Piper Cherokee 140 - Suffolk, Va - 7Jan 23

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Two fatalities. New pilot flying an airplane that has not been released back to service by mechanic and inability to land after engine failure. Feel bad for the family of the passenger who trusted this new pilot. One has to wonder about the instruction here.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106549/pdf

 

[tawood]

Two fatalities. New pilot flying an airplane that has not been released back to service by mechanic and inability to land after engine failure. Feel bad for the family of the passenger who trusted this new pilot. One has to wonder about the instruction here.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106549/pdf

Weird one...seems like the pilot recognized there was a problem, but then ignored it (and the mechanic)???

 

[rotorwrench]

Weird one...seems like the pilot recognized there was a problem, but then ignored it (and the mechanic)???

The pilot owns this one 100%. Given he only had his certificate for a couple months he probably didn't understand the nuances of flying with a "skipping" engine or a lack of approval for return to service from the mechanic. Hopefully the mechanic won't be drug into the fray by an over zealous plaintiff's attorney.

 

[tawood]

The pilot owns this one 100%. Given he only had his certificate for a couple months he probably didn't understand the nuances of flying with a "skipping" engine or a lack of approval for return to service from the mechanic. Hopefully the mechanic won't be drug into the fray by an over zealous plaintiff's attorney.

I agree...I just feel like there is more to the story, like you said he might not of understood the situation, or maybe the pilot had bad information.

 

[rotorwrench]

or maybe the pilot had bad information.

Out of curiosity, are you seeing something in the prelim report that points you in this direction?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I agree that one puzzling thing is why the pilot would have been taking the plane out on this day after it had the magneto drop problem on Jan 4 and the mechanic was supposed to clear it before return to operation. Some sort of mis-communication between the mechanic and pilot? It just seems like a weird thing to do, particularly after just receiving your certificate the previous November.

Also cruising along at 1000' on a typical lunch run and your engine quits - and you can't put it down emergently? He must have practiced this just 2 months before. The nose down description from witness suggests maybe it got to slow and stalled?

 

[rotorwrench]

Some sort of mis-communication between the mechanic and pilot?

What kind of mis-communication ?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

What kind of mis-communication ?

All speculation at this point, but anything that would lead the pilot to think the aircraft was ok to fly. Something like "I ran it up the other day and couldn't find the issue".

Like Tim, something strikes me as odd about a 54 year old newly minted private pilot just deciding to go off and fly a plane which he himself had put into maintenance because of a failed mag check. But perhaps as a mechanic you have seen that sort of thing more often and so your feeling about it is different?

 

[rotorwrench]

newly minted private pilot just deciding to go off and fly

I think this will be a prime reason.

Seems more like he had a buddy over the weekend and decided to go get a $100 burger and show his friend the plane. Thats my swag.

The fact he flew with no logbook entry the saturday before the mechanic completed his work is more telling to his thought process and priorities.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think this will be a prime reason.

I think we should now have a long acrimonious argument about whose intuition is more likely correct given the lack of hard evidence!

 

[Bob Noel]

let's not turn this into POA...

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

let's not turn this into POA...

Remember, if you don’t like the speaker here, just block them. No need to go on and on with them

 

[rotorwrench]

about whose intuition is more likely correct

Ha. You asked based on my mechanic's experience if I've seen this sort of thing more often..... Yes, I've seen a number of newly minted pilots fly unairworthy aircraft due to pure ignorance which is similar to this pilot when reading the prelim report, i.e. current evidence. Hence my questions as to what you and tawood were seeing that I do not.

 

[Bob Noel]

Remember, if you don’t like the speaker here, just block them. No need to go on and on with them

I was being tongue-in-cheek

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

I was being tongue-in-cheek

I prefer foot-in-mouth myself. I'm much better at it.

 

[Rush]

The pax.

Obituary for Christian Rask Fauchald at Miller Funeral Home & Crematory

Christian Rask Fauchald, 54, a beloved member of the Edenton, NC community and a faithful friend to many, went to be with our Heavenly Father on Saturday, January 7, 2023. He will be remembered for his natural intellect and charm, voracious curiosity, open heart and mind, generous spirit, and...

www.millerfhc.com

 

[Rush]

The pilot.

