasonE]

I wonder if the wing departed when it went through the first set of trees, or if it feel off without contact and it went through the 2nd set of trees.

[linecrew]

I wonder if the wing departed when it went through the first set of trees, or if it feel off without contact and it went through the 2nd set of trees.

Ummm...what?!

[JasonE]

Likely bad news reporting again, but there were eye witness reports the wing fell off before it crashed. The wing is in the field across the road from the rest of the fuselage.

[GyvAir]

Couple views of the wing at 0:03 and 1:23. Doesn't look like a wing that was broken off by an impact.

[JasonE]

If you look at the track on FlightAware, there is a significant change in speed, altitude and direction part way into the flight. I wonder if there was something that occurred over stressing the airframe and they were just trying to get back to the airport. It was a CPL flight test, and appears they were heading back into the circuit.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N106ER

[PilotDAR]

Initial NTSB report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

We have not heard the last of this....

[JasonE]

Pretty scary:



I'll be inspecting my wing attachment bolts....

[Donald]

Initial NTSB report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

We have not heard the last of this....

The accident airplane was manufactured in 2007, so would it have been subject to that AD?

Of note, the aircraft was just 28 hours out of annual. So if the AD was applicable, the wing would have been removed for inspection.

[pelmet]

Initial NTSB report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

We have not heard the last of this....

Hmmmm....lets do a little analysis. Perhaps a serious manufacturing defect on what appears to be a late buid model that was not particularly old. Maybe.....perhaps....I'm sure the investigators can look into the manufacturing in detail for such things as changes to manufacturing process or quality control. But what if that turns out to be OK and all the other models built in that time period were fine.

Makes one wonder what else could be a problem or part of a problem. Think about it for a moment. Young pilots operating planes on their own. Remember all those accidents of trainers during the war from young guys doing buzz jobs and illegal aerobatics? Anybody ever heard of someone doing silly stuff at the local flght school? Loops, rolls, etc. I remember a cadet at the flight school I rented from taking a C150 down along the river to buzz by his parents that were in a boat. His parents were the ones who fished him out of the river after he got too low. Another guy ripped the gear off a 172 when he hit a wire during a flyby. All kinds of things happen to these aircraft behind your back that you never hear about.

I have seen an aircraft that had been flying regularly with a damaged spar. Had been flying it myself. Admittedly, it was an old airplane but one still has to wonder how it got that way in the first place.

Who out there has never done an illegal maneuver(or perhaps a legal maneuver) that resulted in quite a g-load. Probably quite a few would raise their hand but there is enough abuse going on out there that when combined with turbulence and hard landings could lead to something fatal.

I hope the NTSB look at radar records for a long time for this aircraft and see if some of the students themselves placed this aircraft into what the SB calls the 'extreme' category multiple times over the years. Perhaps combined with a damage history.

Not saying this is the cause but something worth exploring.

[skybluetrek]

Initial NTSB report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

We have not heard the last of this....

Hmmmm....lets do a little analysis. Perhaps a serious manufacturing defect on what appears to be a late buid model that was not particularly old. Maybe.....perhaps....I'm sure the investigators can look into the manufacturing in detail for such things as changes to manufacturing process or quality control. But what if that turns out to be OK and all the other models built in that time period were fine.

Makes one wonder what else could be a problem or part of a problem. Think about it for a moment. Young pilots operating planes on their own. Remember all those accidents of trainers during the war from young guys doing buzz jobs and illegal aerobatics? Anybody ever heard of someone doing silly stuff at the local flght school? Loops, rolls, etc. I remember a cadet at the flight school I rented from taking a C150 down along the river to buzz by his parents that were in a boat. His parents were the ones who fished him out of the river after he got too low. Another guy ripped the gear off a 172 when he hit a wire during a flyby. All kinds of things happen to these aircraft behind your back that you never hear about.

I have seen an aircraft that had been flying regularly with a damaged spar. Had been flying it myself. Admittedly, it was an old airplane but one still has to wonder how it got that way in the first place.

Who out there has never done an illegal maneuver(or perhaps a legal maneuver) that resulted in quite a g-load. Probably quite a few would raise their hand but there is enough abuse going on out there that when combined with turbulence and hard landings could lead to something fatal.

I hope the NTSB look at radar records for a long time for this aircraft and see if some of the students themselves placed this aircraft into what the SB calls the 'extreme' category multiple times over the years. Perhaps combined with a damage history.

