Towpilot fatality in Oregon

On Aug 31, 11:40*am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Ian Strachan wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:27 pm, "
wrote:

some of us also fly Pawnee towplanes
and have a certain interest in what happened. *

This may already be known to you, and it may have nothing to do with
this accident, but it appears that Pawnees have been built with three
different types of fuel tanks, with one type accounting for a
disproportionate share of post-crash fires. In 1987 the U.S. NTSB issued
the following recommendation to Piper Aircraft regarding the higher
incidence of post-crash fire fatalities of those aircraft having a
fiberglass fuel tank:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1987/A87_100.pdf

The accident aircraft had a serial number of 25-468, so if the NTSB
recommendation was not followed for that aircraft and it still had the
same tank, it may have had a fiberglass fuel tank and therefore among
the group showing the highest percentage of fatalities and injuries due
to post-crash fires.

Turning to this tragic accident, in very general terms, what happened?

That cannot be "secret", surely?

Gary Boggs' posts have the most pertinent information. Also, see news
video link I include below.

In particular, what were the approximate flight paths of the towplane
and also of the glider? *That will indicate a lot, and rule out some
causes such as structural failure (my club uses a 235hp Pawnee amongst
others, so I have a definite interest!)

A possible cause could be engine failure (full or partial, the latter
often being more difficult to deal with), although landing straight
ahead should not normally have fatal consequences. *Did the towplane
turn after releasing the glider? *Someone must know.

The towplane landed approximately straight ahead into a field at the
north end of the runway. There is a local TV news video at the following
URL, and in it they have a shot from a helicopter where you can see the
area of blackend burned grass where he landed at about 1:28 into the
video:

http://kezi.com/news/local/138834

Here's a Google map link of the airport:http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...123.007479&spn...

The NTSB numbers would not seem to be statistically meaningful except
to say crashed Pawnees are known to burn regardless of tank type. The
number of crashes is too small to say one tank type is better than
another.

There are other airplanes with worse post crash fire records. The
Beechcraft Baron has fuel drains as the lowest part of the aircraft
with the gear retracted so in a gear-up landing they are the first
things to contact the runway. Fuel always spills and a fire almost
always follows.

On Aug 31, 2:39*pm, bildan wrote:
On Aug 31, 11:40*am, Jim Logajan wrote:





Ian Strachan wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:27 pm, "
wrote:

some of us also fly Pawnee towplanes
and have a certain interest in what happened. *

This may already be known to you, and it may have nothing to do with
this accident, but it appears that Pawnees have been built with three
different types of fuel tanks, with one type accounting for a
disproportionate share of post-crash fires. In 1987 the U.S. NTSB issued
the following recommendation to Piper Aircraft regarding the higher
incidence of post-crash fire fatalities of those aircraft having a
fiberglass fuel tank:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1987/A87_100.pdf

The accident aircraft had a serial number of 25-468, so if the NTSB
recommendation was not followed for that aircraft and it still had the
same tank, it may have had a fiberglass fuel tank and therefore among
the group showing the highest percentage of fatalities and injuries due
to post-crash fires.

Turning to this tragic accident, in very general terms, what happened?

That cannot be "secret", surely?

Gary Boggs' posts have the most pertinent information. Also, see news
video link I include below.

In particular, what were the approximate flight paths of the towplane
and also of the glider? *That will indicate a lot, and rule out some
causes such as structural failure (my club uses a 235hp Pawnee amongst
others, so I have a definite interest!)

A possible cause could be engine failure (full or partial, the latter
often being more difficult to deal with), although landing straight
ahead should not normally have fatal consequences. *Did the towplane
turn after releasing the glider? *Someone must know.

The towplane landed approximately straight ahead into a field at the
north end of the runway. There is a local TV news video at the following
URL, and in it they have a shot from a helicopter where you can see the
area of blackend burned grass where he landed at about 1:28 into the
video:

http://kezi.com/news/local/138834

Here's a Google map link of the airport:http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...123.007479&spn...

The NTSB numbers would not seem to be statistically meaningful except
to say crashed Pawnees are known to burn regardless of tank type. *The
number of crashes is too small to say one tank type is better than
another.

