NTSB Prelim Report Analysis: Lake Placid 177RG Crash killing Richard McSpadden and Russ Francis 

Mike, your aircraft crash analysis are the most thorough and educational on internet! Thank you very much and keep up the good work!

I'm not a pilot, but enjoy reading about aviation. I was a follower of Richard McSpadden on AOPA. Your analysis is very well thought out and interested to hear. Thanks for your work on this.

I had a similar experience with a freshly overhauled engine in my Comanche where on take off it would occasionally start losing power when I was 2 to 300 feet above the ground. I had about four different engine shops, checked the engine out, and none of them could find anything wrong with the engine. There were times it would do this and they were times it would be normal and take off. I eventually found out that if I adjusted the RPMs back to climb position instead of takeoff position with the engine, running a little slower on the RPMs at full power that the engine would run. Normally it was only at high rpm that the engine occasionally would do this. I then took it back to the original shop that did the overhaul and told them the story. They found that on one of the cylinders there was an exhaust valve spring that would work normally, except occasionally on a high rpm it would not work. At high rpm, there was a weak spring that was cracked, and would not close the valve properly, thus injecting exhaust back into the induction system, which took power away from the other cylinders. They replaced that exhaust valve spring, and after that, I never had a problem. It sounds very likely that this is what killed McSpadden and his friend.

Excellent analysis! I'm finding this channel to be one of the best GA accident analysis.

Good coverage on the need to lean to best RPM before taxi/takeoff regardless of DA. One of my 13 engine failures was on a small Lycoming that ate a valve. I was on a pipeline near Duncan, OK airport and flew straight and level to there, but had open area all the way should it have quit. Most of my experience and engine failures were very low crop dusting or on pipelines so in 17,000 hours there I developed low altitude orientation. Leave low ground effect at Vy is a high altitude orientation, get up as fast as possible that is energy inefficient. I have used and taught the basic level in low ground effect takeoff 48 years. Why not continue level in low ground effect until cruise on long runways? It is free acceleration energy. Why not go just over the obstruction rather than give us cruise airspeed to go well over the obstruction? Here it is a trade of airspeed for altitude but not enough altitude to quickly get high enough to recover from inadvertent stall. Richard had mastered the finer high altitude orientation points about the impossible turn. He was doing well with Crew Resource Management and the other pilot was probably fine tuning the airspeed and bank angle in the higher than 1 g turn back. We crop dusters who have make hundreds of these return to target energy management turns, law of the roller coaster stuff, ask, "why the gs and load factor, why pull back on the yoke in the turn? The airplane cannot stall itself because tractor engine mount airplanes are designed to fly, not stall. Dynamic neutral stability allows a turn of any bank angle to be 1 g. Nine of my 13 engine failures were crop dusting or on pipelines at 200' AGL with waiver. One in the Cardinal. In every case I had zoom reserve airspeed, enough airspeed to climb and/or maneuver with or without engine. I was either at cruise on a pipeline or coming out of a crop field after max airspeed was developed at full throttle in low ground effect and pitch up to just over the obstruction. Every landing zone I selected was obvious and in the very, very near hemisphere. When low because of takeoff or in the pattern, the first thought should be go there followed by immediate turn of whatever bank angle needed to immediately go there while releasing any back pressure on the stick/yoke. Guess what? You are now high and fast in the six seconds you have until touchdown. Full rudder to the stop forward slip with full flaps may be necessary to make the very beginning of the LZ. Bank more than necessary at first so as to be able to level the wing over wires and obstructions going into the very beginning of the LZ. Use rudder only now to safely yaw (nose is down) the cabin where you sit to the very center of the open space or even between trees or houses. 200' or less is six seconds. 400' is maybe 12, I don't know as I have never been there, but it is not a lot. Airspeed and not altitude is life down here. The airplane will fly quite well if we don't try to stay up, especially in turns.

Over this summer I found the podcast Richard hosted called “There I was” and the episode 28 with Doug Stewart dealt with a 177 that had loss/reduce power on takeoff they thought they had an exhaust system issue in that case luckily Doug and the other person onboard both survived. I immediately thought of Richard’s situation though, such a sad time. Richard will be greatly missed. He provided so much knowledge to the GA community through his work that we will continue to learn from for years to come.

