NTSB Prelim: Second Takeoff Attempt Goes Bad In Luscombe | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

AMA Drone Report

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday

Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On ANN

ADR 02.20.17

Airborne 02.20.17

Airborne 02.21.17

Airborne 02.22.17

Airborne 02.23.17

Airborne 02.17.17

Airborne-HD On YouTube

ADR 02.20.17

Airborne 02.20.17

Airborne 02.21.17

Airborne 02.22.17

Airborne 02.23.17

Airborne 02.17.17

Mon, Aug 13, 2012

NTSB Prelim: Second Takeoff Attempt Goes Bad In Luscombe

Pilot Aborted A Previous Attempt Due To Engine Problems

The decision to abort a takeoff should be one of the easiest things to do in all of aviation... i.e., the minute something seems wrong or improper, its time to stop the takeoff (if you can) and figure out the source of concern. Unfortunately; in the case of a recent fatal accident, the pilot did not take the time to go back to the hangar to see why an engine acted improperly and, instead, decided to try the takeoff a second time... with disastrous result.

NTSB Identification: ERA12FA491
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, August 01, 2012 in St. Petersburg, FL
Aircraft: SILVAIRE LUSCOMBE 8A, registration: N2761K
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 1, 2012, approximately 1400 eastern daylight time, a Luscombe 8A, N2761K (file photo shown below), was substantially damaged when it impacted the runway during takeoff from Albert Whitted Airport (SPG), St. Petersburg, Florida. The certificated private pilot/owner was fatally injured, and the certificated flight instructor sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight, which was originating at the time of the accident. The instructional flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

Several witnesses observed the airplane initiate a takeoff from runway 25. Two witnesses stated that the airplane lifted off the runway and climbed to approximately 20 feet above the ground. The engine began to “sputter,” and the airplane landed on the runway before initiating a second takeoff. They reported that during the second takeoff, the airplane reached an altitude of approximately 50 feet, and that the engine continued to sputter. One witness described the airplane rocking from side to side, at a slow airspeed, prior to descending nose-first and impacting the runway.

The airplane came to rest inverted approximately 100 feet from the blast fence at the departure end of runway 25. The initial impact point was identified by a ground scar approximately one and a half feet in length, located in the grass about one foot from the right edge of the runway. About 16 feet past the ground scar, on a heading of approximately 187 degrees, a small crater was observed in the runway surface. Two abrasions, dimensionally consistent with the diameter and chord of the propeller, extended out from the crater. The airplane came to rest about 20 feet past the crater. The engine was displaced aft into the firewall and the cockpit area exhibited significant crush damage.

Examination of the airplane showed that flight control continuity was established from all flight controls to the cockpit area. The propeller remained attached to the engine, and exhibited scratching and gouging along its leading edge. One blade exhibited slight s-bending approximately four inches from its tip. The engine spark plugs were removed and exhibited normal wear. The crankshaft was rotated by hand, and continuity was confirmed from the propeller to the rear accessory gears and to the valve train. The carburetor remained attached to the engine, but was impact damaged. The carburetor float bowl was absent of fuel, water, and debris. The float was undamaged, and the fuel intake screen was clear.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov

Advertisement

More News

Infamous RV-10 Lawsuit Against Van's Aircraft Dismissed

Years of Wasted Effort, Resources, and Worry Signal Ongoing Defects In US Tort Law When the news first came out, in 2015, that Van's Aircraft was sued for a considerable amount of >[...]

Airborne 02.22.17: CAF Dixie Wing P-63A, AF1 Price Cut, SLS Manned Flt?

Also: Drone Light Show, Remotely Piloted Helos, TFR Busts, Gulfstream, XTI Aircraft, CA Airlines, Icelandair After more than 40 years since it’s last flight, the Commemorativ>[...]

AMA Drone Report 02.20.17: DJI & AMA Team Up, MultiGP, Drone Advisory Committee

Also: Another Dumb FL Drone Law, AMA Expo East!, Spaceport America Drone Summit DJI and AMA have launched a joint program to promote safe and responsible drone operations, train pu>[...]

Airborne 02.21.17: NASA 'Space Poop' Challenge, Drone Advisory, Boeing

Also: Alphabet Balloons, Aero-Calendar, DJI-AMA, Solar Research, Dreamliners, F-35, ALPA NASA Johnson Space Center, in partnership with NASA Tournament Lab and online crowdsourcing>[...]

GA Aircraft Shipments And Billings Down Almost Across The Board

Only Uptick Was In Turboprop Airplanes, Turbine Helicopters Hit Hard The news is pretty much all bad, and some of it is really bad, in the GAMA 2016 year-end report of aircraft shi>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2017 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC