Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Senior VP of AOPA Richard McSpadden Accident

A challenging decision that has to be made in seconds under great stress. :(

I used to make a habit of deciding where I'd land in case of an engine failure before every takeoff. The easy parts are "Where will I land if it fails at 50'?", "100?", "300?" Those are all straight-ahead, on the remaining runway or something very close to straight ahead. Once you get to 400 AGL, the options ahead get broader because you can reach more to the side. At 500 AGL, if I react correctly, I should be able to get back to the airport environs given any normal winds but not necessarily to the runway.

I'm not sure when I stopped doing that but I know the options (great, good and ugly) for the 4 runways at GFL. I'm going to start thinking about that more seriously again when departing other airports.

At 1000 AGL, one would have expected that two experienced pilots could have reasonably well made it back to the runway or at least some flat-ish piece of ground near it.

:confused:
 
Last edited:
So we now know for sure that it was a failed attempt to return to the airport after an unspecified problem with the airplane. During that attempt, they made "a hard roll to the left" at an altitude lower than 1000' AGL, which was their altitude when the problem occurred. That strongly suggests a spin.

A spin requires a stall and yaw. They were 424' from the runway, presumably heading back toward it, and they crashed in wooded terrain. Since they stalled the airplane, they got too slow for their angle of bank and they had some rudder in. This suggests one of two things:

1. The pilot flying attempted a turn at a bank angle that was too steep for their airspeed, or
2. Airspeed degraded while the pilot was fixating on other things and was still holding right rudder from the takeoff.

Option 1 is the most likely option because they were on their way back to the airport (I think; if not, then option 2 is the likely choice).

The takeaways from this accident are:

1. If the engine fails on takeoff, get your airspeed under control first and foremost. Do not stall the airplane.
2. If you are going to turn back, turn into the wind right away at no more than a 45-degree bank, again making certain that your airspeed is under control.
3. Forget the runway. Land on any safe surface. If it looks unlikely that you will make a flat piece of land, land in the trees. It's far better than a spin.
4. Wherever you land, for God's sake, have the wings level.

Why no more than a 45-degree bank? Three reasons: 45-degrees is actually optimum for the turn; steeper turns increase the stall speed quickly, increasing the likelihood that a stall will occur inadvertently; and the adrenaline and stress of the moment will degrade a pilot's skills. Keep it simple and keep it safe.
 
Cap'n Ron said:
We KNOW very little of what you say so assuredly. It's still pretty much all just speculation.
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy to listen to another set (or sets) of actions that would lead to the facts that we do know: (1) a return to the airport; (2) a "failed attempt"; (3) a steep left turn; (4) a crash in the woods short of the runway.
 
Blancolirio's channel goes through the FAA report and mentions the engine had only 36.7 hours since major overhaul. 36.7 hours is just long enough for improperly assembled or torqued parts to vibrate loose or break.
Pure speculation of course...
And the report mentions a witness saying the engine quit while they were taxi-ing out to take off, then was restarted. And suggests they had partial power in flight.
 
MRC01 said:
Blancolirio's channel goes through the FAA report and mentions the engine had only 36.7 hours since major overhaul. 36.7 hours is just long enough for improperly assembled or torqued parts to vibrate loose or break.
Pure speculation of course...
And the report mentions a witness saying the engine quit while they were taxi-ing out to take off, then was restarted. And suggests they had partial power in flight.
Click to expand...
I haven't read any of the sources, but someone on reddit "clarified" (if they're correct) that the 36.7 since overhaul was as of the last inspection about 6 months ago. At the time of the accident it would have been higher - but by how much is an open question. 🤷‍♂️
 
If you have flown into Lake Placid, you would see that the airport is jammed in pretty tight between mountains, ski jumps, and the town of Lake Placid. There are not a lot of good options in case of an engine failure after takeoff.
 
I can understand the sentiment, but that's a mistake. It will cause confusion and make it difficult for some folks to compare year to year. They should have found a different way to recognize him.
 
The fouled spark plugs do stand out, but it seems unlikely that could cause the loss of power when the upper plugs were all clean and magnetos checked out OK.
 
Aeromot said:
NTSB Preliminary, nothing jumps out at you:
Click to expand...
This jumped out at me:

"The throttle plate was found in the closed position. When the throttle arm was actuated manually, the throttle plate moved freely within the servo, but the threaded rod for the idle thumb screw adjustment was found fractured and not connected."
 
MRC01 said:
The fouled spark plugs do stand out, but it seems unlikely that could cause the loss of power when the upper plugs were all clean and magnetos checked out OK.
Click to expand...
The report indicated that the oil had probably collected on the plugs post-crash.
 
His replacement...

www.avweb.com

Ginter Named Air Safety Institute Head - AVweb

AOPA has named current VP of Airports and State Advocacy Mike Ginter as the new head of the Air Safety Institute. Ginter replaces Richard McSpadden, who was killed in a plane crash in Lake Placid, New York, earlier this year. Like McSpadden, who led the Air Force Thunderbirds, Ginter is a...
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom