Quite a few uninformed comments here. Crimp terminals are a completely correct method of terminating wires. The process was developed and refined during WW2 to allow relatively unskilled labour make quick, repeatable and reliable wire terminations. The big problem with crimp terminals is that everyone thinks they can buy the cheapo $10 stamped steel crimping pliers and a $10 pack of terminals and go to town. Those crimping pliers and terminals are garbage. A good wire crimping tool will set you back $50-150, but given now little use it will have compared to a commercial user, will last you a lifetime. Same with the terminals themselves- buy the quality brand name ones and never worry about wire terminations ever again. There are a few very basic rules to follow when using the crimp terminals, mainly wire sizes/ terminal choice and how to prepare the wire end, but those are very easily and quickly learned. I am currently certified in QA for aerospace related equipment- we use crimp terminals all over the place and with complete confidence.
Totally agree. The problem is people buy cheap stuff and don’t fully understand that wire prep is key to a solid crimp connection. The only other wire termination I use in certain circumstances is the lineman splice when you need the wire to be more flexible and have a stronger tensile strength than crimping, and it’s great when you need it to be waterproof with the right shrink tube, of course.
I recently read that to crimp properly the tooth that forms the crimp should be applied at the solid side of the terminal and not at the split portion. Does anyone else feel this is the correct procedure and helpful in making a solid connection?
@@robertbennett6697it’s what I do. Doing the opposite results in awful looking crimps if you ever remove the insulating sleeve to check it. But you’re really supposed to use the jaw that doesn’t have a tooth and simply compresses the terminal into more of an oval and doesn’t damage the insulating sleeve.
If you do your own maintenance, it's a really good idea to let the completed work sit for a day or two and come back and recheck. Sometimes, it's amazing what you will see the second time around that you missed only a day or two before.
@@thedevilinthecircuit1414 Both good advice. A pair of experienced eyes on your work can help spot things you sometimes didn't see when you did the work yourself.
Even if you can't find experienced eyes, finding somebody to explain it to while you are showing them will make you do all the steps and not skip any, because you are trying to show somebody.
Never work to the point of exhaustion. It's shocking how shallow some mistakes are with a fresh mind and "getthereitis" affects anything on the ground just as decisions in the air.
Reminds me of the poem, "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost, For want of the shoe, the horse was lost, For want of a horse, the rider was lost, For want of a rider, the battle was lost, For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe nail."
Again we are reminded that these regulations are written in blood. Thanks again Juan for this information and condolences to the pilot's family and friends.
I started working as an apprentice mechanic many years ago, and one of the first things a very smart coworker told me was,that I was going to have people offer to take me flying in their airplanes. He said don’t do it! because you don’t know how the airplane was maintained or it was maintained by. And then proceeded to tell me a lot of owners work on their own planes, but have no idea how to work on them properly. And after working in Aviation for many years now, and seeing some of the things I’ve seen,it was excellent advice.
Boats are built almost as shitty as campers and other small utility trailers. The wiring on them is almost unbelievable to me for what the stupid things cost!
@tucanoguy4719: I stopped hopping aboard any old aircraft or helicopter many decades ago for the same reasons. People love to wail about "oppressive regulation" in aviation but, having seen how the culture of taking "hacks" and shortcuts and of decisions tied to "risk assessments" based solely on costs in which safety is just one among many factors beginning to creep in from the larger society and take hold in aviation, I am glad that I made that decision and I am going to continue being cautious.
@@mowtivatedmechanic1172 my point is most mechanics are qualified to run aircraft on the ground and some of them are qualified to fly them in the air. And usually you don’t stay in the business very long if you’re bad at either one of them!
When I flew my own 'Amateur Built' aircraft, I was always painfully aware that it had been assembled and was being maintained by a raw amateur - ME! It always was appreciated when local, more qualified folks, gave things a once over for me. Sad outcome in this case. Thanks for posting.
@@terrancestodolka4829 While money can be a consideration for some people, almost all the people I know build and maintain aircraft for pleasure and education.
I wonder if the guy realized he didn't know what he was doing and then felt embarrassed to have someone qualified look over his work. My son and I have very low standards for our work, but we limit ourselves to junk lawn mowers and such.
@@the_mowron He probably knew exactly what he was doing, notwithstanding a poor crimp job. While there is no way of knowing what brought this thing down, it seems likely based on the mag switch position that he grounded an ignition system while he was low and slow which is a big no-no in a partial power loss situation. While the installation workmanship may have something to be desired, I've seen fully certified mechanics leave cotter pins out of brake pedal connections to master cylinders and completely cut off grounding shields on coax where they should be crimped into the connector. It seems like this accident would be best contributed to a poor decision to play with ignition system grounding while he was low and slow.
Yup. I work as a Repairman (started as an apprentice mechanic, studying for my A&P but my commercial ASEL is taking priority right now) at a repair station. We've got strict procedures in place including progressive inspections and double-inspections to prevent this sort of thing. Before you close up a sub-assembly, you need to get another set of eyes on it and the work order signed "OK to close". And before the aircraft is delivered, it's looked over by the Chief Inspector as a double inspection. Redundancy is your best friend in maintenance.
