Owen Bell - Aviation Enterprises

[edasmus]

Thanks for keeping the information coming Cole. I have been watching this thread carefully and the story gets more amazing everyday. It really makes me wonder what was going on inside that wing in New Jersey. I feel badly that you have to deal with all this. Hang in there!

Ed

[tropical]

However, they said that their primary concern was the workmanship (which has nothing to do with stacking mods). They said that 3/4 of the screws that they could see that were holding the extension to the original had no nut and no nut plate. They were simply relying on the threads contacting the skin.....they dit not like that at all. Additionally, the cap-stringer (the last orignial stringer to which the wing extension abuts) didnt quite mate to the extension perfectly, so whoever installed it had used a pair of pliars to rip the "lightning hole" to enlarge it to allow passage of one of the lines. All of which are text-book no-no's and very bad from their point of view.

Originally Posted by N5ZX

owen bell
October 24, 2000

'nuff said.

[N5ZX]

No biggie.
I'm glad to be alive and dealing with it.
But to calm the waters a bit I'd like to point out that while there are problems, it can be argued very effectively that the mods didnt cause the accident in NJ. The pilot exceeded limitations. Its that simple. If I mount a C-5 wing on my skymaster (that's would be fun to see...I gotta try that on photoshop) and I exceed the limitations....they're gonna break.

If the wing failure in NJ happened at ...3000 agl.....it might have been survivable. If he hadnt pulled up so sharply... If he hadnt gone so fast... If he hadnt overstressed it in the past... If the air density had been lower.... If he had fuel in the tips... If he hadnt had a full-boat....

There's a LOT of factors involved. They all came together at one point in space and time to create a tragedy which fortunately has made us take a deeper look at our wings and go.... "Hmmmm...."

Owen just sent out an email 20 minutes ago, reminding folks to be sure their placards are installed, and he included copies of the SAIB, so he is starting to surface.

If I were him, I'd put on my Captain Proactive cape and start driving this beast instead of getting drug by it. If ya let go of a horse's raigns and spur him in the flank, your gonna have a hell of a ride. But if you manage it along the way, ya just might not get bucked off. (now imagine I said all that with a twang)

He has a PMA fab-shop (for now). He should use the Cessna factory engineering diagrams to manuafacture fiberglass replacement wings. Lighter and stronger than the factory wing and incorporate all the latest bells and whistles. AND Circumvent the damn SID in the process.

Chump to champ in a heartbeat.

This is all still pretty fresh. Like Herb says, we're still waiting for the dust to settle.

Patience is a virtue (but I aint no saint)

Cole

[rhurt]

It seems that Owen, Chris (Owen’s Son) and Dave (Owen’s brother) are getting thrown in the ditch because some competing mechanics do not agree with the way the FAA Designated Engineering Reviewer approved the wing extension STC, and because Owen has not returned calls in several days.

I am partners with Owen in a 337B. We have worked together on airplanes and his workmanship is top notch, along with his understanding of complex issues and his attention to detail. He was an OB/GYN doc until he retired and went to work on airplanes full time, bringing his surgeon's skills into the hangar. I am a mechanical engineer and flight instructor (and that means slightly more than nothing in this conversation).

Owen has been in New Jersey this week, working with the FAA and the NTSB. He probably doesn’t have much time to be posting on message boards right now.

The plane that crashed was loaded 500 lbs over zero fuel weight and at least that much over gross weight when it was doing an ‘airshow’ while operating more than 60 kts over Va for zero fuel in the tip tanks. The wing broke off in the middle of the aileron, making the aircraft uncontrollable. It is a tragedy.

Since five people died I expect the plantiff’s lawsuit will name Cessna, Aviation Enterprises, Riley, Continental, Alcoa, Garmin, Goodyear, the mechanics, the flight instructors, the local FBO, the airport authority, the weather man, Exxon, anyone who has ever breathed out CO2, and any politician who has ever tried to pass tort reform.

Hopefully Owen will survive the inevitable lawsuit and I can keep my airplane for trips with my wife and four young daughters. We like the winglets, the pod and the air conditioning. I don’t think they would like a Baron as much, and I would get pushed harder toward flying Southwest.

