Gas & Steam Engine Show
It was a brisk morning with temperatures in the 50s. Three cars and one motorcycle (yours truly on the motorcycle) met at the cruise in location to parade over to the Agricultural History Farm Park for the 14th Annual Gas & Steam Engine Show.
Click here for a slide show of the event
Here is the parade video shot by Pat on the way to the show.
There were numerous engines on display with most of them running. Some were steam powered while others were gas or diesel powered. Here is some video of some of the engines running.
There were several steam powered tractors that were parading around. And Chuck was enthused with the Model A Fords.
Charles Taylor & The First Aircraft Engine
Spring has finally sprung and it is time to dust off our motorcycles and go cruising. To help kick off the season I invited a friend over for lunch to talk about cars and motorcycles. The conversation turned to engines and naturally being a pilot I added a little about aircraft engines. Soon I was on the topic of Charles Taylor and how he built the first aircraft engine for the Wright Bros. I explained how Charles Taylor built this first aircraft engine with some very basic tools and how that engine not only met the Wright Bros requirements but it exceeded them. Several years ago I had the pleasure of seeing and hearing one of his 1903 engines run. The engine that I saw run was ALL original ran just fine – over 100 years old!
Here is a little piece from Centennial of Flight in Charles Taylor’s own words about the first aircraft engine.
“We didn’t make any drawings. One of us would sketch out the part we were talking about on a piece of scratch paper, and I’d spike the sketch over my bench. It took me six weeks to make that engine. The only metal-working machines we had were a lathe and a drill press, run by belts from the stationary gas engine.
The crankshaft was made out of a block of machine steel 6 by 31 inches and 15/8 inch thick. I traced the outline on the slab, then drilled through with the drill press until I could knock out the surplus pieces with a hammer and chisel. Then I put it in the lathe and turned it down to size and smoothness.
The body of the first engine was of cast aluminum and was bored out on the lathe for independent cylinders. The pistons were cast iron, and these were turned down and grooved for piston rings.
The completed engine weighed 180 pounds and developed 12 horsepower at 1,025 revolutions per minute.
While I was doing all this work on the engine, Will and Orv were busy upstairs working on the airframe. They asked me to make the metal parts, such as the small fittings where the wooden struts joined the spars and the truss wires were attached. There weren’t any turnbuckles in the truss wires, so the fit had to be just so. It was so tight we had to force the struts into position.
The fuel system was simple. A one-gallon fuel tank was suspended from a wing strut, and the gasoline fed by gravity down a tube to the engine. The fuel valve was an ordinary gaslight pet cock. There was no carburetor as we know it today. The fuel was fed into a shallow chamber in the manifold. Raw gas blended with air in this chamber, which was next to the cylinders and heated up rather quickly, this helping to vaporize the mixture. The engine was started by priming each cylinder with a few drops of raw gas.
The ignition was the make-and-break type. No spark plugs. The spark was made by the opening and closing of two contact points inside the combustion chamber. These were operated by shafts and cams geared to the main camshaft. The ignition switch was an ordinary single-throw knife switch we bought at the hardware store. Dry batteries were used for starting the engine, and then we switched onto a magneto bought from the Dayton Electric Company. There was no battery on the plane.
Several lengths of speaking tube, such as you find in apartment houses, were used in the radiator.
The chains to drive the propeller shafts were specially made by the Indianapolis Chain Company, but the sprockets came ready-made. Roebling wire was used for the trusses.”
Click here for an article that Harry Kraemer published in Aviation Maintenance in December 2003.
Click here for some more reading on Charles Taylor from Aircraft Maintenance Technology.
Shady Grove Exxon Lunch March 2010
The temperatures were mild – upper 50 to low 60 for our March 7 2010 cruise in lunch at Red Hot & Blue. Everyone was thrilled to be out on such a nice day especially after the back to back blizzards we had a few weeks ago. We all arrived around 12 noon and to our surprise there was about 10 cars on the cruise in lot – folks just hanging out outside talking cars!
Inside the atmosphere was electrified with gear heads talking about their winter projects and showing pictures of the progress. This is just the second year for our cruise in and it is rapidly growing. We had to spend a little time rearranging the room to accommodate the large turn out (about 20 people).