Where have you been? I enjoyed watching the videos that you were making. Hope all is well

I had a stuck exhaust valve on my Grumman Traveler a few years ago. The engine produced enough power for level flight at moderate air speeds. I did not have enough power to climb. There is also significant vibration. It was later revealed that the valve stem had significant pitting corrosion, which caused the valve guide to become oblong in shape. This occurred over many hours of use. Eventually, the valve stem was caught in the narrower section of the oblong shaped valve guide. Following a cylinder change, I was back in business.

Your detail knowledge is above standards for a CFI!

Mike - A lot of good info on valve problems in this video...and that, or a fuel system problem "could" each be the event that occurred to them on this flight. My point is that actual cause it doesn't matter. What matters is what we do about "any" in flight abnormal. I will give you the correct answer: We treat it as a live grenade that it is, we opt for the most conservative guarantee of good outcome, we land the plane somewhere (anywhere) that will give a good outcome as far as human life. Richard spent a lot of time trying to convince others that a turn around and return to the runway is a good idea in some instances. In this case, the glaring "decision" things they did wrong cost them their lives, and we need to focus on pilot action instead of future mechanical solutions to prevent this same outcome in the future. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PbS65mcALMw.htmlfeature=shared

Your presentation demonstrates great clarity of thinking, kudos

Landing gear can be an easy be 20% of the drag of an aircraft, if it's a choice between going in on my belly but making the field or hitting the side of a hill...

Thank you for the explanation. I learned a lot.

Thank you for sharing this strategy Malibu Mike

Most engine fails on take off are partial power. Good to practice them. Specially the difficult one of 500 AGL LOTOT. You have to decide after troubleshooting to Turnback or Turnaround the airport. Do the "500 agl LOTOT TURNAROUND" first. Then the "500 agl LOTOT TURNBACK" later on.

Interesting hypothesis, Mike. Totally agree that infant mortality is a possible cause of engine trouble. I have not heard of stuck valves with only 40 hours - they usually come in a bit later, like 100 hours. I assume that the engine is the io-360 angle valve - which seems to be more prone to stuck valves than the 180hp parallel valve io-360, for reasons unknown to me. One other possibility for the engine stop during taxi is that they were aggressively leaning on the ground, as one should, and just overshot it a bit. Could have also been fuel contamination. Lots of things have to go perfectly for a successful flight, as we all know. Since I assume that this aircraft was covered in gopro cameras, and they were recording the intercom audio, the NTSB will have a lot to work with. I sure hope we find out what happened and learn something about how to avoid it in our own flying.

A sticky valve can create a quiet ticking, that seams harmless but may progress into a loss of compression and power.

The big issue about this crash in my mind is not that this plane might have had an engine failure or that if so, the exact nature of that event, it is how an experienced pilot like Richard McSpadden could attempt to return to the airport instead of putting the plane down in one of the relatively safe areas that were available. There will always be unexpected events with mechanical/electrical devices and it is not possible to avoid them. How you react in that kind of situation is a life or death decision. Everything else is secondary.

Good Job Sir. Boy two great guys. just found out. Watched Russ Francis growing up in MA. I learned from this report. Im a backyard mechanic. Thanks Malibu Mike. Could be anyone out there flying. Thanks too all involved for a safer future. RIP Men. Loved by so many. Will not be forgotton. Thanks Russ and Richard ,love doesnt end. Wish it didnt happen also. Tuff loss. Too much too say. Good times with Russ Francis and The NE Patriots and the NFL , Aviation, specialists, and the World. Too a safer Future !!! For the common good.