I have flown around 20 hours in 5ZX with the tip tanks and winglets, mostly dealing with icing and endurance in winter months, and not much turbulence penetration. I took it to FL 210 with the old engines and got around 200 kt TAS on trips from Nashville to upstate New York. The Va with empty tip tanks is down around 125kt though, and since that plane does not have air brakes or power pac spoilers that makes it really tough to descend into rougher air at the end of a long trip. Just when you want to be slowly retarding the throttles and taking advantage of going downhill, you have to really pull back on them and slow your descent to get below VA. I would always fly with the tip tanks full unless I needed to use the gas on a long trip.

Before Owen, 5ZX was owned by a guy in South Florida. I expect he flew in rough air, but I also expect he kept IAS below the appropriate Va. Also, I think 5ZX had a CorrosionX treatment within the last two years.

The FAA said to look for look for loose rivets at the aileron hinge attach points, not everywhere.

I think the mechanics are referring to the screws that attach the winglet to the carbon fiber wingtip extension. The carbon fiber layup is around 3/16” to ¼” thick in that location and the engineering calculations showed that machine screw threads could be tapped into the layup and give appropriate strength.

Owen may need a PR guy, and he may need a lawyer, or maybe he could just retire and let someone else come up with the captal and energy to build a bunch of good mods for a good airplane.

Randy Hurt

[edasmus]

Thanks Randy and well said.

I think we all need (myself included), to be careful about what we say here because few, if any, of us has all the information. We need to save our opinions until after the final report of the investigation is published. Let the people who are gathering info and analyzing it do their work. Just my thoughts!

Ed

[rick bell]

this is not about throwing someone in a ditch! this is about basic communications and supporting your loyal customers. over the past seven years as i stated before i could not be more please with the mods owen has produced !! i believe at the very least he should have sent his customers an e-mail letting them know his take on what is going on. if one shrouds themselves in secrecy, you only get rumors and feed the "i can win the lottery litigation crowd". from my own experience his mods have held up way beyond what was advertise.
in heavy turbulence toooooooooo many times i care to remember and the wiglets fine ( no
wrinkled skin). going east one time went into very heavy rains for about 1/2 hour. notice the
right winglet was rocking back and forth, i'd guess maybe swaying at least six inches back and forth. slowed down; however it still persisted but at a slower rate. later found out that the winglet drain hole was plugged and the tip was full of water (2 gal +-). what i'm getting at is the attachment with screws have held up under a few extreme times ( would much rather had nut plates in lieu of the screws; but that is probably way overkill)

rick

[skymstr02]

Originally Posted by rhurt

The FAA said to look for look for loose rivets at the aileron hinge attach points, not everywhere.
Randy Hurt

I beg to differ on this statement. Anytime that you find loose rivets, you have a problem somewhere. You cannot approach modded airplanes with blinders on. I was able to prevent serious (read that expensive) repairs because an owner noticed something not right on a pre-flight inspection.

[N5ZX]

I personally believe that blind advocacy is as unwarranted as rampant villification. Neither are supported. Neither are deserved.

Lets review, shall we:

I offered to fly Owen, Chris, Dave, or anyone they liked to inspect my plane, themselves since they know far more about SkyMasters than ANYONE else I know (thats a compliment). Owen eventually replied that I should take it to any local A&P since a "wing is a wing" and anybody should be able to perform the inspection. That kinda implies that common wisdom and common practices are in effect. Hold that thought....

So when I have three different A&P's (two are AI) look at it and they dont like what they see...I gotta wonder. And in case anyone is doubting their veracity because they think the Tech's might be trying to make work for themselves...they refused to do anything beyond the inspection....before I asked them.

It further complicates that particular aspect when the FAA inspectors and Engineers are so concerned that they are investigating if the STC was approved for stacking, if the mods are installed in compliance with the STC, as approved, and exactly how the STC(s) were revied and approved to begin with. In short....there's a lot going on behind the scenes. A WHOLE lot more than merely the issue of "to nut or not to nut".

So it might just be a bit more than mere semantics or a difference in opinions.

The next point Randy Makes is that the accident plane "was loaded 500 lbs over zero fuel weight and at least that much over gross weight". Let's do the math: I looked at a Super Skyrocket before I bought N5ZX. It had a useful load of 2000#. So in theory the accident A/C had a useful load of 2000# If we assume the plane had full fuel (and thus eliminate the zero fuel weight arguement) then we subtract 190 gallons (150 in mains, 40 in tips) which is 1140# leaving us with 860# payload. Divide that by the 5 passengers on board and you come out to 172# per person. Bearing in mind that three of the passengers were children, I have trouble imagining the A/C being 500# over gross.....that would require EACH passenger to average of 272#....that's a lot of tater-chips! I dont think the cabin has enough volume to fit that much meat without the copious application of vasceline.

And that's based on the assumption that they had full fuel. It can be deduced that they did NOT have full fuel. They put on 90 gallons immediately prior to their take-off. In order to support the "full fuel theory", that means they had 100 gallons on board prior to adding the 90 gallons. Since the witnesses (family of the deceased) say that the flight was supposed to be a short sight seeing flight....it is difficult to imagine why he would add an additional 3 hours of fuel the 3.3 hours of fuel already on board...for a short sight seeing flight. it is much more likely that he would add 45 per side in the mains and leave the tips empty since they are less convenient to fill (precisely why I try to leave mine full). That, and the lack of a giant fireball, makes me think the tanks probably were not topped off.

Basically, its really REALLY hard to overload a SkyMaster...part of the appeal.

There is no question...no doubt...no debate...that AIRSPEED caused the wing to fail. I think that point has been made MANY times and I dont recall reading any arguement against that fairly apparent conclusion. But as has been repeatedly cautioned...it is not our place to make a decision of any sort on a matter in which we have minimal information.

Which is a perfect segue into the topic of needing/having/wanting information.

After many attempts to reach Owen, I finally received a reply to one of my private messages (sent via this board) saying that Owen hadn't replied because he was ill. Thats understandable. Then I hear that Owen is in NJ helping with the investigation. Thats understandable. What is more difficult to understand is that according to a Linkedin reference on Owen's "Aviation Enterprises: in Whites Church, TN.....he reports having 50 employees. Based on the reply to my forum message, at least one of those employees is monitoring these threads. Seems like it would be helpful to all if ONE person were to give us a standard line of non-committa,l hand-holding BS and just let us know that they aren't just hoping this all blows over.

At issue is Managing Expectations. They could easily abate perceptions by creating the impression of doing something proactive AND MAKING THEIR EFFORTS WELL KNOWN. People, by nature, are lazy. If they see that someone else is "handling" a problem, they are far less likely to want to do it themselves. By failing to keep the stakeholders marginally informed, it makes us want to take matters into our own hands so that we can SEE something being done. While it is likely not the case....it APPEARS that Owne's approach has been, "Let them eat cake.".....and I think that ended badly. People like to feel involved. Especially when their investments (or lives) are in the balance...it kinda makes them feel important...and valued.

The FAA SAIB said to pay particular attention to Smoking Rivets at the Aileron mount....they didnt say ignore everything else. Since in my wing the smoking rivets were a few inches from the aileron mount, I thought it was worth mentioning. Since the mechanics found many more smoking rivets on the inside, I thought that was worth mentioning. And since I personally have never seen an airplane that did NOT have smoking rivets somewhere, I left it as a comment and not a complaint. Merely something of note.

But when I supplied my findings and photos of the various problems to the FAA and they said "That is exactly what we are looking for and is the same as what's being reported by many other operators..." I think perhaps it is pertenant. and not limited to my planes past or present operation.

I'm selfish. I dont want anything negative to happen to Owen or "Aviation Enterprises". About half of my airplane was built by them and I'd like for someone to be around to support the work (key phrase being SUPPORT). Owen, and Chris, and Dave are all remarkably knowledgable. Chris did a damn good job teaching me how to fly the 337. Dave allowed me to watch over his shoulder when they installed the new engines and props and taught me a great deal along the way.

My only complaint about "Aviation Enterprises" has been the perception of inaction. And having been an investigator, I can say without question, that perceptions of the parties involved are what drives the intensity of the investigation. If you look like you are doing the right thing, odds are they wont dig too deep. If you look like you are trying to do the right thing, odds are they will poke at it with a shovel and try to get you headed the right direction. If you look like you are oblivious, they'll dig deep enough to take you out of the game. And if you look deceptive....they'll being in a back-hoe.

Hopefully he has given the investigators a better impression than he has given those who have commented in a variety of threads on this forum.

Personally, I just hope for an early, easy, and affordable solution to this mess. I'd love to have Cessna or someone say: "Oh, that little thing? No worries. Get the (heck) outta here and go fly!"

Because, again, I'm selfish. All I want to do is fly. I invested a lot of time and effort into finding THE one, perfect plane for our purposes. I love my plane and I want it out of the shop and in the air. But now I'm unemployed because the plane's owner is so enraged at having spent $160k to buy the plane, $100k on the best avionics package imaginable, $70k on engines, and $25k on props. And with this latest drama he's told me to part it out, and scrap the rest. He's had it. And while my tone has struggled to remain objective and moderating....it can be very fairly said that, "The Emporer is not as forgiving as I am."

So.... I'd really like this all to get better PDQ so that we can all live happily ever after and go back to bitching about the SID.

Ahhh... those were the good ole days...

Later, yall
Cole

[Roger]

Cole - Sorry for your problems. Really.

1) I can't imagine Aviation Enterprises (regardless or who owns or manages that company) coming to you to pinpoint "problems" with the aircraft. After all they would essentially be harming themselves with every discrepancy they find. Then what, they argue against themsevles in court? I think you are far better off just keeping them out of it on the inspection side, as I belive you will be safer flying with an independant inspection, and also have protection in case you need it in court.

2) Your owner/boss does not need to scrap a perfectly good airplane just because he/you are unhappy or unsure about these mods. Just have an AI take them off, convert the wings back to normal, and quit sweating it. Document everything with protographs, etc and if it ever get into a court battle (which by the way I would imagine is nothing more than a product liability insurance issue) then you will be ready to fight that battle.

I can tell by your threads that even if AE says "It's ok, just fly it like we said, you and your owner are not going to feel happy and safe, so you might want to consider my suggestion.

After all the aircraft as originally certified with your new engines, avionics, etc should be a wonderful ride. I would be pissed also, but I would rather be safe and out a little cash, than let it eat me up.

This reminds me of when I put racing turbo chargers on my 993TT and while it was fast as hell, it immediately snapped both axels and tore the rear end up. You can only "improve" the design of a perfectly designed piece of machinery so far, before you start detracting from its original brilliance.

[N5ZX]

Yup.
Suffice it to say that scrapping a damn nice plane wasnt my recommendation. hasnt been my preference. And isnt my choice.

Thats why I dont want any part of it.

As for inviting them to come down and do the SAIB inspection, I was hoping the prevent the "that's wrong/that's normal" debate. I understand the wisdom behind having independant and objective eyes inspect and certify airworthyness. But I was trying to give them an opportunity to be proactive and be involved.

I'd be happy to fly it as-is....no correction. Cuz I'm young, dumb and full of (ambition). Actually...because the plane seems to have held together pretty well for 10 years...and cuz I fly like a sissy. But a lot of folks who know a lot more about whats going on than I do have suggested that it might be good to wait for a review of the data. My boss....is not a patient man...and after waiting 9 months for this thing to come home from upgrades, this SAIB hit at the worst possible time. Waiting equates to loosing, in his mind.

Again, I dont have to agree. But my agreement is not a requirement.

This is the specific point that has made a relative inconvenience into a virtual crisis. Rampant speculation. Very little information. Even less cooperation.

Sounds like the ingredients for trouble.

If you're in a spin, and you dont do SOMETHING...you're done.

Cole