The employees at Red Hot & Blue were prompt and very helpful. To my knowledge there were no major mix-ups with our orders. And I believe we all had a great lunch! Chuck gave a nice speech and next we had our “show and tell”. We also discussed our plans for our cruise outs. We’re planning to meet at our cruise in lot and drive to some local car shows and other gatherings. Stay tuned for more information via Chuck’s emails.
Click here for a short slide show of the lunch
For the motorcycle riders click here for a slide show of some rare and unusual motorcycles
Kid Directs Traffic at NY’s JFK Airport
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating how a child was allowed to direct air traffic at the nation’s sixth-busiest airport – New York’s JFK International.
As CBS News Correspondent Kelly Wallace reports, the Feb. 17 incident involved a child on the radio to pilots of planes awaiting takeoff. The boy was allowed to make at least five transmissions to commercial jets.
In tapes obtained by CBS News, the boy is clearly heard:
Boy: AMX 403, Contact departures. Adios.
Pilot: Contact departures. Aeromexico 403. Adios.
An adult — reportedly a controller — made sure the pilots were in on the joke, Wallace says.
“That’s what you get guys when the kids are out of school!” the adult says on the tapes.
Another transmission from the tape:
Boy: Jet Blue 171 cleared for takeoff.
Pilot: Cleared for takeoff. Jet blue 171.
Boy: Jet Blue 171 — contact departures.
Pilot: Over to departures. Jet blue 171. Awesome job. (chuckle)
In a statement, the FAA says, “Pending … our investigation, the employees involved in this incident are not controlling air traffic. This behavior is not acceptable and does not demonstrate the kind of professionalism expected from all faa employees.”
The FAA confirms to CBS News that the two employees who have been suspended are the controller who brought his son into the tower (the FAA confirms it is his voice on the recording) and the supervisor who “tolerated” the incident.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association says, “We do not condone this type of behavior in any way. It is not indicative of the highest professional standards that controllers set for themselves and exceed each and every day in the advancement of aviation safety.”
Air control towers are highly secure areas, Wallace points out, and it’s still not clear how this could have been allowed.
CBS News Travel Editor Peter Greenberg says, “You’re dealing with two separate violations here: access to the tower itself, and access to radio frequencies. And you’re dealing with a potentially dangerous situation. … The bottom line here is any air traffic controller on the ground in that particular case who was handling departure control would be multi-tasking, talking to more than one pilot at the same time. In order for his son, or whoever the kid is, to make those radio calls, he had to relinquish control of the microphone and stop talking to those other pilots.
“You’re talking about multiple runways with both departure and approach, and one miscue can lead to disaster. The good news is, of course, if there is any good news out of this, is that this happened on the ground, and not at an air traffic control center, where you’re dealing with many more planes in the air in terms of aircraft separation.”
Usually, says Greenberg, “No one has an opportunity to talk on that microphone other than a licensed air traffic controller.
” … Ironically, this incident happens at a time when the air traffic controller staffing levels are at a 16-year low. This is one silly way to actually promote that incident.”
99s Judge Newman
Overlooking the Key Bridge and Potomac River from the Watergate this past Sunday in the lovely home of Vice-Chair Barb Rohde,
we were given the privilege of spending an afternoon with Pilot and Judge Pauline (“Polly”) Newman. As so often when a group of 99s get-together, a wonderful atmosphere of unity emerges, that transcends space and time and lasts forever in our memories. In this case, through the recollection of Polly’s aviation experiences, we became linked to 99s founding mother Ruth Nichols, to aviation in the 1940s and 1950s and to the incredible life story of yet another strong, independent, intelligent woman in aviation. Polly impressed us all with her soft-spoken, articulate description of her education and with her flying accomplishments. Dr. and Judge Newman is remarkably well-educated with degrees from Vassar and Columbia, a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Yale, and a Law degree (L.L.B) from New York University. Of all the things her family told her she could not do—they never said she could not fly. And fly she did. She was swept up into the exciting time in aviation after WWII, and had the tremendous opportunity to be trained by the “hot” <err–savvy> veteran pilots looking for work in New Haven, Conn. Her primary training was by the best, and she received Airman’s certificate #3708.
