The pilot did not report any anomalies with the Cirrus SR22T’s engine start, run-up, or takeoff.
He reported that the flight was initially uneventful, and the airplane was operating with all the gauges indicating within the proper operating limits.
At 10,000 feet mean sea level (msl) and about 60 nm east of Lincoln Airport in Nebraska, there was a brief “stutter” of the engine, and the engine began to run rough.
He contacted Omaha approach control and told them the engine was running rough and would like to divert to Plattsmouth Municipal Airport/Douglas V Duey Field (KPMV) in Nebraska, located about 39 nm from KLNK.
The pilot said he a received clearance to fly direct to KPMV and to descend and maintain 4,000 feet msl. About 40 nm miles from KLNK and 8,000 ft msl, he told Omaha approach control that the engine smoothed out, and he would like to continue the flight to KLNK at 6,000 feet msl.
The pilot told investigators that as the flight continued to KLNK, the engine’s No. 3 cylinder head temperature indicated 0°F.
About 15 nm east of KLNK, the engine began to run rough again, and the pilot asked Omaha approach control if he could begin a slow descent toward KLNK. He was cleared to descend and maintain 3,000 feet msl.
About 12 nm from KLNK, he was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 17 and subsequently a clearance to land.
As he continued the descent to 2,500 feet msl, the engine began to run rough, the oil pressure rapidly decreased, and the indicated airspeed decreased.
About 6 nm from KLNK, he told KLNK air traffic control that he would be unable to make it to the runway and was going to look for a field to land on.
He located a field, deployed the airframe parachute, and the airplane landed in the field and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot and passenger were not injured in the crash.
Recorded avionics data showed that about 1930, the airplane was about 100 nm from KLNK and about 7 nm northeast of Schenck Field Airport in Iowa, at an altitude of about 10,000 feet when the No. 3 cylinder head temperature decreased to and remained about 210°F, while the remaining cylinder head temperatures were about 300°F.
The No. 3 cylinder had a corresponding decrease in exhaust gas temperature to about 600°F while the remaining cylinder exhaust gas temperatures remained about 1,300°F. These temperature indications remained constant to about 2007, at which time the temperatures further decreased to the end of recorded data at 2009.
The continuous decrease in engine temperature corresponded to decreases in indicated airspeed and engine speed.
Post-accident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 3 cylinder, opposite to the No. 4 cylinder, was attached and secured to its crankpin. The cylinder exhibited debris-related impact damage to the piston skirt bottom and nearest crank cheek.
The No. 4 cylinder connecting rod was detached from its crankpin at the connecting rod end. The end of the connecting rod was deformed and its connecting rod bolts and connecting rod cap were not intact. The No. 4 cylinder crankpin exhibited partial gouging along its circumference and radial impact related deformation.
The No. 5 piston and its connecting rod were intact and secure. The crankpin end of the No. 5 piston connecting rod was not connected to its crankpin, and the connecting rod end was hammered into a rounded shape. The connecting rod cap was not intact. The No. 5 cylinder crankpin did not exhibit scoring and did not possess gouging like that of the No. 4 cylinder crankpin.
The deformed end of a connecting rod with both connecting rod bolts in place was recovered loose in the engine.
The engine oil sump contained metallic debris, which was consistent with internal engine component failure, and engine oil.
The airplane engine logbook showed that on June 30, 2021, at a Hobbs time of 887.7 and a flight time of 790 hours, the No. 5 cylinder was removed and replaced with a new cylinder. The engine logbook did not have entries for any subsequent engine cylinder removals.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s decision to continue the flight with abnormal engine indications and the subsequent failure of the No. 5 cylinder connecting rod for unknown reasons.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This February 2022 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.
Ya’ll talking ADM. His decision was likely bankbook based. Land & the engine repair is on him. Continue until it fails and then pull the chute, total insurance write-off.
Night flight, engine problem, why would you accept or choose a lower altitude? Why not stay up as high as possible until overhead an airport? Unbelievable !!??
Exactly
If anyone with any mechanical knowledge would direct the pilot report and engine analysis I think you’ll see none of it makes any sense whatsoever.
Things like #3 cold but only skirt scratches, but #4 rod separated from crankshaft.
#5 rod cap spread almost flat from impact damage but not a scratch on the journal.
Rods blowing apart but it stumbled, then ran rough, then smoothed out with rods flying everywhere, then got rough again?
I’ll make a ‘swag’ on what happened to the engine.
#5 cylinder was replaced recently, and possibly the rod bearing was damaged or replaced incorrectly. When the #5 rod separated from the crank, the oil pressure is lost to #4 cylinder rod bearing from the common main bearing supplying oil, so it seized and separated from the crank. #3 would suffer ‘hammering’ damage from the #4 rod flailing around.
The engine might feel somewhat smooth if the rods from #5 and #4 got stuck in the crankcase for a while…
The #3 low cylinder temp may be a separate issue, or #5 fuel injector was providing excessive fuel to #3, or unrelated to the other cylinders ?
There was no mention if the cam was intact or fractured too..?