I found this extremely interesting. I owned a 1976 Cardinal RG for about 4 years and flew it about 600 hours on a fresh Major Overhaul. I had this exact valve problem that you discuss and one of my valves stuck about 20 hours in to the breakin. It would unstick almost immedialtely after running it for just 10 or 15 seconds however, I took it immediatley to our mechanic and he confirmed the issue and made a minor adjustment to the valve. He may have just removed deposits. I am not sure. The issue never occurred again but as I was listening to this video, it struck me that this issue may have been quite likely. As a note, my 1976 Cardianl had the Lycoming A1B6D engine which I think was the case for all of the 1976 177RGs. One other note, I flew my Cardinal out of Lake Placid several times and performance could be questionable at that altitude in the 177RG as I found out one day with 3 souls on board. No issue occurred but the rate of climb was not great.

GOOD CLEAR ANALYSIS AS USUAL! I have 1000+hours behind a Lyc O 360 that saw 3400 RPM almost every flight in a Pitts S1S fixed pitch with zero problems .This suggests passing redline , even 700 RPM over should not cause valve float. This is commonoverspeed in aerobatic competition in literally 100s of fixed pitch planes.

Having read the preliminary report myself, I was also wondering about it being a stuck valve scenario. And as you pointed out there is often no physical evidence of the condition after the fact. I also experienced a stuck valve situation with a Millenium-rebuilt Lycoming O-360 while working for an aerial imaging company years ago, but I had the benefit of an altitude surplus for the nearest airport KBUF. It was my first flight in this particular aircraft since the rebuild several months prior. Onsite FBO maintenance didn't find anything wrong, so my boss asked me to fly it back to base. I refused. So another pilot was sent out to fly it back. He got 10 miles from KSYR night IFR when cylinder 4 detached from the block. I have a video of the destruction somewhere.

Thanks for sharing, great job. Where are you based at Mike?

Not sure if witness statement is unintelligible or NTSB’s translation is sloppy and inaccurate. I would like to know with AOPA being in formation and in radio communication with accident airplane why we don’t have more accurate and timely information. Thanks for your great analysis.

Flaps are so misunderstood. Most pilots think of them as high lift devices that reduce stall speed. While that's true, you can also think of them as camber modification devices. Wings with higher camber shift all speeds lower - Vx, Vy, best glide, best endurance, and best range. Even if they add drag, there may be performance benefits utilizing small amounts of flaps. It's really hard to tell without doing analysis of the modified drag polar or flight testing. And manufacturers of light GA aircraft simply aren't going to do flight testing with partial flap settings except where it's normal like flying for best angle-of-climb. Also, giving something else for pilots to think about in an emergency is probably counterproductive. When I used to fly C152s in my much younger days, on one high DA day I decided to experiment with partial flaps in a climb. I found that adding 5°-10° of flaps improved my climb rate significantly. But anything compared to nothing was an infinite improvement :-) As a pilot and instructor, maybe it's proper to complain about their use of flaps when the POH doesn't call for it. However, as an engineer with a background in aerodynamics, flight mechanics, and aircraft design, I can't fault them without knowing more information. There's a chance they would have fallen even more short had they not used partial flaps, for example. With the engine making partial power, you could make an argument to fly at a speed where less power is required. This is obviously at lower speeds, and partial flaps makes the wing more efficient in terms of power required at lower speeds even with increases in drag up to a point. My advice is, if you're a student, follow the book. If all you do is chase $100 hamburgers, follow the book. But if you're in a constant learning mode like me, go up to a safe altitude and experiment some to understand the true capabilities of your aircraft and also learn your capabilities and limitations as a pilot. Just my $0.02.

Hey Mike - thanks for the insight. Help me understand why the pilot would stop and restart the engine on taxi, excessive EGT? And would a restart clear that somehow? Or was it a idle stall? Trying to understand the mind set of the pilot.

Thanks!

When there is a mission to the flight, as in a charter, a meeting that the customer needs to go to, attention to what would seem to be small cautions, can get set aside.

Prop full forward? Full back would be much less drag. It’s a huge difference in my Bonanza. So sorry for the loss. My condolences to families and friends!