She worked for a few years as a Scientist at American Cyanamid Co, and some of her best adventures were her Sunday flights in a Piper cub, where she learned to do aerobatics as well as those that could be done in a Stearman. Her most memorable aviation adventure during this time was a trip from the tip of Cape Cod across Buzzards Bay with passengers, where she encountered such incredibly strong head wind that she seemed suspended in space. In her head, she could hear the voices of her past instructors [“keep your eye on land/ground for perspective” and “know where the nearest airport is”]. She descended to ~6 ft off the water to get forward speed and prepared for an emergency landing into Newport. She was aware by then of the strong, wicked winds as she lined up for a wheel landing, but was perplexed and detoured by all the men on the field. Not knowing why they were there, and not wanting to hit them, she maneuvered for an adjacent grass field—only to have them run over to it. As she landed, she realized that they were there to hold the plane down, and that she had landed a J3 in winds gusting to 60 kt!
Polly flew with Ruth Nichols in the CAP, and both shared the ambition of becoming astronauts in the 1950s. (precocious, that is, as this would not become a reality for any American woman until 1983 and Sally Ride). She offered a kind and thoughtful perspective on the life, accomplishments and tragedies of Ms Nichols. Ruth Nichols participated in the 1929 Powder Puff Derby and was one of the original founding 99s, always wanted to push further and break records. She set numerous speed records including a transcontinental speed record (in 1930—beating Lindberg) and was one of the first women to fly jets. In her later years, after 6-major accidents, she turned her efforts to humanitarian work with the CAP.
We all sat spellbound this past Sunday and were indeed fortunate to have Judge Newman as our guide. For those of us who knew Fay Gilles Wells, or Dr. Linda Thompson (MD) who treated Bobbi Trout, Polly gave us a grasp of the human link and continuity to our sisters-past in aviation that left us all with a new contextual reality of greater depth and appreciation for all that we share here and now.
Click here for a slide presentation of the event.
Attendees: Barb Rohde, Pauline Newman, Laura Takacs, Linda Litwin, Debi Katzen Dreyfuss, Joyce Breiner Yaney, Roseanne DeLuca, Julia Reiners, Pauline Parent, Pat Manos Kraemer
Paper Airman Certificates Expire March 31
Pilots who have not replaced their paper airman certificate with the required new plastic certificate risk being unable to exercise their privileges at the end of March. All paper airman certificates will expire March 31, 2010. FAR 61.19(h) reads: “Except for a temporary certificate issued under §61.17 or a student pilot certificate issued under paragraph (b) of this section, the holder of a paper pilot certificate issued under this part may not exercise the privileges of that certificate after March 31, 2010.”
To replace your airman certificate online, visit the FAA website.
To apply for a new certificate via the mail:
1. Complete an “Application for Replacement of Lost, Destroyed, or Paper Airman Certificate” (PDF available at www.SportAviation.org.), or
2. Send a signed, written request stating your: name, date and place of birth, social security number and/or certificate number, and the reason you need a replacement.
3. Include a check or money order for $2 (U.S. funds), made payable to FAA, for each certificate you request.
4. Mail your request to:
Federal Aviation Administration
Airmen Certification Branch, AFS-760
P.O. Box 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125-0082
A Most Memorable Checkride!
Here are some words of advice from the late Dave Gwinn
There are three kinds of Private Pilot Checkrides (just as there are 3 kinds of speeches you make: the one prepared, the one you actually gave, and the one you give in the car on the way home). So when preparing for your Private Pilot Checkride anticipate the three possibilities. There is the perfectly executed by the book that you and your instructor planned; there is the performance that you gave. And then there is the tongue-in-cheek checkride that I told you about. If you give the tongue-in-cheek performance you may be inscribed in the memoirs of pilot examiners and perhaps become a legend in student pilotship.
Pilot examiners are usually gentlemen or perfect ladies and this makes them vulnerable. And they are generally helpful. Most really want to help you pass your checkride. The tongue-in-cheek performance will leave you beyond help!
