Rght out of the gate? Seriously???

[LANCECASPER]

54 minutes ago, Mooney in Oz said:

I suspect if Fred encountered a high level of turbulence or undershoot sheer then full power would have been maintained, provided the engine was developing power. Is there any available information on the position of the prop post impact?

None of the pictures I saw showed the condition of the prop

[Shadrach]

15 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

None of the pictures I saw showed the condition of the prop

I did not see the prop either.  The media reports say that witnesses did not hear any engine noise, just a loud "thud".

It was not a good day for flying on the east coast.  I had to fly that day and was in continuous, moderate turbulence for the duration of my round trip. Low level winds were in the 40s, surface winds were in the 20s gusting over 30. I was only flying because I had a good reason.  It was borderline miserable enroute. First time in quite a while that I felt compelled to slow down because of the turbulence. Challenging day to manage a low altitude emergency. Not the kind of weather that lends itself to gentle, nuanced, control inputs; it was the kind of day where the stall-horn sometimes bleats in the pattern at speeds over 100kias.

[LANCECASPER]

The video in the link below must have been taken yesterday (Monday) when the engine and prop had been removed from the Mooney. There is some bending on the tips of the prop, but definitely not what you would expect if it was producing full power, especially after hitting a tree and then the ground.

In the previous issues over the past month at least once the engine quit and at other times would not produce full power. At least once that was a clogged injector. So at the time of the crash it may not have been producing power or at least enough power to keep it flying. 

I hope there's enough left of the engine after the fire to determine what happened.

https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/victim-survivor-in-deadly-milton-plane-crash-identified

[EricJ]

37 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

The video in the link below must have been taken yesterday (Monday) when the engine and prop had been removed from the Mooney. There is some bending on the tips of the prop, but definitely not what you would expect if it was producing full power, especially after hitting a tree and then the ground.

In the previous issues over the past month at least once the engine quit and at other times would not produce full power. At least once that was a clogged injector. So at the time of the crash it may not have been producing power or at least enough power to keep it flying. 

I hope there's enough left of the engine after the fire to determine what happened.

https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/victim-survivor-in-deadly-milton-plane-crash-identified

+1 It doesn't look to me like it was making power when it hit the ground.   Bummer about the fire.   

[donkaye, MCFI]

Having seen the results of bent blades when a prop is not turning and comparing the picture to that of the accident airplane's prop, the pictures look similar.  I've also seen pictures of props after gear up landings when the prop had been spinning.  They have curled blade tips.  Therefore, it appears to me that the prop wasn't spinning in the accident airplane implying the engine wasn't running.  Awaiting the results of the NTSB investigation...

[PT20J]

Prop tips curl forward if the engine was making power on impact; rearward if windmilling. If the prop is stopped, a blade will bend closer towards the hub with less curl at the tip and blades will have asymmetric damage. 

[LANCECASPER]

The preliminary report 

 

[TaildraggerPilot]

Who are these DTSB clowns? 

[Jackk]

On 11/5/2025 at 11:42 AM, PT20J said:

Prop tips curl forward if the engine was making power on impact; rearward if windmilling. If the prop is stopped, a blade will bend closer towards the hub with less curl at the tip and blades will have asymmetric damage. 

I’ve personally seen it the other way as well 

[Jackk]

36 minutes ago, TaildraggerPilot said:

Who are these DTSB clowns? 

What’s wrong with someone independently reviewing data and offering a different possibly course of events,  honestly many many GA crash analysis are just educated guesses anyways, and being a GS9,12, ain’t exactly proof of excellence lol

[PT20J]

35 minutes ago, Jackk said:

I’ve personally seen it the other way as well 

I was just quoting what the NTSB investigators that attended the same Lycoming factory class I attended a couple of years ago said was the primary way they determine engine state at impact. I don’t have any first hand experience. 

[N201MKTurbo]

35 minutes ago, Jackk said:

What’s wrong with someone independently reviewing data and offering a different possibly course of events,  honestly many many GA crash analysis are just educated guesses anyways, and being a GS9,12, ain’t exactly proof of excellence lol

I followed an airline crash from end to end once back in the 80s. I was at the crash site before the ambulances. I was fixing computers for the airlines at the time, so I got to talk to the maintainers who worked on the plane and the instructors who trained the pilots. I attended the entire NTSB hearing about the accident. 
 

Joseph Nall was presiding over the hearing. The annual GA accident report is named after him.