Eric Bergevin Obituary (1969 - 2023) - Edenton, NC - The Daily Advance

View Eric John Bergevin's obituary, send flowers and sign the guestbook.

www.legacy.com

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

This seems strange given his background. In my experience, bankers are very conservative in their decisions. OTOH, it would not be the first high level executive to make fatal mistakes in piloting an aircraft.

 

[Rush]

This seems strange given his background. In my experience, bankers are very conservative in their decisions. OTOH, it would not be the first high level executive to make fatal mistakes in piloting an aircraft.

It’s very weird. But we only have the mechanic’s word that he informed him not to fly the plane. Maybe all he said was, “I’ll look at it again on Monday,” perhaps assuming the obvious implication is I haven’t released it and you shouldn’t fly it. But even then you'd think a reasonable person would know that meant it wasn’t good to fly. Who among us that isn’t a reckless nut would fly it when the mechanic hasn’t released it? And you are spot on that he doesn’t seem like a reckless nut. He’s a successful banker, married settled with a family. Not the type to take a big risk for a hundred dollar hamburger.

The only thing I can figure is he was just too white collar and didn’t fully grasp the implications of a skipping engine. Maybe he never worked on car engines himself. Don’t get me started with kids these days and the computerized monstrosities that pass for cars. We are creating generations of “men” that can’t do shit. But he wasn’t that young. He should have gotten some basic engine knowledge at some point.

The fact that it was parked outside may have subconsciously played into it. It looked “ready to go”. So the thought process may have been, “I know the mechanic wants to check it again Monday but here it is, nothing stopping me from taking it up. Just for a little day trip, I won’t go too high.” (The illusion that you’re safer at lower altitudes.)

What is certain is that he was inexperienced. Some newly minted pilots get offended if you don’t want to go up with them until they’ve several hundred hours in their logbook. Too bad Mr. Fauchald didn’t think that way. But this is exactly why, whether it was poor judgment to fly with a malfunctioning engine, or he just stalled it for whatever reason, he was too inexperienced to even know what he didn’t know. “The FAA says I’m safe to take pax!” Uh huh, sure buddy.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

It’s very weird. But we only have the mechanic’s word that he informed him not to fly the plane. Maybe all he said was, “I’ll look at it again on Monday,” perhaps assuming the obvious implication is I haven’t released it and you shouldn’t fly it. But even then you'd think a reasonable person would know that meant it wasn’t good to fly. Who among us that isn’t a reckless nut would fly it when the mechanic hasn’t released it? And you are spot on that he doesn’t seem like a reckless nut. He’s a successful banker, married settled with a family. Not the type to take a big risk for a hundred dollar hamburger.

The only thing I can figure is he was just too white collar and didn’t fully grasp the implications of a skipping engine. Maybe he never worked on car engines himself. Don’t get me started with kids these days and the computerized monstrosities that pass for cars. We are creating generations of “men” that can’t do shit. But he wasn’t that young. He should have gotten some basic engine knowledge at some point.

The fact that it was parked outside may have subconsciously played into it. It looked “ready to go”. So the thought process may have been, “I know the mechanic wants to check it again Monday but here it is, nothing stopping me from taking it up. Just for a little day trip, I won’t go too high.” (The illusion that you’re safer at lower altitudes.)

What is certain is that he was inexperienced. Some newly minted pilots get offended if you don’t want to go up with them until they’ve several hundred hours in their logbook. Too bad Mr. Fauchald didn’t think that way. But this is exactly why, whether it was poor judgment to fly with a malfunctioning engine, or he just stalled it for whatever reason, he was too inexperienced to even know what he didn’t know. “The FAA says I’m safe to take pax!” Uh huh, sure buddy.

My younger relatives think I'm some kind of car guru because I can do an oil change or a brake job. If only they knew that I used to swap engines in my driveway.

As for this case, I'm pretty sure it's still SOP to tag out unairworthy aircraft. I wonder if that was done.