There are other airplanes with worse post crash fire records. *The
Beechcraft Baron has fuel drains as the lowest part of the aircraft
with the gear retracted so in a gear-up landing they are the first
things to contact the runway. *Fuel always spills and a fire almost
always follows.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill makes a good point. Also , it is worth noting that these seem to
relate to post crash fires.
It is somewhat well known that the "early " Pawnees (I fly #54 every
week) were known to have a more than minimal risk of fire when nosed
over hard and driving the hot exhaust system back into the tank area.
That said, what little we seem to "know" about this implies the
possibility of an in flight fire with not enough time to land and
escape safely- really sad.
Also well said, it that sharing info is valuable. I admit to not
having done so during a period of 3 engine failures over a period of 8
months in our Pawnee. We didn't feel we had credible evidence to
report that it wasn't our problem.
All 3 were cylinder head failures, one of which was 8 miles from home
and 4000 ft. Cockpit full of smoke, big shake- no fire luckily. Got
home on minimal power. Cylinder(#3) replaced under warranty by
manufacturer. 6 Months later, second failure, this time #4. Replaced
under warranty. 1 month later #3 again. Second and third failed such
that intake separated and no power was available. We told
manufacturer- ECI, we were done with their product ask asked for
refund which they provided us. This paid for Lycoming cylinders. No
problems(knock on wood) for 2 years. a few months later and AD came
out.
Lesson in this long story is that there is value in sharing the
learnings of these sad events.
Respectfully
UH

Scott wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:


RAS isn't a court of law trying to issue a fair judgment. We don't
need "all the facts" to have discussions that leaven the pain of
losing a fellow pilot, or goad us into rethinking about what we do
when get into our towplane or glider, and what we should be doing.

That is just the way most of us work.

Yes, you have said facts. Did the Pawnee lose a wing? Stall? Carb
Ice? What is the lesson in a Pawnee that crashed in Oregon with a
fatality, other vehicle OK, etc.? What lesson do you take away from
this? Keep the wings on? Use carb heat? Fly the airplane? All good
advice, but something we ordinarily do on every (normal) flight....

Two things, I think:

1) Ti think it is the "something we ordinarily do on every (normal)
flight" that worries people: this flight seemed like a normal, every day
flight, and yet it went badly wrong. The other pilots on this thread are
likely worried they could be caught in the same circumstance, and they
want to know *now* how to avoid it, not a year from now.

2) Your goal in this situation seems to lie with knowing how and why the
accident occurred, but without the urgency to apply to your actions.
This makes you willing to wait a year for the dust to settle. Nothing
wrong with that, particularly if you aren't a towpilot or don't tow
behind Pawnees, but perhaps you can understand the urgency the other
pilots feel and how that means getting information, even it it's
incomplete and ocasionally wrong, sooner rather than later is an asset,
not a liability.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On Aug 31, 2:19*pm, wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:39*pm, bildan wrote:



On Aug 31, 11:40*am, Jim Logajan wrote:

Ian Strachan wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:27 pm, "
wrote:

some of us also fly Pawnee towplanes
and have a certain interest in what happened. *

This may already be known to you, and it may have nothing to do with
this accident, but it appears that Pawnees have been built with three
different types of fuel tanks, with one type accounting for a
disproportionate share of post-crash fires. In 1987 the U.S. NTSB issued
the following recommendation to Piper Aircraft regarding the higher
incidence of post-crash fire fatalities of those aircraft having a
fiberglass fuel tank:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1987/A87_100.pdf

The accident aircraft had a serial number of 25-468, so if the NTSB
recommendation was not followed for that aircraft and it still had the
same tank, it may have had a fiberglass fuel tank and therefore among
the group showing the highest percentage of fatalities and injuries due
to post-crash fires.

Turning to this tragic accident, in very general terms, what happened?

That cannot be "secret", surely?

Gary Boggs' posts have the most pertinent information. Also, see news
video link I include below.

In particular, what were the approximate flight paths of the towplane
and also of the glider? *That will indicate a lot, and rule out some
causes such as structural failure (my club uses a 235hp Pawnee amongst
others, so I have a definite interest!)

A possible cause could be engine failure (full or partial, the latter
often being more difficult to deal with), although landing straight
ahead should not normally have fatal consequences. *Did the towplane
turn after releasing the glider? *Someone must know.

The towplane landed approximately straight ahead into a field at the
north end of the runway. There is a local TV news video at the following
URL, and in it they have a shot from a helicopter where you can see the
area of blackend burned grass where he landed at about 1:28 into the
video:

http://kezi.com/news/local/138834

Here's a Google map link of the airport:http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...123.007479&spn...

The NTSB numbers would not seem to be statistically meaningful except
to say crashed Pawnees are known to burn regardless of tank type. *The
number of crashes is too small to say one tank type is better than
another.

There are other airplanes with worse post crash fire records. *The
Beechcraft Baron has fuel drains as the lowest part of the aircraft
with the gear retracted so in a gear-up landing they are the first
things to contact the runway. *Fuel always spills and a fire almost
always follows.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill makes a good point. Also , it is worth noting that these seem to
relate to post crash fires.
It is somewhat well known that the "early " Pawnees (I fly #54 every
week) were known to have a more than minimal risk of fire when nosed
over hard and driving the hot exhaust system back into the tank area.
That said, what little we seem to "know" about this implies the
possibility of an in flight fire with not enough time to land and
escape safely- really sad.
Also well said, it that sharing info is valuable. I admit to not
having done so during a period of 3 engine failures over a period of 8
months in our Pawnee. We didn't feel we had credible evidence to
report that it wasn't our problem.
All 3 were cylinder head failures, one of which was 8 miles from home
and 4000 ft. Cockpit full of smoke, big shake- no fire luckily. Got
home on minimal power. Cylinder(#3) replaced under warranty by
manufacturer. 6 Months later, second failure, this time #4. Replaced
under warranty. 1 month later #3 again. Second and third failed such
that intake separated and no power was available. We told
manufacturer- ECI, we were done with their product ask asked for
refund which they provided us. This paid for Lycoming cylinders. No
problems(knock on wood) for 2 years. a few months later and AD came
out.
Lesson in this long story is that there is value in sharing the
learnings of these sad events.
Respectfully
UH

Thanks for sharing.

The following recently happened with our Pawnee (D with wing tanks).
The pilot more commonly flies one with the fuselage tank, so he can be
excused for the urgent flight from the cockpit.

"Probably not quite exact, but executive summary: Cylinder baffle
brace wire chafed through #4 oil return line. Oil leak onto exhaust
stacks caused smoke in cockpit on takeoff roll. [pilot] shut tow down,
after XP had lifted off. Both got stopped safely before fence. [pilot]
flung the headset out one side, seatbelts off, and bailed out. Missed
the wing walk, and put a foot through the wing fabric. .... BEST news
is [pilot's] OK. We can replace equipment, but people are infinitely
valuable."

Frank Whiteley

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Scott wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:


RAS isn't a court of law trying to issue a fair judgment. We don't
need "all the facts" to have discussions that leaven the pain of
losing a fellow pilot, or goad us into rethinking about what we do
when get into our towplane or glider, and what we should be doing.

That is just the way most of us work.

Yes, you have said facts. Did the Pawnee lose a wing? Stall? Carb
Ice? What is the lesson in a Pawnee that crashed in Oregon with a
fatality, other vehicle OK, etc.? What lesson do you take away from
this? Keep the wings on? Use carb heat? Fly the airplane? All good
advice, but something we ordinarily do on every (normal) flight....

Two things, I think:

1) Ti think it is the "something we ordinarily do on every (normal)
flight" that worries people: this flight seemed like a normal, every day
flight, and yet it went badly wrong. The other pilots on this thread are
likely worried they could be caught in the same circumstance, and they
want to know *now* how to avoid it, not a year from now.

2) Your goal in this situation seems to lie with knowing how and why the
accident occurred, but without the urgency to apply to your actions.
This makes you willing to wait a year for the dust to settle. Nothing
wrong with that, particularly if you aren't a towpilot or don't tow
behind Pawnees, but perhaps you can understand the urgency the other
pilots feel and how that means getting information, even it it's
incomplete and ocasionally wrong, sooner rather than later is an asset,
not a liability.