At least back then those NTSB people were the most thorough and professional government employees I ever met. I had absolutely no issues with how they ran the investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Airlines_Flight_1713

 

[LANCECASPER]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I followed an airline crash from end to end once back in the 80s. I was at the crash site before the ambulances. I was fixing computers for the airlines at the time, so I got to talk to the maintainers who worked on the plane and the instructors who trained the pilots. I attended the entire NTSB hearing about the accident. 
 

Joseph Nall was presiding over the hearing. The annual GA accident report is named after him.

At least back then those NTSB people were the most thorough and professional government employees I ever met. I had absolutely no issues with how they ran the investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Airlines_Flight_1713

 

I agree 100%.

There's a reason why when there's a crash internationally, not even involving an American carrier, that they ask for assistance from the NTSB. They are the gold standard. 

They had the preliminary report out on this one within a week . . . oh and by the way they aren't even getting paid right now. 

[TaildraggerPilot]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

What’s wrong with someone independently reviewing data and offering a different possibly course of events,  honestly many many GA crash analysis are just educated guesses anyways, and being a GS9,12, ain’t exactly proof of excellence lol

How many accident scenes have you been at? Have you been on any Part 121 “Go Teams”? Have you actually talked to the NTSB regarding / during an open accident investigation? These ADSB data farmers have little to no actual factual knowledge that isn’t available to the average armchair “investigator”.

Nothing coming out of a real, official investigation is a “best guess”. 
 

 

[Jackk]

18 minutes ago, TaildraggerPilot said:

How many accident scenes have you been at? Have you been on any Part 121 “Go Teams”? Have you actually talked to the NTSB regarding / during an open accident investigation? These ADSB data farmers have little to no actual factual knowledge that isn’t available to the average armchair “investigator”.

Nothing coming out of a real, official investigation is a “best guess”. 
 

 

 Re read my post, I clearly said GA

 

I’ve seen the NTSB make a determination without even coming out, heck it says as much in many of their GA reports, and in many cases it’s a best guess.  Running joke was if the PIC died it’s going to be “pilot error” in their findings.
 

 I’d be careful holding GS workers up to this funny standard, go look on USAjobs and see their requirements, they are pretty low.

 

One of the reasons Gryder got to be known was he went to a crash site the NTSB abandoned, and found evidence (trash left behind by .gov) in it that made the NTSBs findings, well questionable.   
 

The reaction he got was foreseeable since recently the government has more or less replaced religion for many people, questioning .gov is deeply offensive to some.

Edited November 9 by Jackk

[TaildraggerPilot]

2 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 Re read my post, I clearly said GA

 

I’ve seen the NTSB make a determination without even coming out, heck it says as much in many of their GA reports, and in many cases it’s a best guess.  Running joke was if the PIC died it’s going to be “pilot error” in their findings.
 

 I’d be careful holding GS workers up to this funny standard, go look on USAjobs and see their requirements, they are pretty low.

 

One of the reasons Gryder got to be known was he went to a crash site the NTSB abandoned, and found evidence (trash left behind by .gov) in it that made the NTSBs findings, well questionable.   
 

The reaction he got was foreseeable since recently the government has more or less replaced religion for many people, questioning .gov is deeply offensive to some.

You may not believe this, but the NTSB has a duty, bound by federal statute, to investigate GA crashes to their conclusion, using all their training and experience regardless of the obvious limitations (no CVR, FDR).

Gryder is known to be an idiot in the real circles of flight safety  

Keep your partisan political bullshit to yourself. 

[Jackk]

“Here are documented cases where NTSB findings on aircraft accidents were later contradicted by court rulings, juries, or subsequent studies:

•  2002 Piper Saratoga crash (Mark Williams): NTSB blamed pilot for fuel exhaustion; later federal investigator found failed engine component. [21]

•  1999 Piper Cherokee crash: NTSB found no malfunction, blamed pilot loss of control; jury ruled defective carburetor caused engine failure, killing four. [21]

•  2006 deHavilland crash: NTSB couldn’t determine blade failure cause, blamed pilot airspeed loss; jury found defective turbine blades, killing six.

•  1989 Cessna crash: NTSB blamed pilot stall; jury found defective pilot seat caused control loss, injuring three.

•  2008 Textron Lycoming crash: NTSB blamed pilot’s weather decision; judge ruled defective carburetor caused engine failure, killing three.

•  2003 Midair helicopter collision: NTSB blamed pilot non-compliance with ATC; federal judge ruled FAA negligence in separation, killing three.

•  1998 Cessna Skyhawk crash: NTSB blamed pilot; later evidence showed illegal runway mound violation caused impact.

•  Home-built aircraft crashes (1982–2013): NTSB blamed pilots in 72%; 2012 study revealed engine failures, design flaws, and inadequate manuals.

•  Islander airplane crash: NTSB blamed pilot error; analysis argued engine failure led to roll below minimum control airspeed.”

[Jackk]

12 minutes ago, TaildraggerPilot said:

You may not believe this, but the NTSB has a duty, bound by federal statute, to investigate GA crashes to their conclusion, using all their training and experience regardless of the obvious limitations (no CVR, FDR).

Gryder is known to be an idiot in the real circles of flight safety  

Keep your partisan political bullshit to yourself. 

 

Partisan?  What party am I supporting here? I think most all of government is a dumpster fire regardless of what color tie they wear

 

 I also work in the industry, what are you talking about?

 

 A duty?  
These guys ain’t knights of the round table,  often in GA crashes they don’t even go to the scene lol

 They have a job and just like many workers a good chunk of them “work to live and don’t live to work”, sadly sometimes the easiest answer is going to be defaulted to even when it ain’t so

Plus I hate to break it to you but these NTSB workers are HUMANS, they at the best of times also make mistakes

 

Now add to that the pay the average NTSB or FAA type makes, and the ones with real talent are going to be working for Boeing or the like, who often hand hold and walk the GSs through these crashes (for obvious reasons), not some GS wage table

 

”but the NTSB has a duty, bound by federal statute, to investigate GA crashes to their conclusion”

 AND THATS A GLARING ISSUE

 

Edited November 9 by Jackk

[Hank]

3 hours ago, TaildraggerPilot said:

Gryder is known to be an idiot in the real circles of flight safety  

Yep! The "D" in "DTSB" is "Dangryder" Transportation Safety Bureau, a self-righteous, self-appointed one man "bureau" who reviews initial video, does Google views of the accident scene and has his "final cause verdict" out before the National Transportation Safety Bureau has even completed their initial report of the accident circumstances. No need for actual data or investigation, just quickly assign blame amd move on to the next video because he needs clicks and views.

Oh, if he can wangle a free airline ride near the accident, he will visit the scene, going around barriers and looking for "evidence." But his own accidents, which he also reports on, are never pilot error . . . . 

[TaildraggerPilot]

7 hours ago, Jackk said:

“Here are documented cases where NTSB findings on aircraft accidents were later contradicted by court rulings, juries, or subsequent studies:

•  2002 Piper Saratoga crash (Mark Williams): NTSB blamed pilot for fuel exhaustion; later federal investigator found failed engine component. [21]

•  1999 Piper Cherokee crash: NTSB found no malfunction, blamed pilot loss of control; jury ruled defective carburetor caused engine failure, killing four. [21]

•  2006 deHavilland crash: NTSB couldn’t determine blade failure cause, blamed pilot airspeed loss; jury found defective turbine blades, killing six.

•  1989 Cessna crash: NTSB blamed pilot stall; jury found defective pilot seat caused control loss, injuring three.

•  2008 Textron Lycoming crash: NTSB blamed pilot’s weather decision; judge ruled defective carburetor caused engine failure, killing three.

•  2003 Midair helicopter collision: NTSB blamed pilot non-compliance with ATC; federal judge ruled FAA negligence in separation, killing three.

•  1998 Cessna Skyhawk crash: NTSB blamed pilot; later evidence showed illegal runway mound violation caused impact.

•  Home-built aircraft crashes (1982–2013): NTSB blamed pilots in 72%; 2012 study revealed engine failures, design flaws, and inadequate manuals.

•  Islander airplane crash: NTSB blamed pilot error; analysis argued engine failure led to roll below minimum control airspeed.”

And what percent of your cherry picked, google searched accidents are part of the total accidents investigated and closed? 
 

Way to go searching out the outliers that help your tin foil hat anti-government platform.

Don’t you have a bomb shelter to go back to?

[TaildraggerPilot]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

Yep! The "D" in "DTSB" is "Dangryder" Transportation Safety Bureau, a self-righteous, self-appointed one man "bureau" who reviews initial video, does Google views of the accident scene and has his "final cause verdict" out before the National Transportation Safety Bureau has even completed their initial report of the accident circumstances. No need for actual data or investigation, just quickly assign blame amd move on to the next video because he needs clicks and views.

Oh, if he can wangle a free airline ride near the accident, he will visit the scene, going around barriers and looking for "evidence." But his own accidents, which he also reports on, are never pilot error . . . . 

Exactly, and kudos for being more civil describing the fool than I would. 

[dkkim73]

18 hours ago, Jackk said:

What’s wrong with someone independently reviewing data and offering a different possibly course of events,  honestly many many GA crash analysis are just educated guesses anyways, and being a GS9,12, ain’t exactly proof of excellence lol

I think one of the issues here is you are being viewed as defending Dan Gryder, which is not what I think you were doing. I hadn't heard of him until a few years ago and, man, is he colorful. And I'm being neutral simply as I've never met him, but he's a poster boy for internet s***-stirrers. 

And probably you stepped on a toe without realizing it. Hence you are suddenly Alex Jones...    You never know who has a relative who's working unpaid a tower etc. and took it the wrong way. 

Some investigations are pretty thorough, I would imagine some aren't for any number of reasons. They all do assign "probable cause" and so are all guesses to some extent. I'm not close enough to opine as to whether there would be internal pressures to conclude one thing or another, but at least people have biases. The process is supposed to control for that (at least on the .mil side). 

Still, I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. @TaildraggerPilot Are we not allowed to criticize the civil service? Every thread here on the FAA's aeromedical branch is full of dread, bad stories, and often low regard. Over on Beechtalk it's positively sneering. I get it, despite seeing the other side as well. Haven't you ever experienced incompetence or provincialism dealing with a bureaucrat? I treat them all with respect, and try to presume best intentions, but man we get let down sometimes...

 

[DCarlton]

This entire DTSB discussion went downhill when the link was first characterized as a "final report".  I was put off by that immediately.  I was further disturbed that this organization named themselves DTSB; a play on NTSB that could be very confusing for the public; it confused me for a moment; "who the heck are these people".   Government can be cumbersome but it has processes for a reason.  I learned to appreciate those processes in my 35 years (as an apparently untalented) Government GS/DP engineer.  I'd say give those "humans" doing their best to support those process a break and have some consideration to staffing and funding levels.  And yes teaming with industry has always been a part of those government processes.  You always listen to the experts even if it looks like they are holding your hand and walking you through the process.  

[Jackk]

10 hours ago, TaildraggerPilot said:

And what percent of your cherry picked, google searched accidents are part of the total accidents investigated and closed? 
 

Way to go searching out the outliers that help your tin foil hat anti-government platform.

Don’t you have a bomb shelter to go back to?

 Those are just the ones I could find in a minute or two, but it proves my point pretty clearly 

 

 They can and do screw up, also many GA crashes they can’t even be bothered to come to the crash, I don’t know how they can do their job if they don’t even show up to “work”

 

 I think they do some painstaking work sometimes, if it’s a transport cat 121 or a celebrity.

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

I think one of the issues here is you are being viewed as defending Dan Gryder, which is not what I think you were doing. I hadn't heard of him until a few years ago and, man, is he colorful. And I'm being neutral simply as I've never met him, but he's a poster boy for internet s***-stirrers. 

And probably you stepped on a toe without realizing it. Hence you are suddenly Alex Jones...    You never know who has a relative who's working unpaid a tower etc. and took it the wrong way. 

Some investigations are pretty thorough, I would imagine some aren't for any number of reasons. They all do assign "probable cause" and so are all guesses to some extent. I'm not close enough to opine as to whether there would be internal pressures to conclude one thing or another, but at least people have biases. The process is supposed to control for that (at least on the .mil side). 

Still, I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. @TaildraggerPilot Are we not allowed to criticize the civil service? Every thread here on the FAA's aeromedical branch is full of dread, bad stories, and often low regard. Over on Beechtalk it's positively sneering. I get it, despite seeing the other side as well. Haven't you ever experienced incompetence or provincialism dealing with a bureaucrat? I treat them all with respect, and try to presume best intentions, but man we get let down sometimes...

 

 I was indeed defending him, to a point, just as I said NTSB does some good work and some crap work, Gryder has some good opinions and different thoughts on some stuff and some crap opinions on some other stuff.

 

 I do think many people jump on the Gryder bad band wagon the same way some people don’t like nickleback (band), under questioning most can’t really forum a independent reason they don’t like them  sadly it’s mostly because many of the other lemurs don’t like him so the others conform, some folks just have a personality that makes it VERY difficult to diverge from the perceived heard

 

If I asked the other poster why he doesn’t like Dan he’d probably come up with one or two examples, which he probably heard from other people, yet, as was clearly seen here, he completely dodges, deflects and then makes counter accusations when I posted NINE (9) proven examples of when the NTSB complete screwed the pooch.

Edited Monday at 04:04 PM by Jackk