And now I have scope creep added in. My accountant wants time and so does one of my co-workers.

Accountant - Clearwater, Destin (2 people - 350 lbs)
Co-Worker - Nashville, Traverse City, Grand Haven, Milwaukee (4 people - 650-700 lbs)

Not sure how much that changes things, but plenty of people willing to pony up if I do all the legwork....

If my accountant wanted use of any of my assets, I would find a new accountant promptly after the first inquiry or suggestion that I consider it

I offered, but I’m curious about your logic. It would be a business expense for both of us, so what is th issue. He would buy in as well

to me, it is a conflict of interest- I guess you can do what you choose

I will update the database. had been waiting on the NTSB report on that one, and didn't have the serial number. It was in fact a 2012 G1000 aircraft. The final is published. The examination of the engine revealed it was developing cruise power (which is the same as take off power in the Meridian), and it hit the ground at high power. The reason for the need to come back to the airport was never found. The plane had an aerodynamic stall at 45 knots ground speed. There was no indication as to why. The remaining airframe did not show any abnormalities. I tried to include the final report, but it is too big to attach. You can paste this number into the CAROL database.

I have updated my spreadsheet. Thanks.

CEN22FA119

The prop pitch was 26-34 degrees compatible with high power settings. If the engine was low power, it would have been at a flat pitch. All 5 blades were broken off at the hub, rub marks on the shroud, all compatible with power at the time of the crash. But the propellor pitch suggests a high power setting. Still a mystery. But coming out of maintenance, that is the scariest flight that I ever take in an aircraft.

The plane ended up in the air, not climbing, and slowing down. That only happens if there is little to no thrust. That's basic physics since the plane was losing both kinetic and potential energy.

If the pilot didn't deliberately pull the power back to idle, which is highly doubtful, then something failed which denied the pilot the thrust he expected.

Mike C.

That is not in fact what is says. Read it again.

"External and internal engine damage indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of impact, but the amount of power output could not be determined."

Somehow you turned that into "developing high power" when the NTSB said nothing of the sort.

Take off your rose colored glasses and see this for what it is, a failure of thrust right after takeoff.

If you disagree, you would have to answer the question of where all that power was going if the plane was not climbing and decreasing in speed. There are basic law of physics here at work and you can't have the system losing energy with the engine producing lots of power. You will have to teach us all how to descend and slow down leaving the engine at cruise power settings, too.

Mike C.

You are assuming no fault with propeller control. Maybe that prop had failed.

Again, the basic laws of physics don't allow for descending and slowing with the engine at high thrust. Where's the drag that exceeds the engine thrust for that to happen?

Mike C.

to me, it is a conflict of interest- I guess you can do what you choose

EFATO.

The pilot of this Piper Cheyenne shut down next to me before loading for an ambulance mission. One of his engines didn't sound right.

I was checking in to a hotel when he ended up in the parking lot. Between the medical oxygen bottles onboard and ammunition in people's trucks cooking off in the fire, it was not quiet for quite a while.

Sobering.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... i=89978449

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... /94399/pdf

This is the kind of accident, EFATO with a Vmc roll over, that a twin jet just doesn't have.

Mike C.

I guess we could say that the prop control failed, and the engine failed at the same time, given their completely different systems and both extremely reliable I guess that one in 1 billion combination of a dual failure could have happened. I did hear from another source, that the nose was extremely nose high in attitude and then it stalled. They had wondered about a possible trim runaway. But the other way you slow down and go down is to be so far into an aerodynamic stall that you’re behind the power curve. That is kind of what I was expecting to come out of this from the thirdhand source. But whatever it was, possibly Maintenance induced.

Do this thought experiment. You are sitting at the start of the runway and you wish to exactly duplicate the flight path the accident airplane did. Only you are not allowed to reduce the engine power below nominal takeoff power throughout the exercise.

You WILL NOT be able to do it. You just can't. If you keep the altitude down, the speed will build. If you keep the speed down, the altitude will increase.

The plane liftoff was about 2000 ft down the runway and was at 80 knots groundspeed (~93 KIAS given the 15 knot wind). That indicates a working engine during the takeoff roll and this is WELL above any sort of deep stall. The plane was not horsed off the runway prematurely in a high drag configuration.

Almost immediately after liftoff, the airspeed starts to decay and the altitude does not increase significantly. Given the plane is not in a deep stall at the start of this, there is NO WAY this can occur without loss of thrust.

In about 2000 ft after liftoff, the plane slows down to stall speed and stalls. This will obviously be at a very nose high attitude (about 18 degrees nose up is typical). But the loss of airspeed was occurring WAY before the stall drag had become severe.

There is no way to achieve the flight path presented by the NTSB without loss of thrust. If you disagree, you need to explain how to do that flight path at takeoff power setting.

Mike C.