@@bmw_m4255 Never once did I pencil whip an "OK to close". It was crucial that I take a look. I have seen a few other inspectors who did and it bit them in the rear end.
@@bmw_m4255 Not where I work. Never. QA is responsible for Required Inspection Items (RII), and they always do a very thorough inspection of the work as it is being accomplished. They share equal responsibility for the correctness of the work, which lasts until the work is repeated, so they don't gaffe it.
The reason is that Aviation Authorities are happy to let owners use their own judgement, which in many cases they don't have! Using cheap or poor tooling, bad practices and so on is a sign of inexperience, complacency, or stupidity!
I lived in Irvine California in there late 70’s early 80’s. My neighbor was building this type of plane in his garage for a friend of his. a Judge, as I remember. On his first flight out of the airport in Chino California he was about 50+ feet in the air and there was an explosion that blew the rear off the craft. The pilot made a hard landing and had some minor strains and scraps. They found out the gas cap was not properly seated and the fuel was leaking into the engine compartment. Fortunately the accident happened at a very low altitude.
I am an A&P holding an Inspection Authorization since 1970. I am also a retired 767 Captain. Everything you said is 100% correct. I was the Technical Counselor for a local EAA chapter for several years. The improper (read dangerous) wiring I observed on home built projects were common. It required a lot of patience to get the builders to understand the importance of proper wiring.
Great video, Juan. My experience was to be especially cautious of single point failures that could stop the airplane from flying. I did not think about the 'no starter' scenario since every plane I was involved with had a starter. Maybe the extra weight of a starter is of value after all.
In this case what really got him was the miswired magneto. It hurts to even hear that. So simple. If he had done his mag check before takeoff he would have found it.
Juan, your final comments here hit the nail on the head. Retired 44 years of experience A&P here, military, GA/corporate, Part 135 DOM and commercial aviation . Butt splices must be carefully installed and crimped with a properly adjusted crimp tool. I never used these in any system critical application. I also don’t grasp the practicality of having a single mag paired with an electronic one. Mixing systems in this way is just another avenue for trouble. I actually flew in one of these many years ago built by a co-worker who built it himself. I looked everything over carefully and noted a proper mag check before takeoff. What a ride. Just a barrel of fun. Condolences to family and friends affected here.
Actually very common in the Experimental fleet. The single electronic ignition provides 90% of the efficiency improvement over dual electronic while the magneto is the mechanical backup that does not require an electric power source. Not having a working magneto as backup... an unfortunate and fatal oversight.
I am not a pilot but I enjoy your videos and feel this is one time I could make my first comment on your channel Juan. Crimped connections are the de facto standard but they must be performed correctly.... you cannot just smash them down and call it good. When you use the proper tools and utilize the proper resources, the wire or cable harness will fail before the crimp. We operate a motorsport wiring harness company and in our daily work we use the same wire, shielded cable, interconnects, and terminals found in aerospace and aviation. Why? Because of the vast resources available to us when it comes to the components and their usage. Datasheets, procedural documents, testing requirements, tooling, the list goes on. We appreciate these resources because we know that if we follow them, we'll have success in terms of reliability, durability, and performance.
Juan, this is very sad as I see improperly crimped wires all the time. My retirement job is installing mobile radios in police fire, ems vehicles. Also, my company service vehicles that have been installed by butchers, you can't cut conductors strands and expect the same ampcapacity required for your device may require. Further, using poor butt and an improper crimping tool frequently leads to connection failure. This results in a system failure, which is a problem for a terrestrial vehicle but can be fatal in an aircraft. Thanks again for remaining us that we ALL should get a QA or second eyes on any maintenance/repairs.
I was at a race track once when the main fire truck (apparatus on a F350). The truck died on the way back to the station (thankfully not while responding). Ended up being returned because of bad custom wiring. Not quite as big a deal as an aircraft, but still really important.
In a car, I avoid a crimp whenever possible, and rely on a simple twist connection. Most amateurs don't do a good job of routing and strain relief - in addition to their general circuitry errors.
I’m a lifelong mechanic, I N E V E R use those cheap Amp butt splices. I don’t even use them on my lawnmower. Few mechanics have the correct crimp tools (I do) and there is just no way to ensure a solid mechanical and electrical connection. A much better solution are Raychem environmental splices used with the correct crimp tool. They are used by the airlines and military.
After seeing the Louis Rossman (sp?) video about the cheap terminals he bought on Amazon I went to the electric supply house and bought 3M terminals and already have the Klein ratching crimper. Can at least try to do things better
Scotch-Lok connectors still give me nightmares. Tapping in to a car's wiring for a trailer? Strip, solder, and cover with heat shrink, or whatever. If it's out in the weather, it WILL corrode and fail.
And no guess work with enviros- it has the Inspection window- where you are able to see wire- before you heat shrink it! But LOL make sure you have the heat shrink on before the crimp- common mistake!!
As an A&P with a very heavy avionics background, this is literally a textbook example of “HOW NOT TO DO AVIATION.” It’s fairly obvious he failed to do a proper post-maintenance ground run. He never had anyone look at this work. He was unfamiliar with what he was doing. He neglected to take action on noted discrepancies with major components of his aircraft. Yeah, this kind of stuff pisses me off. It’s so easily prevented, but either ego or cheapness almost always wins out.