The report didn't seem to indicated any abnormalities with the spark plugs or the cylinders. From the report: "The top sparkplugs were all found intact, undamaged, and tightly installed in each cylinder. The top sparkplugs were removed, and a lighted borescope examination was conducted on each cylinder. No abnormalities were noted within the cylinders. The engine crankshaft was rotated by the propeller in its normal direction of rotation, and suction and compression were noted on all cylinders through the top spark plug holes, with movement of all rocker arms noted during rotation. All 8 sparkplugs were removed and compared to a Champion Aerospace AV-27 “Check-A-Plug” Chart. Coloration across the plugs was from normal to black carbon fouled, with normal wear to the electrodes. No mechanical electrode damage was noted or observed on any of the sparkplugs. The bottom sparkplugs for cylinders No. 1 and No. 3 were oil soaked, consistent with orientation of the engine at the accident site and oil within the cylinders"

Prob not a good idea to insist in taking off after the engine has given you a hint that something isn’t quite right … it was talking to them, it tried to tell them … a lesson for us all …

So the gear wasn't stowed ?

Good analysis and sad loss is about all I want to say. I'll add that with a four banger, losing a cylinder means a twenty five percent power loss. Given there altitude of 2000 msl or so that became a thirty percent power loss. So, an IO360 that could develop 180hp at sea level is down to 120hp with loss of a cylinder at 2000 msl. 70 percent power means the airplane is flying like it's at 10,000 feet. Now, we have two big guys and I'm assuming full fuel in a turn back to the airport with gear in transit. I've seen the satellite photos for that airport. The options taking off from RWY 32 aren't great with neighborhoods and wooded areas. As well, a pilot with an engine still running is always going to choose an airport. I think any of us could have found ourselves in this situation. Again, this is a sad loss for both of these gentlemen and to the aviation community.

Was the gear down? Would they have made the runway if they left the gear up???

Dan Gryder posted a video about this incident about a week ago. I didn't actually watch it because I think the guy is just looking for more views and doesn't care anymore about the facts. However, after seeing the preliminary report I thought it would be interesting to see what he'd actually said. Turns out, he removed that video. Something that makes me say....hmmm.

I wonder if the flaps were dropped at the end when they realized they weren't going to make the field to try and crash a couple of knots slower? Good chance we'll never know i suppose -

I'm not a pilot (apparently there are a lot of us armchair aviators) - but is contaminated fuel a possibility? Thanks for the good analysis.

It’s incomprehensible that experienced pilots would attempt a takeoff after an engine failure while taxiing. Eye witness testimony is always questionable especially if the witness is not very close and/or not an experienced pilot. How far did they fly with a malfunctioning engine? Were they able to at least maintain altitude once the engine stopped producing full power? Were they able to climb even just a little bit? These are questions, if they could be answered, would give insight into their decision to attempt to return to the airport.

How the hell does the witness know the propeller set for climb versus take off

Low-time sport pilot and “study” style flight simmer ( on the Bonanza which is a very similarly configured airplane). Inexperienced and undoubtedly naive. Like everyone else, I was gut punched by the news. Would never presume to second-guess these highly experienced pilots. Just some thoughts and a question. 1. Cowl flaps and takeoff flaps (assuming that’s a thing in the 177RG) are exactly the sort of items that pilots sometimes forget to reconfigure after takeoff/climb. I’ve done it many times IRL (flaps) and in the sim Bonanza (both) despite having drilled and drilled. I would expect these items to go by the wayside very quickly after the startle of a climb-out emergency. 2. The steep slope at the end of the runway. I wonder if pilots subconsciously assume that if they make it to the vicinity of the airport in an emergency turn back, they’ll have a cushion of clear ground prior to the paved surface. This looked like a carrier ramp strike, something most pilots probably don’t consider part of their possible outcomes… 3. I believe there was a golf course a little to the right? But it sounds like there was a near-instantaneous decision by the PF to return to the airport. Thinking about the old navy thing of “winding the clock.” Obviously not much time here, but a less rapid reaction might have opened up more options. And the question: Lean for taxi. Usually that’s all you get. I’d like some pointers on, how much? What indication are you looking at: just the rpm? It starts to drop, push in a little mixture? Any science to this? Thanks.

Talk about drag, wasn't the gear down?