Not saying this is the cause but something worth exploring.

Embry Riddle is far away from the type of flight school where you can rent a c150 on your own for your 'g-load illegal maneuvers'.

The airframe had 7,690.6 hours, but only 28.3 since its most recent annual inspection. The first thing to determine would be if the wing was removed for the inspection or not.

[pelmet]

Initial NTSB report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

We have not heard the last of this....

Hmmmm....lets do a little analysis. Perhaps a serious manufacturing defect on what appears to be a late buid model that was not particularly old. Maybe.....perhaps....I'm sure the investigators can look into the manufacturing in detail for such things as changes to manufacturing process or quality control. But what if that turns out to be OK and all the other models built in that time period were fine.

Makes one wonder what else could be a problem or part of a problem. Think about it for a moment. Young pilots operating planes on their own. Remember all those accidents of trainers during the war from young guys doing buzz jobs and illegal aerobatics? Anybody ever heard of someone doing silly stuff at the local flght school? Loops, rolls, etc. I remember a cadet at the flight school I rented from taking a C150 down along the river to buzz by his parents that were in a boat. His parents were the ones who fished him out of the river after he got too low. Another guy ripped the gear off a 172 when he hit a wire during a flyby. All kinds of things happen to these aircraft behind your back that you never hear about.

I have seen an aircraft that had been flying regularly with a damaged spar. Had been flying it myself. Admittedly, it was an old airplane but one still has to wonder how it got that way in the first place.

Who out there has never done an illegal maneuver(or perhaps a legal maneuver) that resulted in quite a g-load. Probably quite a few would raise their hand but there is enough abuse going on out there that when combined with turbulence and hard landings could lead to something fatal.

I hope the NTSB look at radar records for a long time for this aircraft and see if some of the students themselves placed this aircraft into what the SB calls the 'extreme' category multiple times over the years. Perhaps combined with a damage history.

Not saying this is the cause but something worth exploring.

Embry Riddle is far away from the type of flight school where you can rent a c150 on your own for your 'g-load illegal maneuvers'.

The airframe had 7,690.6 hours, but only 28.3 since its most recent annual inspection. The first thing to determine would be if the wing was removed for the inspection or not.

You would be amazed at some of the stuff that happens out there, even at the more 'respected' institutions. One need only look at our well-known college accidents.

As for the inspection.....is there any inspection on this type at a certain point that requires wing removal?

[Donald]

As for the inspection.....is there any inspection on this type at a certain point that requires wing removal?

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

[pelmet]

As for the inspection.....is there any inspection on this type at a certain point that requires wing removal?

This takes me back to recollections of Piper Service Bulletin No. 886

https://bsd-box.net/~mikeg/N8031W/SB_SL/SB_0886.pdf

Thanks Donald,

It is important to remember that even though manufacturers frequently state that Service bulletins are mandatory(likely for legal reasons), they are not legally required by law to be performed. Only an AD is mandatory.

[anofly]

the photo is frightening. the portions right and left of the bolt holes look like they have been cracked and working for a while, the portion inboard of the bolt holes looks like a fresh break. the pic seems to indicate that it broke at the last bolt in the fitting, on the outboard side. I will be looking for DAR to chime in , He will know whats up here better than most of us... Jim?
this will be serious....

[J31]

Pretty scary:

I'll be inspecting my wing attachment bolts....

It is the spar that is cracking. Not the bolts.

This has been a issue with Piper PA-28 and 32 low wings for years. Goes back to the 1980's.

[CL-Skadoo!]

.

[PilotDAR]

I too think that for this operator's aircraft, abusive flying by renegade students is very low risk. Certainly not enough to put the aircraft into the "flown hard" category in the big picture.

The photograph of the broken end of the spar is a very telling image of the recent history of that break, the NTSB has done the industry a service by making it so promptly available to us. Though I won't extend myself to make my assertions about what the photo shows in terms of crack propagation, making one's own observations is pretty straight forward in this case. If aluminum works against itself, it tends to get dirty and black, and could appear a little polished. If a crack happens suddenly, there's no opportunity for the aluminum to work against itself, clean, and perhaps more rough surface. Some of the break has black and more polished, some appears more clean and rough in surface texture.

Some structural designs will employ crack stoppers, which could be multiple spar elements, like separate spar caps (typical of Cessna spars). One spar element could crack, while the other element would not have that continue directly in. That part could crack too, though that would be a separate occurance. The Piper spar can be seen to b a one piece "H" beam. The bolt holes have acted as crack stoppers, but really, a lot of the cross section capacity of the spar beam has been lost by the time a crack gets all the way to a bolt hole. Worse, the spar is not easily inspected in this area, so a crack may not be easily detected. This, I presume, formed the rationale for the wing remove and inspect AD back in the '80's. Having done one wing removal for that inspection back in the day, I can say it was a very burdensome task, and I very much doubt that PA-28 wings are being removed for non required inspections. Honestly there is probably more damage being done in a wing removal having to get the bolts out, than damage being found. But - a cracked wing spar is vitally important to find!

I struggle to imagine how there will not be a new wing remove and inspect AD resulting from this accident, time will tell...

I have written elsewhere my opinion that PA-28 owners better brace for the worst before continuing with a wing remove and inspect instruction: Of course, this is very much best found during inspection, rather than in flight. But, if found during inspection, that spar is scrap - will there be a spar or wing available as a replacement part? At what cost, and cost to install? I would be getting those answers before investing in the inspection. My experience with Piper parts support for primary structure for legacy aircraft has been non ideal.

This is not the first time when a structural defect is found by accident, and then a very burdensome AD is issued as a result, it is a type owner's worst nightmare. All that can be said is better to find it by inspection....

[matthew.oommen]

Pretty scary:

I'll be inspecting my wing attachment bolts....

It is the spar that is cracking. Not the bolts.

This has been a issue with Piper PA-28 and 32 low wings for years. Goes back to the 1980's.

You are 100% right. A couple buddies up north fly the 28, and one of them just last weekend noticed the spar had a decent crack.

[fly2017]

Latest.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... vziEYgvzIU

NTSB Finds Other Cracks in a PA-28 Wing
The NTSB investigation into the fatal crash of an Embry Riddle Aeronautical University training plane has made new discoveries.
By Plane & Pilot

The NSTB has released an update on its ongoing investigation of the fatal crash of a Piper PA-28R-201 Arrow near Daytona Beach on April 4th, releasing details of its search to see if other Arrows exhibited similar fractures in the spar and spar attachment assemblies.

Spar Fractures

The Arrow that crashed was a 2007 model Arrow with 7,690 hours of flight time. The crash killed both occupants, Zachary Capra and FAA designated examiner John Azma. Capra was on a FAA checkride when the crash occurred after the left wing separated from the fuselage, putting the Arrow into an unrecoverable descent.

In its latest update issued on May 15, 2018, the NTSB said that its investigators found cracks in the spar cap of the right wing (the one that remained attached) and also in a second non-accident Arrow that had also been used exclusively for flight training. The board then had the wings of that Arrow reattached and used a bolt hole eddy current examination to inspect the wing using a method that Piper developed for the inspection. The inspection did find the cracks that NTSB investigators had identified.

Investigators also inspected nine other PA-28R-201s looking for signs of similar metal fatigue but found none in those other airplanes.

The NTSB is continuing its investigation into the crash.

[JasonE]

2 out of 11....That makes pretty good odds for an A/D coming!

[pelmet]

NTSB Member Recommends Changes to proposed Piper Wing Spar AD

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."

http://piperowner.org/aopa-eaa-join-pip ... -ad-delay/

[PilotDAR]

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

A worthy concern, and, we've been down this very road before. There was a very similar AD back in the '80's, to inspect PA-28 spar attachments. I did the disassembly and inspection as an apprentice. The AD was withdrawn for the same reason, more damage from performing the inspection than that being found. But, there is still an obvious and real risk of a cracked spar, and finding it would be a good idea.

This is an unfortunate feature of this simple wing attachment design - difficult to inspect, and now inspection has been found to be pretty important!

[pelmet]

I think that I might be supportive of some sort of AD on these aircraft.....

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
Extensive fatigue cracking in the left-wing main spar lower cap and doublers, which resulted in the in-flight separation of the left wing. The fatigue cracks initiated and grew to a critical size due to flight and ground loads associated with flight-training involving flight-training maneuvers, significant operation at low altitudes and frequent landing cycles. Previously established inspection criteria were insufficient to detect the fatigue crack before it grew to a critical size."

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

[Capt. Underpants]

If taking them apart to do the inspections causes more damage than the damage typically found, then it seems to me x-rays would be the next logical inspection method. Yes they cost money but this accident has cost ERAU and the families of the victims way, way more.