You jogged my memory about an old John Deere tractor we had when I was a kid. It had a magneto that had a steel button on its side that had to be pushed against the metal side of the magneto to shut the tractor off. I loved that old tractor, it was an L model with a two cylinder 15 horsepower engine. It's actually the vehicle I learned to drive a manual transmission on.
Most people that were around the little 2 cylinder Continentals used in those tractors don’t remember them so favorably! My father had a JD 12a combine with the same engine I think. He always said if you ever killed it or shut it off, it would never start again until it had cooled off!
I learned to Drive on a 1912 Deutz Traktor with a 4 Liter 1 Stroke/zylinder engine with 12(european)Horsepower. And it's still working❤😂. That thing has No swing-Mass Distributor and the whole Traktor jumps a bit Up and down when the Motor is running slow😅
You are so right about proper maintenance of your airplane. I stopped taking lessons around Covid for fear that the flight school was not performing routine maintenance on the planes. It was probably my paranoia but I don’t like not knowing who is working on the plane that I’m in. Thanks Juan.
A bad crimp is one thing.......but miswiring the remaining magneto was what really got him in trouble. What else can you say? I am an avionics technician and I crimp splices and contacts from time to time. They always taught us to do a pull test ....first of all, the three most important things are preparation, preparation, preparation. The right tools for the right job. The correct WIRE plus the correct contact. The wrong wires or contact could cause dissimilar metal corrosion and trouble down the road. The use of the ESPM, Electrical Standard Practices Manual (or it's equivalent) which will spell out which tool to use for your application and what settings on the crimper. And last but not least......give it a GOOD tug. Every time I tug on a crimp I'm afraid I'm going to pull my wire out.....and sometimes that can be bad because the wire might already be on the short side. But the final tug test MUST be done. It's better that it fail here than in the air. I give it a GOOD tug.....and am very happy when it holds. Re-crimping is NOT an option if the tug test pulls the wire out. You cut the strands off and re-strip it. A proper, aviation grade, stripper is crucial. And it must be calibrated on schedule by a proper PMEL lab (A Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) is a facility in which the calibration and repair of test equipment and tools is accomplished. Micrometers and tools like strippers and crimpers.) A proper stripper won't nick the wires. But if you don't have the proper stripper make sure to stop short of cutting all the way through the insulation. Only cut part way through, by scoring the insulation and then flex the remaining insulation until it separates. That way you won't nick the strands. But in this case.... bottom line......a bad crimp shouldn't be a show stopper. One of your banks of spark plugs quit....so what??? Limp back to base. But in this case it was a double whammy. Very sad.
Bob Nuckolls said that the tug should be about the same as lifting a gallon milk jug, about 8 lbs or 4 kgs. That's a lot of pull for a #20 butt splice, but it's what I do.
@@dermick I'm not sure if I put that much pull on it. I use the ol calibrated elbow. Like I say....if I scare myself tugging on it and it holds....I'm satisfied.
As an electrician, it definitely looks like that wire was not properly crimped in the beginning as you said, and then shoved back into the connector. The wire needs to be cut back, stripped, twisted, and then recrimped under a new connector. It's sad to see such a simple thing like crimping a connector properly had such a catastrophic result. That's why when I work with terminating wire in things like fire alarm panels and devices that I double check all my terminations are done properly since sometimes wires can miss being held down correctly and pop out easily. I took as much care with low voltage things similar to this as a high voltage termination of a heavy gauge cable.
The use of the correct crimper with the correct wire gauge and quality connecters will get the reliability you need. I leant the hard way by taking short cuts to save money but in the end it cost you more in rework.
@@audigga4396 on a critical component you should just replace the entire wire and avoid but splices period. After all you are in an airplane. None of us would approve of Boeing or Air Bus crimping wires regardless of how good the connection is. Wouldn't you agree?
@@Catch_The_Irishman Crimp terminals are used all over the place in aviation. The process was specifically developed for aircraft assembly during WW2. I can guarantee you the average commercial aircraft has thousands, if not tens of thousands of crimp terminals.
As a young boy flying with my Grandfather I remember him checking both Mags before we ever left the ground... He would full throttle both of them to confirm they were smooth and functioning...
I’m an electrical engineer. When I want a reliable splice I solder it, after sliding on a section of shrink tubing, then seal up the joint with a heat gun on the shrink tubing. If it’s a wet environment I might just replace the entire length of wire or apply silicone grease before heating the shrink tube. I’ve had too much trouble with crimp connectors. Once, though, soldering wasn’t the right thing to do. A ground wire from an antenna mast needed to be spliced with a bolt-style clamp. The state electrical inspector explained that a big surge of current could cause the solder to be blown out of the joint. I re/did the joint. The point is to apply recommended or mandated procedures.
I'm an electrical engineer....."solder to be blown out of the joint."??? Methinks the state electrical inspector had a few too many joints. Solder pots are used all over the place for overloads -- they are not instantaneous like that. As a matter of good practice, I just don't splice earth ground wires.