The examiner will expect that you arrive on time and be as skittish as an abandoned fawn. Do not be late! Show up with a flowing white silk scarf and dark mirrored sunglasses (do not remove the sunglasses), and announce that you have arrived by flipping your logbook on his desk. We all know that real pilots wear big watches – if his does not measure up comment that it is inadequate.
He/she will need to inspect your logbook, test results, medical, etc. And you should ask to see theirs. Explain to them that it is illegal for you to carry a passenger and that you want to be sure he/she is a properly rated flight instructor. You should also check that the examiner has a current flight review and maybe you ask for a random drug test!
You need to stay in charge of the checkride – not the examiner. Start on the oral exam. There will likely be a few questions that you do not know the answer. Here are a few standard replies to those: “My instructor said that wasn’t important” or “My instructor said you’d ask me some petty question like that”. Here are a few more that may get you out of a bind: “Anyone knows the answer to a simpleton’s question like that” or “Let’s move on to more important material”.
Once the oral exam is complete you’ll move on to the flight portion and that is where you will show that you are the master of the aircraft. You will probably preflight the aircraft and the examiner will arrive and hop in once you are seated. When he/she arrives ask “Did you check the oil?” The examiner may reply that he/she did not and that it is your responsibility to do so. You reply “Of course it is”. And go on to explain that you did but if I were riding with a student pilot I would have double-checked…Safety first!
Once the engine is started and you are ready to taxi you instruct the examiner to handle the radios after all you are pilot in command. If/when the examiner objects tell them that you are disappointed that he/she cannot do such a minor task. You may use a line like “Whatever! Since the FAA is stressing good cockpit resource management it only seemed proper for me to delegate some of the workload. But I will fly in whatever haphazard environment you find acceptable”.
And instead of using the standard “Roger” on the radio, try “Roger Dodger” or even “Rodney”. Tell the tower you are ready to leap airborne and bore holes in place of just saying you’re ready for takeoff. Once airborne call out “Positive rate of climb, gear up” and watch the examiner look for the gear handle in your Cessna 152. When he/she does say “Gotcha”.
When asked to do a departure stall, wrinkle your brow and ask why. Explain to him/her that only an incompetent pilot would ever do such a thing and that it’s opposed to your personal standards but you will comply if it is necessary. Now comes the stall. Pull that stick way back – get the nose up at about 30 degrees and wait. When it stalls yell “You got it!” There is no doubt that the examiner will be shocked but his/her instinct to preserve his life will take over and recover from the stall. When questioned why you did what you did reply “You only asked for a stall, you said nothing about me recovering. Wasn’t that a beauty!” When you observe the examiner hyperventilating display your aeronautical experience and hand them a paper bag.
Your sarcasm does not let up. When asked what turns the aircraft answer “Mother Nature does, the ailerons are a signal to her”. And the throw open your window and yell “I always try to touch her face”.
In the old days it was a bit of a tradition for the examiners to try and use their foot to turn the fuel valve off to simulate an emergency. Super-Glue it in the “on” position! By this time you will be in the practice area and the examiner probably turned down the volume on the radio. While he/she is distracted with the fuel valve you turn off the radio. When he/she finally gets the fuel shut off and the engine sputters grab the microphone and say “MAYDAY! MAYDAY! MAYDAY! ENGINE FAILURE!” and hand him/her the paper bag again.
Part of your checkride will be done under the hood and my advice here is simple: A peek is worth a thousand scans of the instrument panel. Drill holes in the hood or foggles and shake your head if needed to reposition it. And if you feel a little sick from the unusual attitudes and a barf is coming – Eyes right is the guidelines.
This may not be a long checkride but it will be memorable. You’ll be heading back to the airport soon. Once on final call “Gear down and welded” and when the examiner looks for the gear handle say “Gotcha again!” If you are low on final tell the examiner that you know you are low but thankfully you have your speed to a minimum to compensate. If you’re high say “Yes I know I’m high but I am also fast to make up for it”. If you bounce a few times on the landing ask the examiner if this counts for your 3 landings in 90 days to be current to carry passengers.
Once you receive your pink slip, display it proudly for you have earned it!
Fly the airplane!
Will “Fly the aircraft” become a lost skill? With more and more technology being crammed into general aviation aircraft and pilots are taught to push a button for this or that, what is going to happen to our basic stick and rudder skills? I remember my first lesson, my instructor an old Vietnam chopper pilot, I learned from the very beginning to fly the aircraft all the way down to the ground. On my very first lesson we were flying over the Eastern Shore of Maryland and he reached up and shut the engine off! I had about 20 minutes of experience under my belt and I remember him asking me “Now what are you going to do?” I looked down, saw a large field and pointed to it and said that we can land there. He looked at me and replied “Ok, land the plane in the field”. “Oh boy” (I may have said something else) I said to myself. He said nothing more to me until on the ground – Yes we landed in the field I picked out. I simply turned towards the field and lined the Piper Tomahawk up on a long final. I remember thinking at any time he is going to take over or he is going to start the engine. But he said and did nothing. He helped me a little in the landing flair. And I remember that at some point while in the air that the propeller had stopped turning (my experience now says that I must have gotten it a little on the slow side for the prop to stop). After on the ground he gave me a little speech about being prepared for emergencies and how I had to be ready to deal with the emergency and to fly the plane. A little shook up and up until that point I had been so focused on landing the plane I finally looked around and saw a few more planes – by luck I happened to pick a large grass airstrip. In the air I had no idea that I had picked out an airport to land at, I was convinced we were landing in a farmer’s field. But I learned that emergencies were real and that I had to deal with them. There were NO buttons to push – I knew nothing about proper airspeed (best glide), I just did what felt right. And it worked out.
Speaking of emergencies below is part of a letter (from my library) along with the pilot’s recount of the events that lead up to him writing the letter.
March 20, 1946
Parts Department
Globe Aircraft Co.
Gentlemen:
I would like to order some parts for my Swift. Yesterday while flying I lost my engine. I did manage to land safely but the airplane will need some work before it can be flown again. Please send me everything forward of the firewall.
Leonard Lockwood York who wrote the above letter, actually did rebuild his Swift from the firewall forward and flew it again (he flew it for another 30 plus years). He is one of the few pilots who have literally lost an engine in flight and managed to bring the airplane down safely. Engine “tear-aways” as they are called are rare occurrences in single engine aircraft. Usually not more than one or two a year are reported. But when they do happen the pilot, unless he is prepared for the situation, may be unable to cope with the sudden shift in the center of gravity, and could experience a complete loss of control. The nose may pitch up abruptly, or the aircraft may stall and go into a non-recoverable spin.
A number of my students and fellow pilots have asked about the best procedure for dealing with this kind of emergency (this happened long before chutes were being installed on aircraft and the pilot dealt with the emergency and FLEW the aircraft). As each make of aircraft has its own flight characteristics, it is not possible to establish a standard procedure. But in general the key factor appears to be airspeed. In an engineless aircraft airspeed is controlled by the elevator, and if the speed is not kept up high enough the elevator may become useless. Elevator response is more or less directly proportional to airspeed below Mach 1. Mr. York’s own account of his experience, written shortly after it happened, may be instructive. A Naval Aviator in World War II, he was an experienced test pilot for Continental Engine Company in 1946. His aircraft was a Globe Swift, a low-wing retractable tail-dragger with an 85-HP Continental fuel-injected four cylinder engine. On the day of the accident he had taken off from Muskegon, Michigan Municipal Airport at 8:52 a.m. on a flight to Cleveland.
Here is the pilot’s recount of what happened in his own words:
The engine and propeller and airplane were operating normally until I was just northwest of Amherst, Ohio (about 20 miles short of the Cleveland Airport). I was flying at 1500 feet indicated, which was about 1,000 above the ground. The altimeter was set at 30.09 as per the Toledo altimeter setting. I had just started a turn to the left when suddenly a severe vibration began, and the engine cowling started to move up and down rapidly with a noisy thud, thud, thud. Then the thud changed tone and became less of a thud and more of a jingle.
I recognized from the first sign of vibration that I had a propeller failure and I immediately pulled the throttle shut. The engine slowed some – but then the throttle pulled right out of the instrument panel.
I cut the ignition switch but that did not affect the engine operation at all. The magneto ground wires had already been torn out. By this time all the push-pull controls were pumping in and out of the instrument panel at a velocity that seemed to match the engine rpm.
SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL!
The vibration became extremely severe. Both ashtrays were emptied and ashes were flying over the entire inside of the airplane. All loose articles in my pockets were shaken out and maps and everything else that was not fastened down went sailing around the cockpit. Outside I could see cowling in various sized pieces go flying past the windows; luckily none of them struck the airplane. In spite of the vibration the flight characteristics of the airplane were pretty normal – until I was approximately 600 feet above the ground….
And then the engine fell off! The airplane nose came up violently and the left wing went down in what apparently was a secondary stall, resulting in a quarter snap roll to the left. I immediately shoved in full left rudder and full forward wheel. Gradually the nose came down and the airplane went into a very steep glide. Straight ahead – to the north – I could see trees to the left and a field to the right. The area around me consisted of fairly level farmland – my good luck. The field ahead, as it turned out, was plain black dirt; the crop that would be harvested there later in the year had not yet made it appearance. It would eventually- including some engine parts.
I remember thinking that I had never heard of anyone successfully landing a single engine airplane minus the engine. (Later I was reminded that stunt pilot Paul Mantz, and also Jesse Jones, a test pilot, had done it, and I thought we might form an exclusive club – we would have our meetings in a phone booth!).
I also remember thinking about diving the airplane into the trees. In dense timber the airframe might be broken up over a sufficiently long distance of travel to absorb the shock and maybe take the accident at least out of the fatal category. I was reluctant to deliberately break up an aircraft, especially one I was fond of, but it seemed the best bet to survival.
The airspeed was indicating about 110 mph. With the wheel full forward, the airplane remained in a steep glide, but it was under control. I found I could ease the wheel back just about an inch and still maintain flight at 110. I was trying to hang onto that 110 mph, because at that speed full down flipper (elevator) was sufficient to overcome the imbalance of trim caused by the missing weight of the engine, propeller, etc. Reducing speed below that would have resulted in a climb (followed by a loss of airspeed and stall) and a spin of uncontrollable characteristics.
I noticed the red light on the panel, indicating that the wheels were still up. I was surprised that they had not been shaken down during the severe vibration. I decided to try to put the airplane into the field gear-up rather than into the trees. I would just fly it into the ground at 110 mph, so it could decelerate without lift. I would keep the nose pushed down all the way to avoid a stall – no flare, no round-out, just bore it in.
Keeping the wheel one inch back of full forward I got the airplane almost to the ground, but it refused to go down, no matter how hard I pushed forward on the wheel. When the wing was about 18 inches from the ground the nose (or what was left of it) began to come up…very slowly. I leaned forward and waited for the tail to hit. When it did hit I leaned back and bridged into the seat belt which was snugly fastened as is my normal practice.
The airplane dug its nose into the ground at a fairly level attitude and at a speed of approximately 90 mph. It slid along the ground for about 150 feet, the flat firewall scooping up mud and dirt as it went along, which helped the airplane to stop. I didn’t get a scratch.
I climbed out of the airplane and looked at my watch. It was 11:28:30. From the position of the broken blade and the engine I was able to calculate later that the total time elapsed (between the first vibration and the time I stepped out of the cockpit) amounted to something less than 40 seconds. Harry’s comment – It would probably take a pilot of the “electronic age” twice that long to figure out which button to push to fix the problem!
Some farmers came over and asked if I was all right. They said I was on a Mr. Garek’s farm. I wanted to find the engine, so five of us started walking, in line, back along the flight path. In a field about seven-tenths of a mile from where the airplane stopped we found the engine, deeply buried in the ground – so deep that after it was pulled out one of the farmers jumped down inside to examine the hole and he was unable to get out unassisted, and had to be helped up. One blade of the propeller was missing.
We could not locate the missing blade, but it was found the next day, by a high-tension line walker for the Ohio Public Service Company, a man named Richards. He got so interested in his find that he carried it all the way back to his home, where it became a kind of showpiece for everyone in the community to see and wonder about. As soon as I heard about it I contacted Richards and got the propeller. He described the place where he had found the blade as… four towers west of where the engine fell. Since the towers are spaced 500 feet apart, that means the blade was found 2,000 feet away from the engine. The blade was found sticking vertically in the ground, tip down, imbedded down to the metal ferrule.
I was especially interested in that propeller because it was a new design and although laboratory tests all said it was okay, I had voiced some suspicions about its compatibility in the Swift. It didn’t take long to find out I was right. Half of the wooden blade had separated from the engine, after the head of the main screw in the blade butt failed – presumably from excess vibration. After the blade flew off, three bolts in the engine mount had failed, and various tubes in the mount had sheared, allowing the engine to tear away. We never did find most of the cowling.
But the airplane itself had little damage, other than a slight caving in of the belly from the landing. There was no damage to the wings except that the airspeed mast on the left wing was broken along with some wing fittings. The right wing apparently had brushed the ground at some point during the landing, but so lightly I had not noticed it, and the wingtip was undamaged.
Engine damage was just what you might expect from a 600 foot fall: fins were broken off and external parts were generally beaten up. I removed what was left of the propeller from the crankshaft and in doing so noted that clay had been driven into the back face of the key-way on the prop hub until it molded the entire rear end of the propeller actuator hub. This will give some idea of the impact involved in the drop of the engine.
I arranged for a truck to move the wings and engine to the barn of the farmer, Mr. Garek. All of the people at the scene of the accident were very helpful and cooperative.
Mr. Wagner, the Civil Aeronautics Administration Inspector from Cleveland who came to the accident scene, concurred that the accident was due entirely to mechanical failure and was not in any way caused by lack of care, or lack of technique by the pilot. He also complimented me on the flight job done. I have thought a lot about it since, I can think of nothing more I could have done to retain the engine in the airplane; or to land the airplane with less damage. I guess I was lucky at that. END OF MR. YORK’S WORDS.
Engine tearaways, as in the case of Mr. York’s Swift, are fortunately rare, and almost invariably the consequence of a broken propeller. Sometimes it is simply not possible to shut down an engine, following a propeller failure, in time to prevent the severe vibrations from weakening or shearing the engine mount. Preventing the cause is much easier than flying the engineless airplane, but good propeller maintenance remains one of the least understood and most neglected areas of pilot concern.
Mr. York’s experience is not meant to provide data guidelines for any other pilot who might be unlucky enough to face the same frightening task. That 110 mph airspeed, for example, which proved to be just right for Mr. York’s Swift in that particular configuration might be all wrong for another aircraft. Furthermore, you will not find that kind of information in a handbook or flight manual, because airplanes are not tested for such conditions. If the occasion should arise, you will have to work it out for yourself. York managed to do everything right because he was thoroughly familiar with his airplane and he had a solid understanding of aeronautical theory.
And also because he wasted no time (he had only about 40 seconds to impact) in giving way to panic or despair. A legacy from his years as a Naval Aviator was the motto: Never give up! Keep flying – try to retain control of the airplane, no matter what.
Pretty good advice for any emergency!
FAA Revision to Sport Pilot Rule Mostly Favorable
The FAA’s long-awaited revisions to the five year-old Sport Pilot/Light-Sport Aircraft Rule were published Monday, February 1, in the Federal Register. With the changes sport pilots will be allowed to fly higher and safer in mountainous regions, find it easier to gain towered airport experience in a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft, and S-LSAs can be used at Part 141 flight schools which will likely reduce training costs for all student pilots. Additionally, a key change to the aircraft maintenance rules will allow E-LSA owners whose aircraft were originally certified as an S-LSA to perform their own maintenance.
EAA and NAFI jointly submitted comments to the FAA’s 22 proposed changes and after reviewing more than 150 public comments the FAA withdrew eight proposals and agreed fully or in part with EAA/NAFI recommendations on 10 others.
“The revisions to the rule will affect everyone differently. For most there will be very little change. But certain groups like E-LSA owners whose aircraft used to be certificated under S-LSA provisions should be excited since they will now be able to maintain and sign-off maintenance on their own aircraft.” said Earl Lawrence, EAA’s vice-president of Industry and Regulatory Affairs. “Obviously there were disagreements with the FAA’s in other areas, and EAA will continue to fight for changes in the future such as the rules on ultralight aeronautical experience,” Lawrence added.
