NTSB database question

ozone

ozone

Well-Known Member
I was looking at the accident report of someone I know who was involved in an accident years ago. The story I heard from the pilot was that the fuel pump failed on takeoff. When I read the NTSB report, no such description in their factual or probable cause. Not that I want to disbelieve someone, but could there be a disparity that would not show up in the NTSB report?

Mostly, I am just curious since this accident resulted in some pretty serious consequences for the pilot.

An excerpt from the report:
A postaccident examination of the accident aircraft was conducted. With respect to the airframe,
no anomalies were detected that could be associated with a preexisting condition. The flap
actuator extension was measured as 5.88 inches, which corresponds to approximately 25 degrees of flap extension. The A36TC flap system has three settings, 0, 15, and 30 degrees with no
intermediate settings. The Pilot's Operating Handbook for the aircraft lists 0 or 15 degrees of
flap extension as allowable settings for takeoff.

The aircraft engine was removed and transported to the Teledyne Continental Motors facility in
Mobile, Alabama where a teardown inspection was performed under the direct supervision of an NTSB investigator. The teardown inspection of the engine and its accessories failed to reveal any
anomalies that would have prevented normal engine operation.

Aircraft takeoff performance charts indicating takeoff ground roll distance as a function of
temperature, pressure altitude, aircraft weight, and wind component are appended to this report.
The weather reporting station located at the accident airport recorded the weather at 1355 local
time as: Wind 190 degrees magnetic at 15 knots gusting to 21 knots; Visibility 10 statute miles;
Sky condition clear; Temperature 29 degrees Celsius; Dewpoint 16 degrees Celsius; Altimeter setting
29.32 inches of Mercury.

Based on the recorded weather and the airport field elevation of 917 feet MSL, the density altitude
was determined to be 3,534 feet.
 
From the report:
...Witnesses reported that the aircraft became airborne just before reaching the end of the 4,000 foot long runway and only achieved an altitude of a few feet. The airplane settled back to the ground and then impacted a road before coming to rest in a farm field. No anomalies were found with respect to the airframe. ....According to the aircraft performance charts, the reported weather, and a maximum gross weight of 3,650 pounds, the takeoff ground roll should have been about 1,500 feet.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilots failure to abort the takeoff and the airplane not attaining a proper climb rate for undetermined reasons.
*** *** ***
Again, my curiosity is simply that I wonder why the NTSB would not have mentioned a fuel pump failure. I would think that a bad fuel pump would have shown up in the tear-down of the engine or, if found to be the problem later, would have been appended to the report at some point.
 
ozone said:
From the report:
...Witnesses reported that the aircraft became airborne just before reaching the end of the 4,000 foot long runway and only achieved an altitude of a few feet. The airplane settled back to the ground and then impacted a road before coming to rest in a farm field. No anomalies were found with respect to the airframe. ....According to the aircraft performance charts, the reported weather, and a maximum gross weight of 3,650 pounds, the takeoff ground roll should have been about 1,500 feet.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilots failure to abort the takeoff and the airplane not attaining a proper climb rate for undetermined reasons.
*** *** ***
Again, my curiosity is simply that I wonder why the NTSB would not have mentioned a fuel pump failure. I would think that a bad fuel pump would have shown up in the tear-down of the engine or, if found to be the problem later, would have been appended to the report at some point.
Click to expand...
There's two types of people that wreck airplanes. The ones that say "my bad, shoulda known better, learned a lot from it and it made me a better pilot". Or there's the one that says "fuel pump quit and the NTSB didn't catch, dumb asses, Ima go fly now"
 
It would be in the report. Unless the fuel pump was destroyed, which it doesn't sound like it, that's something you catch in an engine tear down. I'm inclined to agree with positionandhold.
Something else that caught my eye was the altimeter setting. It's not that windy... probably convection and related things in the area though.
 
It can be tough to beat 25 deg of flaps on takeoff.

ozone said:
A postaccident examination of the accident aircraft was conducted. With respect to the airframe,
no anomalies were detected that could be associated with a preexisting condition. The flap
actuator extension was measured as 5.88 inches, which corresponds to approximately 25 degrees of flap extension. The A36TC flap system has three settings, 0, 15, and 30 degrees with no intermediate settings. The Pilot's Operating Handbook for the aircraft lists 0 or 15 degrees of
flap extension as allowable settings for takeoff.
.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I was also wondering about the flap setting in the NSTB report. It says that there are "no intermediate settings," but perhaps the flap actuator switch has one detent at 15 degrees and can be manually set anywhere (my Baron had that), or the flaps were at 30 degrees at the start of the takeoff roll and crunched up to 25 degrees in the crash. Either way it looks as if the pilot started his roll with too much flap.

NTSB also calculated a 1,500' takeoff roll, so when I get to 2x that distance and the plane still doesn't want to fly, I'm shutting down and finding out why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top