Thanks! It seemed strange to me. Don’t know why solder would have “blown out” - his terminology. I can understand how it might melt and fall out under gravity. Maybe that was the basis of his experience or of those who wrote the regulation.
@@maxenielsen sorry dude. FAA AND AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL are the Bible of the industry. You aren’t qualified for this discussion. Solder is subject to vibration and heat. In an aircraft fire, the proper terminals don’t fall. They don’t melt. Most soldiers joints fail at 700-900 degrees Fahrenheit. Not acceptable. Shrink tube is what I use in automotive applications. Definitely not acceptable in aviation.
Thank you for your continued focus on safety. The lessons learned often can be applied in a general sense far beyond the aviation world to other fields of endeavor to great benefit. The best way to honor those who have been lost is to learn well and apply thoroughly the hard won knowledge.
EXCELLENT! CRM philosophy for maintenance too. Love it! ❤ Great Explanations ! I m not a pilot. Just a fan learning on UA-cam in retirement. Things learned on aviation videos easily transcend to lessons for life on the ground.
I worked as an Avionics technician, my boss always told us to remove all crimp type and environmental solder sleeve splices as we came upon them and replace with more reliable, traditional solder joint, heat shrink, and proper wire prep. Was strictly avionics though, nothing powerplant related. Far too many times to count, diagnosis found improperly crimped/stressed butt splices. Although, I have seen 60+ year old solder joints still holding strong and at low resistance.
I don't know about that. Soldering has the side effect of hardening a flexible wire - leading to fatigue on long vibrations. Cars on the other hand have all crimped wires, they are many more than planes and if crimping would be that bad, we would have find out about it by now.
@@cristianstoica4544 If a crimped connection fails on a car, perhaps the engine fails and you coast to wherever you choose to stop. When a crimped connection on an aircraft fails, perhaps the engine fails and you go in wherever gravity takes you. Quite a bit different set of dangers and risks to life and limb, don't you think?
@@cristianstoica4544 I remember hearing in ground school 45 years ago that soldering was discouraged, if not downright prohibited, on aircraft wiring for that very reason. The stresses of the vibration are concentrated where the solder has stopped wicking away from the joint up the wire to where the temperature is too low or rosin flux hasn’t reached, and the strands start breaking.
@SFY241: Professional AMT(A&P) speaking here, no, after over 40 years in the trade, I am not surprised at all. The difference is that A&Ps, unlike some other professions, have no "qualified immunity" or protected cult status to hide behind. Accountability is a real thing, and those who take their jobs and sign offs lightly learn real fast.
If he did a run up he likely fell back into habit by doing a normal L, then R check not realizing the electronic system was never turned off and it didn't trigger any alarm bells because both the L and R positions would show a "mag drop": each was going to electronic only mode. This is a big danger of mixing and matching controls like that. Better to switch to a DPDT or other switch style that can ground the mag and control power to the electronic system in a one, two, or both setup so the runup check conforms to what you already know. Or put the mag on a toggle switch like the electronic system. And don't leave a useless wire hooked up like that. He probably thought it made sense for redundancy or he thought he would remember that L and R did the same thing (bad idea). I don't like crimped butt splices - I'd rather run a new wire or use a splice with set screws, but those butt splices for aircraft have semi-transparent insulation and slots in the middle for a reason! So you can visually verify the wire is fully inserted on both sides and that the thing is fully crimped down. How you don't yank on both sides to make sure it is actually secure I don't know. An airplane is no place to just YOLO it.
Not all electronic ignitions require power to generate spark. Emagair (aka P-mags), which I have in my aircraft, make their own power above around 850 rpm. Internal power is checked by switching off the ignition power source after run up and at 1,000 rpm.
As I recollect, the standard procedure when doing the engine runup, was to switch the mags to L, back to both, then to R, and back to both. If there was a significant RPM drop on either L or R, shut the engine down and get it checked.
A normal indication would be a change in RPM. Too much and you have a problem. But if you switch thru the positions and not see ANY change is cause for investigation.
If I understood Juan correctly both the 'P' wires, that would have gone to each magneto in the old system were wired up to the one remaining one. So in this case you'd see the desired response but it would only be the one mag reporting as good on all switch positions. It would be tragic if replacing one mag with the electronic system was cheaper than a mag overhaul, as they should both have been overhauled before any work took place.
I was an electrician foe a few years in my early 20s. Then got into low volt logic level electronics so I'm pretty good with wires. Always room for improvement. I am lucky and fortunate to have these skills. It always amazes me how bad most people are with wires and electronics in general. I take my experience for granted. Some thing that comes natural to me most people find very difficult and struggle with. It hurts that this mistake cost this man his life. Hope his family is able to prosper in his absence. I wish them well.
I think the best practice for crimp type is to use bare connectors then cover with heat shrink tube. It is easy to observe proper insertion and crimp location. The heat shrink provides strain relief for the connectors. Some heat shrink also has a waterproof coating. If you want complete bonding, solder the crimp.
Solder or use gas-free crimping aero style terminals. After a crimp, the copper flows inside the crimp, and all the air is driven out from the crimp volume. Those are as good as solder, except can last through temperatures that would melt the copper. But they do take expensive crimpers. If you know what you’re doing, you can set up eBay saved searches for those crimpers. Every once in a while a good deal pops up on a used one, spare dies for them, etc. For basic terminals for #8-#18 wire, I use a hydropneumatic T&B desk crimper I got for $50 ok eBay. I refurbished it and got good dies for it. For a couple hundred bucks I have the same capability as wire harness manufacturers. It just took a long time for the deals the show up. Sometimes it takes years. You have to be patient and research in major brand datasheets and catalogs. I only buy used what I can buy new from a catalog. Didn’t go wrong yet.
As a builder/pilot of a Lycoming O-235 powered VariEze, using one magneto and an electronic ignition, I really want to completely understand what happened. However, the description isn't adding up for me. The magneto and EI were on separate switches, if I understood correctly, with the mag using a key switch and the EI controlled by a toggle switch. Even if the magneto switch was incorrectly wired, the report states that it was operable on the BOTH position. So each ignition system was independently testable at run up, and if the EI failed in flight due to faulty wiring, the mag should have continued to operate with the switch in the BOTH position. It's possible that the pilot noted a drop in RPM when the EI failed and turned the magneto off while troubleshooting, unfortunately at an airspeed low enough to stop the prop rotation. In my experience that would only happen at minimum flying speed for the VariEze, below around 70 KIAS. With a running engine, even if something isn't right (e.g. loss of RPM), I certainly wouldn't start troubleshooting systems at low altitude and airspeed. I don't know if the accident aircraft had a starter, but contrary to what's stated in the video, most VariEzes with Continental O-200 engines *do* have a starter and are not hand-propped. My airplane does not have a starter because its larger, heavier Lycoming O-235 makes adding a starter problematic due to weight and balance. I've flown in and out of Columbia many times in my VariEze and the terrain around the airport is terrible for an off-field landing, full of rocks and lava flows.
There’s just too many things left out of the NTSB report. As wired, there’s no reason the pilot couldn’t have checked both ignition sources prior to takeoff. In reality, as you point out, having both p-leads connected to the one remaining mag really made no difference to anything in the chain of events here. Say there was only one p-lead connected…….the engine looses power…..the pilot would probably have switched the mag off as a check just as before he installed the EI unit. The difference is that the switch no longer can ensure that there’s one source of ignition enabled at all times unless the key is in the off position. Really need a new switch that can do that if you want to have it work like the old two mags setup. If his EI is functioning, switching the mag changes nothing Say the EI died and the engine looses power…….. Switching the mag switch may have been an instinct/memory item, but since the engine had already lost power, that tells the pilot the mag is also dead already, no chance turning the key is going to make any difference! So him switching it does not worsen his situation. Say the mag quit or started causing a rough running condition, but the EI is functioning, pilot doesn’t know what the problem is and has the choice to switch off either the mag or the EI to diagnose the problem. If the EI is functional, no problem. Switching mag off either makes no difference or maybe makes the engine run smoother by removing erratic sparks. If he picks the EI switch first, engine looses more power as soon as he switches it and he immediately turns it back on. If EI is bad……..pilot chooses to switch EI power off …..no change and he should have known to leave the mag switch alone Or pilot switches mag off as his first check. Unless he completely forgets that it only runs in the BOTH position, when the engine cuts out as soon as he moves it, he would return it to BOTH and continue flying as far as he could. I think there’s just not enough information in the report to make any conclusions about the actual cause of the failure except to say that his wire connecting and securing methods were sub par and may have caused the accident. Also that his decision to keep flying the mag and carb after the recommended overhaul time most likely contributed as well. I think it’s very possible since the key wasn’t in the ignition that the pilot made the decision to test fly the new EI without even turning on the old mag (which may have shown up bad during preflight check) and then after a successful flight, some event (possibly associated with landing preparation) killed the battery bus and stopped both the ADS-b and the EI at the same time. Battery may have just died and voltage on the bus decayed below minimum required for those components to function. Engine probably windmilled until close to minimum speed just as you say. Pilot would have certainly had aircraft at as low of a speed as possible for impact, so prop being stopped is the expected result. More information about whether the mag and the EI unit were functional on a test stand would help narrow it down a little but they just didn’t dig that deep. P-lead wiring had nothing to do with this one!
Your suspicion is well-founded, and it's worth noting the report writers will almost always find some way that the pilot was wrong somehow. It's cheap and easy content for tubers to just agree with the findings of the NTSB because it's the NTSB. I agree that the NTSB is certainly wrong on the part that it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify the proper operation of the ignition systems, assuming all the wire separations happened post impact. There was no evidence discovered indicating that the system wasn't working at departure.
Great review. Columbia is one of my all time fav places to land, but you are right, the terrain around there is very inhospitable, shall we way. RIP aviator.
I live a few miles from the Columbia Airport and know exactly where this happened, because a friend of mine lives a couple hundred yards away from the crash site. We walked over there a few days later. The plane came down in someone's back yard, so we couldnt see anything. If the engine had conked out 20 seconds later he would have already cleared that rise north of the airport and could have dead sticked the plane in. It's a damn shame that we lost a brave airtanker pilot to some wonky wiring and overdue maintenance.
