• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

SR22’s muffler separates in flight

By NTSB · September 17, 2020 ·

The private pilot and flight instructor were conducting a cross-country instructional flight in the Cirrus SR22.

During departure and while climbing through 2,800 feet mean sea level, the pilot and instructor noticed multiple avionics malfunctions and initiated a turn back toward the airport in Addison, Texas.

While the airplane was turning, the engine lost all power, and the pilots noted indications of a fire. Because they were unable to find a suitable area for a forced landing, the pilot activated the airplane’s parachute system. The airplane descended under the parachute into a parking lot, and the main wing spar sustained substantial damage.

Examination of the engine revealed that the engine exhaust muffler attachment hardware was not secured correctly, which allowed the exhaust collector to freely rotate. A hole near the lower right engine cowling was consistent with escaping hot exhaust gas.

Several components in the right forward side of the firewall were thermally damaged, and both magneto p-leads were shorted against the engine’s metal mount frame.

The thermal damage interrupted both magnetos’ function, which resulted in the loss of engine power.

During a pre-buy inspection of the airplane, the No. 1 cylinder base O-ring was replaced. The work order, dated three days before the accident, required removal of the muffler.

During the muffler reinstallation, maintenance personnel likely did not correctly install the attachment hardware, which resulted in the muffler separating in flight, thermal damage that interrupted the magnetos’ function, and the subsequent loss of engine power.

Probable cause: Maintenance personnel’s improper installation of the muffler attachment hardware, which resulted in the muffler separating in flight, thermal damage that interrupted the magnetos’ function, and the subsequent total loss of engine power.

NTSB Identification: CEN18LA392

This September 2018 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily. Sign up here.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. scott says

    September 20, 2020 at 1:47 pm

    The risks involved dictated the A&P/IA requirements. I believe the maintenance failure rates under that system warrant owners being able to test out for their aircraft type to do their own maintenance and inspection. They could use professional services as needed.
    Many owners are definitely more qualified than the average service people.

  2. John says

    September 19, 2020 at 9:20 am

    Stuff happens. It is absolutely true that aviation runs on a lot of money, but it really requires a whole lot of TRUST. Only 79% of aircraft accidents are caused by “pilot error”, while about 1/5 of all aircraft accidents are maintenance related. I guess that means pilots are 4 TIMES LESS trustworthy than mechanics.

  3. bobbe hackett says

    September 19, 2020 at 7:03 am

    Totally stupid and uncalled for!

  4. JimH in CA says

    September 18, 2020 at 6:51 pm

    This one was interesting…..
    I think that I’m going to put some fire sleeve on the P-leads on my Cessna.
    It’s cheap insurance . The #2 cylinder exhaust is within 7-8 inches of the
    P-leads where they go through the firewall.

  5. Bob Hartmaier says

    September 18, 2020 at 1:05 pm

    What are “short cummings”?

  6. Joe Henry Gutierrez says

    September 18, 2020 at 11:32 am

    Most A&P mechanics are the most unfair people that work on aircraft for very high wages, and they are the first to weasel out of their responsibility. They have the knowledge to do a good and satisfactory job, they just don’t want to, they are always in a hurry to get the job done and get paid. So they can move on to another job and do the same. I would venture to say that 90 percent of all A&P mechanics fit this description. I have worked next to a lot of A&Ps and have witnessed their short cummings on the aircraft owners. I personally have had a annual signed off when nothing was done to the aircraft, another I was charged well over $4,000.00 for a minimum annual, he clamed the paper work was not sighed off properly, he spent all day making the paper work right, allegedly at $100.00 per hour, nothing but robbery to the max. Needless to say, I don’t have much respect for A&P mechanic’s period !!!

    • Greg Wilson says

      September 18, 2020 at 3:13 pm

      I do not doubt that you have had bad experiences with maintenance shops.
      I would like to point out however that the two specific examples are with an IA not someone working as an A&P. Yes it can and often is the same person but the job and responsibility is different.

    • bobbe hackett says

      September 19, 2020 at 7:05 am

      Amen!

  7. Derek says

    September 18, 2020 at 7:19 am

    Good thing for the chute, or we likely wouldn’t know the cause of this.

  8. IA in OH says

    September 18, 2020 at 6:16 am

    Please give an example of an insurance company that will cover an A&P mechanic (individual) with liability insurance.

  9. gbigs says

    September 18, 2020 at 5:11 am

    Perfect example of the CAPS chute system saving lives. Betcha most concentrate on the mechanical problem which is NOT the main pointn of this article.

  10. JonK says

    September 17, 2020 at 9:47 am

    I’m a firm believer in forgiving honest mistakes, but this is negligence on the part of the mechanic, plain and simple. This is an example of why if you are an A&P mechanic, you should carry liability insurance.

    • Doug says

      September 18, 2020 at 6:31 am

      I am just beginning my ground school… what happens if an A & P does something incorrectly? Do people sue or is A & P held responsible for damages? Insurance?
      Just wondering…

    • Smith says

      September 18, 2020 at 7:32 am

      Most shops have liability insurance. If every A&P had to have individual liability insurance you’d have to pay more per Shop hour to make up for the extra $10,000 plus insurance policy.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines