Rich Winstock Swoop Incident Cover-Up

How though? It's not obvious, and you asserting so doesn't make it any more obvious to people who didn't get it before.

I don't know honestly.


Hey who was the pilot of that plane in the video? I'm curious.

I'm also going to leave this here...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sussex+Airport/@41.2011662,-74.624423,660m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x89c3402748711e45:0x147502bc21940198!2sSussex+Airport!3m1!1s0x89c3402748711e45:0x147502bc21940198!6m1!1e1

Rich Winstock getting radical ladies and gentleman. He sure looks proud of another accomplishment.

BASE1375

Rich Winstock getting radical ladies and gentleman. He sure looks proud of another accomplishment.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20141205X80248&ntsbno=ERA15LA071&akey=1

Not pilot error according to the final report. I've heard his canopy flying habits are not so great though.

gowlerk

***

Rich Winstock getting radical ladies and gentleman. He sure looks proud of another accomplishment.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20141205X80248&ntsbno=ERA15LA071&akey=1

Not pilot error according to the final report. I've heard his canopy flying habits are not so great though.

I'm no NTSB but that video starts with the airplane flying 100-200 feet over the airport runway (I linked the google maps to the airport, check out the buildings).

Considering the airplane lost power at 1000 feet, I think the pilot could have not overshot the runway by as much. He also could have let the skydivers bail...

Someone here brought up concerns about the pilot forging his logs to give himself more flying time than he actually had. If that is true, then perhaps if he had more experience he would have landed on the runway and not stalled out the airplane over a tree line and swooped into a ditch.

Then again, I'm no NTSB.

lyosha

Considering the airplane lost power at 1000 feet, I think the pilot could have not overshot the runway by as much. He also could have let the skydivers bail...

Bailing at a grand for an engine out wouldn't be considered a best practice by anyone I know.

chuckakers

***
Considering the airplane lost power at 1000 feet, I think the pilot could have not overshot the runway by as much. He also could have let the skydivers bail...

Bailing at a grand for an engine out wouldn't be considered a best practice by anyone I know.

And if the engine fails at a grand, then by the time the situation is recognized, people decide what to do, get ready to jump, open the door, ect, ect, ect, then the altitude will be a lot less.

Quote

If that is true, then perhaps if he had more experience he would have landed on the runway and not stalled out the airplane over a tree line and swooped into a ditch.

Pilots who lose power and attempt to return to the departure runway have killed many people trying. Say what you want about this guy and his many shortcomings, but he appears to have handled this situation as well as anyone could.

What is STA?

Ok so the pilot of the video is the former S&TA/director that lies and klobbers spectators by ill advised swoops which i do not support, but like gowlerk said in this situation which any pilot could find themselves in IMO he did ok. All passengers lived. Exiting at 1000 ft in an engine out emergency is also not a smart idea as stated in a previous post for many reasons.

NTSB report stated that his altitude was 800-900' AGL. IMHO, the only survivable action would be to do exactly what he did. An attempted 180 back to the runway would likely have resulted in a fiery crash. Hitting the trees is also not a good plan. At that altitude & airspeed (just above stall speed) & near max gross weight, finding a place to land somewhere in front of you is the only viable option.

One thing that did stand out to me in the NTSB report was the cause of engine failure. The intake valve springs on #2 cylinder had visible pitting & corrosion on them and had fractured. This should have been caught on at least one of the last few 100 hour inspections.

Rickendiver

NTSB report stated that his altitude was 800-900' AGL. IMHO, the only survivable action would be to do exactly what he did. An attempted 180 back to the runway would likely have resulted in a fiery crash. Hitting the trees is also not a good plan. At that altitude & airspeed (just above stall speed) & near max gross weight, finding a place to land somewhere in front of you is the only viable option.

One thing that did stand out to me in the NTSB report was the cause of engine failure. The intake valve springs on #2 cylinder had visible pitting & corrosion on them and had fractured. This should have been caught on at least one of the last few 100 hour inspections.

So... piss poor maintenance.

Quote

So... piss poor maintenance.

There was a deficiency in the maintenance. The report does not address who was responsible for that. Other than the AME performing the inspection. It's hard to say if Winstock bears any blame for that without knowing the maintenance arrangements. But probably he does not. More likely he is the victim.

He has become quite the victim here as well.

During an annual / 100 hour inspection, the rocker covers are not normally removed. If the compression was low, you may do a bore scope inspection and possibly remove the rocker cover to find the cause. If the compression was good, (at the last inspection) there would be no need to remove the cover. Everything under the cover is covered in oil and it is unlikely anything would rust. Maybe the springs had rust pits when installed and springs fail for other reasons also.

From the NTSB report:

The fractured inner and outer intake valve springs from the number 2 cylinder were subsequently examined by investigators. Both springs showed fatigue fractures originating from rust pits on the surfaces.

A review of the engine maintenance logbooks revealed that a 100 hour/annual inspection was completed on October 14, 2014, at 7,857.8 hours tachometer time. About 13 hours of operating time had accrued since the last inspection of October 14. About 1,501 hours had accumulated on the engine since its last major overhaul. According to the engine manufacturer's operating manual, under the 100-hour inspection procedures, it states, "Remove valve rocker covers, and inspect visible parts of the valve mechanism for breakage and lack of lubrication. All parts should be covered with oil."

Per Continental, TBO on an IO470-S is 1500 hrs or 12 years.

I stand corrected.