Given how he wired this up; he should have discovered there was a big problem when he did the engine runup test before he left the ground. Not to mention the obvious, he had no business going anywhere near the ignition system of this engine
A drop of 100 rpm either magneto would render unsafe. Had an incidence once failure of second magneto due to a leak in the second inner O'ring in the magneto shaft. The magneto has 2 O'rings unfortunately one leaked and oil seeped into the carbon brush. Change both O'rings... Thanks for the videos.
If it was a certified aircraft, he wouldn’t have been allowed to. That’s the trade off with experimental home builts, on the one hand you have the freedom to build it, on the other hand you are the manufacturer and the chief mechanic.
@@jamesweir2943 if he had done the proper ignition check on the ground, the engine would've stalled when it should've kept running. That should've been a big clue. People always seem to think that procedures and proper checks are for someone else
Some of you are missing the point that there may not have been/ probably wasn’t any problem with either ignition source when checked before flight. Once an ignition problem occurred, the mag may have been dead already when the electronic ignition failed, so engine may have stopped before or without pilot doing any mag switching. Or mag may have been working somewhat after electronic ignition failed and engine performance decline prompted pilot to perform the usual memory item (that would have been an automatic response before he made the modification) of switching mags so he killed it.
Thanks. Far too many commenters are thinking the pilot was not aware of the mag switch I got working one mag. I think Juan's hypothesis that he turned it off to diagnose and didn't realize it would never restart is pretty likely.
@@brianhaygood183but why was the key not in it? I’m wondering if he didn’t have the key and/or decided to test fly it just using the new electronic ignition powered up by the main /battery switch. The ADSb data stopping suddenly may indicate a failure on the battery bus, possibly something to do with lowering the nose gear that pulled the voltage down below the limits of both the ADSb and the ignition unit. Before the modifications to the ignition system that would have had no effect on the engine performance so it may not have even been anything new. Edit…..original design uses a manual lever to retract and lower the nose gear but there are electric retract systems available that some people have used.
I just want to say thank you for sharing this issue and findings of the investigation. As a builder and operator of amateur built experimental aircraft I appreciate and absolutely agree with you on your input to have a well experienced IA review your work/maintenance, regardless of your experience. This was sobering for me… Regards
Thanks Juan for the informative video. Tragic that poor workmanship and inattentive post-maintenance testing led to his death. There may be some who declare that the rules should be tightened; however, that would take away the great freedom of E-AB. With great freedom comes great responsibility.
11:12 I was an AE aircraft electrician in the Navy, but last year I installed circuits in my truck. I bought connectors and crimpers on Amazon, but none would properly crimp the lugs or slices. I had to revert back to the Sta-Kon Crimpers I used in construction. I do love the heat shrink connectors for weatherproof protection.
I have a problem with wiring ignition systems with opposing concepts. A magneto is hot,wired to return, to stop its function. The electronic system is made hot and goes to return to make it function. Crimp connections are best made with a ratcheting crimper. All joints and connections can be checked by "shooting" them with a laser guided infra red thermometer. A high resistance shows up as a higher temperature at the connection. Useful in corrosive conditions.
Juan, Informative video. It's always good idea to have someone else look over our work. One correction though. You mentioned that electronic ignitions or electronic magnetos all need an external battery. E-Magair makes a self powered electronic magneto. I have them on my plane. Yes, you need an electric source to start the engine, but once running, a small amount of RPM will keep these ignition systems running. They can be checked during the run-up by turning off the electrical power to them. I did that by wiring in power switches so I can turn them off for checking purposes. There's also a keyed ignition switch like most single engine airplanes so I can select each mag separately to make sure their self power function is working. I've had them on the plane for the last 11 years and they have worked very well. But yes, you are correct that the system that was installed on this aircraft did need an external power source.
“Another set of eyes”… Juan, you remember the 781 Exceptional Release… the Crew Chiefs do the Pre Flight … and The Super followed us up ( a good Super got out of the truck ). It didn’t matter if it was a 130, 141… or any other USAF JET.. the Super was the E-9 on the line. If I as a Crew Chief messed up with something as small as a Schrader Valve while servicing a strut… that could be catastrophic.
I remember an A&P coworker of mine doing a wire splice on the Starter/Gen of a Dornier 228 aircraft that our company operated, they didn't realize that particular wire used a wire shielding, so they crimped the splice to the shielding instead of the wire, that aircraft popped circuit breaks and gave us hell for several days before we figured out what was going on. Even A&P's make mistakes when they're unfamiliar with certain systems, Im sure the pilot thought he was qualified to do what he did, obviously he didn't understand magnetos and P-leads
My father built a Long EZ in the 80s, and his small local airport has 10+ owner /builders that all were incredibly high level pilots and builders... Flew with him on many occasions.
Thanks for the report Juan. This should hit home for a lot of us guys with relatively limited budgets that like to do as much of our own maintenance as we can.
I am a certified A&P mechanic. A second set of eyes is critical when performing safety of flight maintenance. A another A&P or an I.A. Are the best choice.