I'm not disputing that time may be of the essence, but until there are
more facts to go on, it could be a disservice, if you will, to say (for
example) Pawnees are known to have higher post crash fires, when the
fire could have occured during flight. In other words, I could put out
a hundred guesses as to what happened and most, if not all, would be
incorrect because the only facts I have to go on are it was a Pawnee,
there was a fire and there was a fatality.

Well, so much for preliminary reports. Most of the information that I
posted earlier, obtained from people that were there the day of the
accident, appears to be wrong. The latest info is that the Pawnee
crashed, not landed, in a significant nose down attitude. The
Schweitzer tow hook, which was mounted upside down, with the arm on
the bottom side, was bent up at a significant angle. It does not
appear to be bent from the crash. The tow release in this Pawnee was
on the floor near the flap handle, which would make it very hard to
reach in a negative G situation. The release handle in the Pawnee did
not look like it had been activated. Even if it had been pulled, it
might not have released with a strong upward pull because the
mechanism on the tail was mounted upside down.

This was the glider pilot’s second solo flight.

This is looking more like an upset caused by the glider getting too
high, and not an on board fire before the crash like we thought
earlier.

The lawyers are preparing to sue everybody involved.

On Sep 4, 10:18*am, GARY BOGGS wrote:
Well, so much for preliminary reports. *Most of the information that I
posted earlier, obtained from people that were there the day of the
accident, appears to be wrong. *The latest info is that the Pawnee
crashed, not landed, in a significant nose down attitude. *The
Schweitzer tow hook, which was mounted upside down, with the arm on
the bottom side, was bent up at a significant angle. *It does not
appear to be bent from the crash. *The tow release in this Pawnee was
on the floor near the flap handle, which would make it very hard to
reach in a negative G situation. *The release handle in the Pawnee did
not look like it had been activated. *Even if it had been pulled, it
might not have released with a strong upward pull because the
mechanism on the tail was mounted upside down.

This was the glider pilot’s second solo flight.

This is looking more like an upset caused by the glider getting too
high, and not an on board fire before the crash like we thought
earlier.

The lawyers are preparing to sue everybody involved.

Jeeez!
Inverted hook is intended to make release easier under high load than
original configuration. We tested this when we put it on our Pawnee
and found it to be true.
That said, you don't have much time and it's hard to get to release if
you are going to negative G.
Bent mount is obviously a clue to very high loads.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
UH

Originally Posted by GARY BOGGS

Well, so much for preliminary reports. Most of the information that I
posted earlier, obtained from people that were there the day of the
accident, appears to be wrong. The latest info is that the Pawnee
crashed, not landed, in a significant nose down attitude. The
Schweitzer tow hook, which was mounted upside down, with the arm on
the bottom side, was bent up at a significant angle. It does not
appear to be bent from the crash. The tow release in this Pawnee was
on the floor near the flap handle, which would make it very hard to
reach in a negative G situation. The release handle in the Pawnee did
not look like it had been activated. Even if it had been pulled, it
might not have released with a strong upward pull because the
mechanism on the tail was mounted upside down.

This was the glider pilot’s second solo flight.

This is looking more like an upset caused by the glider getting too
high, and not an on board fire before the crash like we thought
earlier.

The lawyers are preparing to sue everybody involved.

Gary,

I suspect the loads transmitted via the tow rope would never be anywhere near enough to bend the mounting plate, even if the rope had not broken at its rated stength of around 1,000 lbs.

Have you considered that the bend is more likely to be from the impact of the tailwheel?

Your comment about the lawyers is insensitive in the extreme to those involved, and I suspect based on nothing but gleeful speculation on your part?

OGP

The NTSB said that the bent tow hook mount was inconsistent with the
crash. It is also very hard for me to imagine that a tow rope would
be strong enough to bend the tow hook mount.

Sorry about the lawyer comment. I hope it's not true.

I don't know how you could have seen any glee in any of my posts. I
am very sad about this tragety. It compounds the tragety when the
lawyers get involved and try to hold everybody else liable in my
opinion.