Looking at the NTSB pics of #5 crankcase attach flange, there is a lot of damage/gouging of the cylinder base mating surface. This leads me to think that the cylinder base nuts may have not been properly torqued, and some nuts came loose, allowing the cylinder to move with each cylinder firing. This usually results in the cylinder ‘departing the aircraft’, but not in this case.
So, more mystery on the failure sequence of this engine.
So as a CFI and high time pilot who has three successful landings with engine failures, one in a winter wheat field. My last was with a bad mag that then burned a hole through number 5 piston. So what’s not being taught is if your engine is running ruff check your mags and if one smooths out the engine stay on that mag and land at the nearest airport. Yes you can check your mags in cruise and fly on one mag. My case the mags gear went bad causing the mag to fire out of time. Also if you want to improve your skill set go get your glider license. Best training you will ever get.
At many flying schools all over in many parts of the world, safety and airmanship advisories would be posted and the boards. One of them I remember is: “it is better to be on the ground and wish you were up there, then to be up there and wish you were on the ground.” Very true.
Yes, very true and told here too.
Also;
The 3 most useless things in aviation; runway behind you, air above you and fuel in the truck.
Regards.!!
Probably said “… THAN to be up here and wish…”
Despite it all; I still want one.
If only my wife had a better paying job…
Once you’ve flown turbine engines you don’t want to return to those five and dime pistons.
It is called money!
A turbine is 1000 times more reliable than a piston engine. That’s not an exaggeration.
P&W lists the TBO of the PT-6 series as 3,000 to 6,000 hrs, depending on model.
Most Lycoming and Continental piston engines have a listed TBO of 1,800 to 2,200 hours.
So, maybe 3x the time to TBO for a turbine.
But the failure modes are certainly very different.
If considering horsepower x hours, then the difference may be 30x – 40x…
I agree with “Pieter” he should have “LANDED” after calling “ATC” no excuses.
I hear “Clint” not wanting to be to “harsh” for this “pilot”, but I disagree. Yes ! Be harsh, why? To make it “it home” !
Have we as people made mistakes and came out the other side “ok” ? Yes, but while flying? then you are a “unsafe” pilot.
Sooner or later we will read about you in the “GA news” and will make “harsh” comments about your situation, if it “was” your fault.
How many times do pilots that comment in this venue make it clear “there is no substitute for safety in the “aviation industry” especially while “flying”
This pilot & passenger walked away ! Will the pilot walk away again next time? I don’t know.
When the little devil on your shoulder says, “It’ll probably be OK”, make sure the little angel on the other shoulder says, “You should assume it won’t!”
If the engine quits in a Cirrus and you can’t make the a runway you PULL THE CHUTE. That is the airframe manufacturers stated procedure in THE POH.
By the way I have read that if you deploy the parachute the Cirrus is totalled !
This dude maybe a pilot but a pilots ethics he has not !!!!
When a pilot identifies a problem with the motor he nurses the motor to the nearest safe landing area and cuts the motor as soon as possible to prevent an unnecessary damage to the motor . This dude could reach a nearby airport but no he decides to fly on because miraculously the motor repaired itself as motors normally do !!!!!!
Like most accidents this had an avoidable “error chain”. If he had landed at a nearby airport the parachute deployment would not have been needed. If the engine is running rough enough that you call that in to ATC that should be your indication to land immediately.
The comments on this site are consistently harsh and judgmental in tone. Yes, he made an error by continuing the flight rather than diverting for the precautionary landing. He paid dearly for that error – his aircraft was probably a constructive total loss, instead of just needing a few AMUs of engine work. Or worse, it wasn’t a CTL and he got to enjoy many months of repair-related headaches.
I contend that most of us have been guilty at one time or another of pressing on under questionable circumstances, and the few who say otherwise are lying. Fortunately, most of us get lucky, and hopefully we learn after scaring ourselves a little to not do it again. I feel for the guy. He already crucified himself. Do we really need to crucify him again?
Amen. Everyone walked away. Given the same set of circumstances, he will likely choose to divert and land as soon as possible.
I agree 👍 With The Guy That Stated The Guy Has Already Crusafide Him Self Enough 🙄 Already, We’ve All Made Mistakes Before An Pushed 🫸 The Envelope, An It Would Have Been A Big Mastake, To Have 😉 Taken A Chance To On Rebuilding That Same Engine,
Rather Than Getting A New Motor In Place Of It, Simerly To What We Us To do On The F – 14 Tomcats In The Navy…
Glad he wasn’t hurt.
Just one bad stupid decision after another, and why on God’s green earth would you deploy the parachute if you can land in a cornfield ?
What this indicates the mentality of the folks who buy a Cirrus. They aren’t like the rest of us, who prioritize safety. Expect more Cirrus accidents, as has been the case the last couple of years.
Firstly, not defending this pilot’s lapse in ADM.
However on the decision about the use of CAPS
It would be dumb not to use a chute if you have it…
Would you take a 100% chance of survival and total the airframe over landing in a field that looks smooth from 3000ft but turns out is plowed with trenches?