EAA and NAFI’s three primary focus points during their review of the proposals were to maintain the original intent of the rule; ensure continued growth of the technology for the pilots, instructors, and repairmen; and ensure the continued lowering of economic and regulatory barriers for participants. The revisions are set to go into effect on April 2, 2010.
EAA’s comprehensive reaction to each of the rule changes can be read here. Look for EAA’s in-depth analysis of the FAA’s issued revisions in this week’s e-Hotline.
United 1448 Runway Incursion
Sometimes it is good to revisit old material such as this famous runway incursion. Here is some data I found on it recently.
From the NTSB Board Meeting of June 13, 2000:
On December 6, 1999, at about 8:35 p.m., United Airlines flight 1448, a Boeing 757, was involved in a runway incursion on runway 5 Right at Theodore Francis Green State Airport, near Providence, Rhode Island. At the time of the incident, it was dark and the reported visibility was one-quarter mile.
After United 1448 landed on runway 5 Right, the tower controller instructed the flight crew to proceed to the terminal using taxiways November and Tango, and report crossing runway 16.
During their taxi in the fog, the flight crew became disoriented and turned onto taxiway Bravo by mistake. They then provided incorrect position reports to the tower controller. The airplane ended up at the intersection of Runway 16 and Runway 23 left. Note that Runways 23 Left and 5 Right are opposite ends of the same runway.
Shortly afterward, a Federal Express aircraft taking off from runway 5 Right passed very close to United 1448. The subsequent conversation between the tower controller and United 1448 shows continued uncertainty about the aircraft’s position. For example, there will be several references to Runway 23 right while the airplane is actually on 23 left.
Anybody who’s ever taxied an airplane in low visibility knows that situational awareness is critical. In most cases, radio communication is the only way air traffic control can positively identify an aircraft’s location. If the pilots don’t know where they are, then neither does air traffic control. This was a hard lesson learned by the crew of United 1448 in what could have been another Tenerife.
Aside from heavy fog, it was business as usual at Providence, Rhode Island on December 6, 1999. United 1448, a Boeing 757 has just landed and they are cleared to the ramp via taxiways November and Tango.
The first mistake is made by United 1448 as they make a wrong turn on taxiway Bravo which leads back to 5R/23L – the active runway. Unaware of the situation, Providence Tower clears FedEx 1662, a 727, for takeoff.
Perhaps out of caution, or maybe sensing that something is wrong United 1448 asks “are we cleared across straight ahead on November?” 1448 unknowingly misleads ATC into thinking that they are holding short of the inactive runways 23R and 16, and they are cleared to cross. Mistake number two.
What follows is nothing short of terrifying. Amid a confused transmission you can actually hear the thrust from departing FedEx 1662 as United exclaims “somebody just took off!” But the story doesn’t end there.
Realizing the existence of a problem, ATC tells United 1448 to stop – a sound plan. At this point United 1448 makes it clear that they are lost. At this point only three facts are known:
1. Somebody just took off close enough to scare United 1448.
2. The flight crew are on a runway.
3. United 1448 is near the Kilo taxiway (which only crosses one runway – 5R).
At this point there is enough information out there for ATC to piece together the whereabouts of United 1448 – or at the very least raise a red flag that the airplane may be on the active runway. As United 1448 attempts to explain their situation Tower cuts them off, “United, stand by please.” That’s ATC lingo for shut up.
What follows is unthinkable. Amidst the confusion, Tower clears another aircraft, US Air 2998, for takeoff. Strike three. Knowing the inherent danger in this situation, United 1448 makes one last plea to the tower controller. “Ma’am I’m trying to advise you, we’re on an active runway.”
But the controller is still locked into the premise that United 1448 is on the other runway and hastily clears US Air for takeoff again! There’s the fourth link in the accident chain and there appears to be nothing the United crew can do about it.
And here’s where exceptional decision making comes in. US Air 2998 saves the day by choosing to remain clear of all runways despite continued pressure to take off from Providence tower.
This is a vivid reminder that we all need maintain a “big picture” view of the airport environment and do our part to maintain safety. There’s just no guarantee that anybody else, even ATC, is going to operate in your best interests.
