Alchemy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Posts
- 492
I believe the wing seperation accidents were a result of operating with excessive zero fuel weights. I'm not certain if the 400 series cessnas have a zero fuel weight limitation, but both of the 400 series wing seperation accidents that I know of may have been a result of repeated misloading.
The following links and text are from westwingsinc.com
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-1658.htm
This a federal document that provides some background on the problem.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00460&ntsbno=FTW99FA123&akey=1
This is a narrative of the NTSB accident investigation that prompted the original Airworthiness Directive against the 400-series Cessnas. Note that the blame is placed on a manufacturing defect, but that does not diminish the role that repetitive misloading may have played in the failure.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X21530&ntsbno=MIA00FA208&akey=1
This is narrative of an NTSB accident investigation of a Cessna 402 engaged in Part 135 cargo operations that crashed into the Caribbean Sea. Only parts of the aircraft and some cargo were recovered, and no probable cause is listed.
However, known circumstances outlined in this report point to wing spar failure, the report suggests that misloading played a factor. The radar tracking data indicates that the aircraft descended from 7000 feet to the last radar return at 1100 feet in 53 seconds (the last 5400 feet took 24 seconds). This descent rate is consistent with in-flight breakup. The report estimates the weight of the airplane at the time of the accident at 6800 pounds, 50 pounds below the maximum allowable takeoff weight of 6850. Of this 6800 pounds, 1517 pounds consisted of mail, as reported by the U.S. Post Office.
The following links and text are from westwingsinc.com
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-1658.htm
This a federal document that provides some background on the problem.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00460&ntsbno=FTW99FA123&akey=1
This is a narrative of the NTSB accident investigation that prompted the original Airworthiness Directive against the 400-series Cessnas. Note that the blame is placed on a manufacturing defect, but that does not diminish the role that repetitive misloading may have played in the failure.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X21530&ntsbno=MIA00FA208&akey=1
This is narrative of an NTSB accident investigation of a Cessna 402 engaged in Part 135 cargo operations that crashed into the Caribbean Sea. Only parts of the aircraft and some cargo were recovered, and no probable cause is listed.
However, known circumstances outlined in this report point to wing spar failure, the report suggests that misloading played a factor. The radar tracking data indicates that the aircraft descended from 7000 feet to the last radar return at 1100 feet in 53 seconds (the last 5400 feet took 24 seconds). This descent rate is consistent with in-flight breakup. The report estimates the weight of the airplane at the time of the accident at 6800 pounds, 50 pounds below the maximum allowable takeoff weight of 6850. Of this 6800 pounds, 1517 pounds consisted of mail, as reported by the U.S. Post Office.