This may force them to make G100UL and get the lead out of our fuel. Rich mixtures with leaded gas kills engines, and people. Prop setting, Climb perhaps wad said as Fine? Same thing unless he meant feathered. Did they pull the prop to full course? I think it provides better glide. I know on my Arrow it provides less thrust on simulated engine failures. Engine surging on takeoff/climb may have been the prop being moved from climb to takeoff when the issue began. On my Arrow that is 2500 rpm for climb to 2700 for takeoff. I have a new engine in my Arrow IO 360 C1C, we run lean. Did the break in, rings were seated at 25 hours. At 120 hours compression was 80 over 80 on all 4. I fear lead build ups. My Arrow has been accused of not making takeoff power by people on the ground. It is one of the quietest plane I have been around, I don’t know why it is so quiet, exhaust is new. Engine monitor says it is making full power. The 900 foot take off near max gross says it is making full power. Listening too it on the ground I question if it making full power.

Why the engine failed is fairly irrelevant. Turning back increased their kinetic energy relative to the ground. Strong guy pulled back on the yoke trying to make the runway. The plane fell. No mystery here.

Your words are very informative, but I respectfully wonder if you care to comment as to whether YOU would have made a takeoff from that airport after experiencing an engine outage on the ground while taxing out as a witness supposedly described. Or, would you have taxied back to h15:40 15:46 😅

Who did the overhaul is what I want to know. Lots of potential variables that could have been involved.

I know of no other pilot besides myself, who never departs straight out on departure over inhospitable terrain. For me, this accident is the result of bad decision making. My home airport is located with the city to the east, and surrounded by forest on the three other sides. I climb up to 3,000 feet before exiting the airport environment, and circle down into the pattern upon return. We are supposed to fly as if we EXPECT an engine failure at any time! 99% do not fly with that mindset, and will suffer the same result if this happens to them in the future. I climb until I can assure making an open area in my chosen direction, and will only depart the airport when I know it is safe to do so. Staying in the pattern for just one minute more for an extra 1,000 feet of altitude does not cost that much, and is the cheapest insurance you can buy with one gallon of fuel. Your decision decides the fate of everyone on board! Choose wisely! I have been flying for 40 years, and have had two engine failures. The first one resulted in a restart at 3,000 agl. The altitude gave me plenty of time to go through the checklist. The second one found me having to shed altitude in order to make the runway.

My thoughts Not a pilot...They're running a rich mixture for a faster run-in ? That seems fraught with problems. There are other ways to do it. Royal Enfield Motorcycles (I think) use thinner oil for the run in to accelerate wear. New or re-bored Motorcycle and car engines have the luxury of not needing full power straight away. Do they not bench run in these aviation engines at all? 36 hours ...should be run in? 36@50mph(equivalent for cars) is 1,800 miles These engines sound behind the times. From the mid 90s motorcycle engine can be thrashed straight out of the crate. They don't last as long without the careful run in but they're ready to go immediately and don't really overheat. And they're high performance- my suzuki is 1000cc and 160ish bhp. Sad loss. Apparently engine failure on take off is the worst.

Water in the fuel.

every accident every lost soul thw value oh the victims are of equal value. The better the pilot yeah, bigger deal bigger shock. PIC didn't do my hunch this xase that Richard was trapped with little say little time to say in plane owners dumb decision trying to save his beautiful baby bird suddenly trying the impossble turn at way way too low agl for the Cardinal.. Having said so we should get say we're turning back.? I'm just Talking dont mind me. I would like to suggest upon every take off someone should be calling out agl until a 200 + feet above a possible turn agl . Below that agl The landing must be straight ahead 20° into the wind if available . Why doesn't someone come out and say it? An accident like this one is an embarrassment to AOPA. We expect ordinary pilots to admit they made mistakes if they survived. I think richard would want AOPA to speak for him honestly WHY? To save lives. That would be the biggest Tribute to him.❤

Mike your comment about the cowl flaps acting as a scoop doesn't make any sense, opening cowl flaps just enlarges the exit area not the inlet area. So we had 10° of flaps, the landing gear out, and the cow flaps opened, no wonder why this aircraft couldn't glide back to the airport with all that drag😮

thanks for a thorough discussion.. much appreciated