Stop shaming people for making a decision to save their lives. Even you said in your response “ prioritize safety “ . If you have a BRS the safest thing you can do is use it.
Why would you crash in a corn field when you have a factory installed safety device specifically designed for this situation? Captain Joe sounds like the crusty old pilot that doesn’t accept change very well, probably still berates his first officer like ‘the good old days’. Let me guess, ejection seats, wearing a chute, even seatbelts are for people who don’t know how to fly.
I agree this pilot made a bad decision in continuing a flight with abnormal engine indications and I’m sure the pilot regrets that but none of us were in that cockpit with the advantage of hindsight. There is no guarantee that a forced landing would have turned out any better, possibly even worse since he is “not like the rest of us” and likely not a real pilot.
Not necessarily. I have a Cardinal and a SR22. The chute was for the wife, the performance was for me.
Cirrus training does point more data on survival toward Chute pull, and they say to use it on the majority of emergencies!
You can see in the pic, this pilot road it down Old School, no chute pulled as listed.
#NOTALLCIRRUSGUYSSUCK😬
Zoom in on the pic. The release layers for the chute are dangling from the fuselage.
A bit of accusatory stereotyping, Joe? Yes, these were “bad” decisions as you say, but are you implying that pilots flying other makes of aircraft never make bad decisions? The NTSB crash statistics would clearly prove otherwise! Therefore, why must you demean (inaccurately) an entire group of fellow pilots? “[T]he folks who buy a Cirrus…. aren’t like the rest of us…” Really Joe? I am a Cirrus pilot, also with time in Diamonds, Pipers, Stings, Super Decathlons, and Cessna’s. And, I “prioritize safety” as much as any pilot, probably more. I have trained extensively under CSIP instructors, who I have found to be some of the safest, most knowledgeable and safety-oriented instructors of all the ones I have trained with. Stop being a jerk (probably based on jealousy) and stick to the facts at hand for this accident. Oh, by the way…why “deploy the parachute if you can land in a cornfield?” Because Joe, if you truly are a pilot, you would know that any off-field landing, even in a cornfield, comes with some risk – hitting a stump, gopher hole, drainage ditch etc., and the possibility of injury or death. Cirrus have a proven safety feature in CAPS. If you truly cared about “safety” you would not ridicule the pilot for using this safety feature and walking away without a scratch!
It was at night. You can play your Monday morning superior pilot card all you want, but the safest thing to do, by the time it was decided, by the person flying the plane, that the airport could not be made, was to pull CAPS over that cornfield, & not attempt an off airport landing in a dark area. The CAPS pull “prioritized safety” and as a result, there were no injuries.
Your preferred method would have almost certainly resulted in fatalities — your ignorance on the matter is astounding, are you even a pilot?
By the way, Cirrus pilots have a 2x better safety record than the GA community at large.
Another ‘stupid pilot trick’…continuing a flight with a damaged engine, and then crashing when it quits….dumb.!!
The other issue was the mechanic replacing #5 cylinder due to 40/80 compression, when Continental says to ignore compressions, [ the FAA says you have to do a compression check].
TCM says what is important is a bore scope check of the valves.
Since #5 cylinder failed, I’d suspect the mechanic didn’t do the cylinder replacement correctly.
It looks like the Cirrus drivers are the new ‘Bonanza doctor’ pilots.
JimH says, “It looks like the Cirrus drivers are the new ‘Bonanza doctor’ pilots.” Really Jim? How so? Do you have ANY statistics to back your claim, or are you just making stuff up trying to sound cool?
NTSB accident statistics for Cirrus pilots are LOWER than average in general aviation, and Cirrus pilots are not dying (like Bonanza pilots did) due to incredible safety features like CAPS.
You made some great points about the engine maintenance and then you destroy all your credibility by making a stupid comment about the pilot. Nice work!
I have experienced 2 incidents with SR22’s.
One was a SR22 making a high speed , straight in to the runway with 5 other aircraft in the pattern, one was me. He forced 2 of us to extend or do a 360 to avoid a collosion.
The other was as I was on the 45 ,at pattern altitude, at 90 kts, when I heard an SR22 make the same call. Before I could key the mike, the SR overflew me about 300 ft above, fly much faster then me. [ I later checked flightaware, and he was doing 165 kts].. He turned downwind, but broke off and circled around for another try.
So, SR22 may not crash more than other types, but some of the pilots are bold and aggressive.
I once observed a lone piper pilot land and toss an empty soda can in the trash on his way out to the loaner vehicle. As I passed by the trash I noticed it was actually a miller can.
So pipers may not crash more than other types, but some of the pilots are clearly both driving and flying under the influence. They are not like the rest of us!
LS for all you know it may have been a pee can or to put out cigarettes in, much less to pass judgment about his condition to fly.
So what, Jim? You believe your two little anecdotes make for an accurate assessment, and the demeaning an entire group of fellow pilots? There are dumb pilots flying every type of airplane out there! The second phrase of your last sentence is the only true fact, “…some…pilots are bold and aggressive” which describes “some” of all pilots, flying all aircraft.