That is true no matter what credentials you have . . . I built my RV7 and had several guys I trusted to do a very thorough inspection. I made notes as fast as I could write. It took me more time in the research for requirements than it did for the assembly. I have a gig of digital NASA and FAA standards. Knowing what you function want is different than how to get it and actually assembling the pieces. This is followed by testing it on the ground - - to validate the expected function. Juan, while this behavior is certainly not uncommon in experimental aviation, we all work hard to see that it doesn't happen. A purchased amateur built plane presents the highest risk of this happening. It is such a short time from crimp to flight. Typically that is years, and accidental learning has time to take place.
It is very common for people to not crimp properly. So common that there are many "alternatives" to crimping, most of which are worse. I can't count the number of times I have had people tell me "This is how I've always done it and never had a problem." Use a good tool, use it properly, use good terminals. Costs more, but saves grief.
Connecting the primary lead for the magneto he replaced to the magneto he kept didn’t keep him from being able to check both magnetos. Putting the ignition switch in any position other than both would disable the magneto so the he could check the new electronic ignition. He could then put it back to both and flip the toggle switch for the electronic ignition to off to check the mechanical magneto. By using both primary leads, he didn’t have to remember whether the old magneto was the left or right. What he needed to remember was that he shouldn't turn either switch off if he wasn't within gliding distance of a runway. And besides, who turns the ignition switch while they're in the air?
Yeah, I see no reason why he wouldn’t have been able to check both mags at run up. If he did turn off the ignition in flight before it quit, I suspect he was trying to trouble shoot the issue on his way in…He probably noticed it loosing some power maybe running a bit rough and was trying to figure out if it was a mag issue or something else on the way back to the field. The only way to diagnose it from the cockpit would be to turn off one of the mags.
Call me old school. Cut off new fangeled insul-grip type connector, Grab a mil-spec, double crimp x 2, tug test, shrink tube, second shrink tube, and cage the wire with a zip tie or two if at all loose, And since keyed switches aren't the most reliable relegate the darn thing to ground out and add a mil-spec DPDT on-both-on configured switch. I'd rather be unable to shut the engine down than bump a key accidentally and ....
In the 80's we all switched to something similar on our Harley Davidson motorcycles, to eliminate the points system. The only problem with eliminating your mags means you absolutely have to have good battery voltage for the system to work properly. No power=no spark.
Excellent synopsis and highly informative as always. Another stark reminder that even highly accomplished individuals can succumb to critical mistakes.
The splice terminals appear acceptable type, but the right hand side of the crimp is incorrect, and easily visible in the pictures. The proper tool and dies for hand application of crimp terminals is about $700. The dies are specific to the type and brand of each terminal. Properly applied, crimp terminals are better than soldered terminals. Solder requires a lot of specific, skilled steps. I was certified for spacecraft soldering assembly technician in the early 1980's. Solder is great, but difficult, expensive and prone to error.
There's a reason you can buy a $10 set of wire tools... but there's an even better reason to invest a couple hundred bucks. The difference in the quality of your results is night and day. This goes to the quality of the connectors themselves as well, again there is a huge difference between the budget/HF stuff and top-grade. And yes, always get your work checked by another pair of experienced eyes. EVERYONE makes mistakes. Thanks again Juan.
Thank you Juan for putting this out. I live in Jamestown on the flight path for Columbia and watch these pilots and their aircraft in and out of the air attack base constantly during the fire months. I have the flight radar program so I am to clock them as well as follow them to their sites as their battle plan unfolds. I sent you a note questioning the silence of this tragic incident when it happened as I had many questions how this could happen to such a seasoned pilot and someone I knew through watching and monitoring this professional pilot so many times visually and via the program. What a tremendous loss. I know a fellow from Columbia with the same plane who told me of a dead stick landing he had at five thousand feet and having to do the calculations and make the decision to land at San Andreas or Columbia. He chose San Andreas having to scrub a little speed through S turns to safety set it down. He blew an oil line in flight coming from Tracy which he had replaced himself. He heard the line pop off, shut the motor down soon to realize he had to restart the motor until it seized to make it somewhere safe. Through the right circumstances and his skillful decision he lived.
You know your stuff as we would say inside and right all the great Road Racers always had two mechanics one to do the work and one to do a final check to make sure the first guy got the job done correctly.💯
There were several video shorts showcasing electrical panel horror shows. Voiceover: Electrician: Who did you have work on your wires? Older ladies voice: My nephew. He’s very handy that way! E: Oh? When did his house burn down? O: Oh, about two mon- Say, how did you know his house burnt down?!
Thanks for explaining the light propeller and no starter as that was critical to understand that the propeller would stop quickly and it became an off field landing into that terrible terrain at that point. I flew a DA-40 with an MT 3-blade composite propeller and if you cut the throttle too quickly during run up, it would just stop, not enough rotational mass unlike a larger diameter 2 blade aluminum Propeller.
The common P Mag electronic ignition supplies its own 12 v unlike most of the other electronic ignition. Devil is in the details and can be critical Good analysis generally. 👍
I see this all the time in Experimental’s and older Certified avionics or owner operator repairs. Being an A&P for over 34 years and a Marine electrician for 8 years. I own all the proper electrical tools and splices. I gave my Avionics shop.. Montgomery Avionics to my son Jamie at KMYF. They work on experimental aircraft or I can if they are too busy. Please don’t risk your life or your family thinking, I can do this, because it’s an experimental. As Blanco said, if you did not build it, an A&P must complete the work, or you must have gone through the training to attain a repairman certificate to allow you to work on your aircraft. I saw this with a RV6 G3X at Fallbrook. Man buys a a RV6, he didn’t build the aircraft, yet he installs an experiment G3X display with no repairman certificate or A&P sign off. It’s illegal!
As a retired A&P/IA I always made it a rule, you NEVER used butt splices on any critical item such as Magnetos. They simply are not safe to use on Aircraft. There are far superior methods to splice wires.
As a US Army generator mechanic instructor back in the early 70's the only splice we used on control wires was the pigtail splice multiple twists of the wires then ends twisted together and all taped down tight. No way to pull it apart without breaking the wires.
A serious look needs to be taken at this ignition product. If it requires splices instead of providing terminated wires, that is asking for trouble. There is rarely an actual requirement for splicing as opposed to running an intact wire from device to device.
lying for a large GA shop and FBO in the 70's, whenever I was tasked with a "shop" flight, either for analysis or post work, if a A&P or even and AI wouldn't fly along, I wouldn't go. Period. (See the 421 at Troutdale recently.)
Many flights, ferry flights, for example, allow necessary crew only, which would never include a mechanic or IA. I doubt such a rule applied to this flight, but it's still not a bad idea. I'm an Ap/IA, comm/ multi/inst/cfi...I think the mechanics have more to fear from a stupid pilot move than the pilots do from the mechanic, with the HUGE difference that bringing the A/P along is not likely to help after an engine failure, it isn't probably a good time for a discussion. You're simply risking another life on what is a higher risk than normal flight, no matter who fixed it. It would just be a little bravado by the A/P, which a sensible pilot shouldn't care about...he should be more worried about keeping possible off field landing sites in mind, reviewing emergency procedures, etc... The Mech would be a detrimental distraction, they'd probably talk. No sterile cockpit below 10k with a yakking mechanic on board.
@@firstielasty1162 I tend to agree, but it was kind of a first filter; an "are you certain sort of thing?" A strong positive could often result in "I got it, see ya in a bit." A "Yeah-h-h-..." was a flag. Always, other considerations came into play, regarding emergencies and what to do and where to go. Fortunately, at the time, there were many open fields around for that possible off-airport landing.
@Rael5469...reread my comment- I am a mechanic, and pilot. I also said that an accident is more likely to be caused by the pilot. Who probably doesn't need the distraction of an excited mechanic talking after an engine failure, when he should be both running an engine failure checklist, and working out a plan for when it stays failed.
Would this have been the kind of issue that would have been discovered with some ground-based testing? Even if you cannot get a second pair of eyes on the system, from the explanation it sounds like running through a few simple test scenarios could have uncovered some major issues with the wiring. Though seeing the state of those crimps, it'd likely have failed while in flight anyway. Simply amazing that someone would trust their life to such a sloppy crimping job and hasty wiring without any kind of second-guessing or second opinion.
The switch operation should have been tested on the ground, selecting: magneto, both, electronic ignition. Accurate crimping, even with the correct tool for the part, is not as easy as it looks and needs to be learnt. 🙁 RIP
@@TonyNaggsI am sure the guy was aware of how the switch would behave. He knew the mag switch controlled one set of plugs and the new switch he added controlled the other. This would not be a "discovery"
I find it a little hard to believe someone would do work like this without any research. Given how similar the workmanship is to junk quality car stereo/remote starter installs, I bet that is where he ended up when he tried to look it up.
from the explanation in the video, it seems that the connector wire broke in flight, after the ground test would have been performed. I'm not sure exactly how the mis-wiring factored in, but I'm assuming that the runup "left, right, both" check would have appeared to be successful(even though it wasn't testing what he thought it was testing due to wiring issue). then, I think it is assumed that when the wire broke the pilot noticed an engine performance change and attempted to check the mag with the left/right/both switch and once he moved that switch the engine was shut down and lacking an electric starter had no options to restart it at that point. somebody correct me if this doesn't seem like what was being suggested in the video.
Completely off the subject, but a lot of folks in North Carolina are hurting right now, and pilots anywhere near there with STOL aircraft could do a lot of good by stuffing their planes with whatever you normally buy for your weekly shopping and flying that into the affected areas. These communities are cut off because the roads are out. Get your neighbors to help.
He may have thought that grounding the P-lead enabled the magneto, as opposed to disabling it. If that was the case then connecting it to both L and R would make sense when there's only one magneto, because you really just want an on/off switch i.e. Off = off, L = on, R = on, Both = on. This is also logically consistent with having a separate switch to energize the electronic ignition i.e. the original mag switch is just on/off for the one remaining magneto. In reality, as Juan pointed out, connecting it to both resulted in Off = off, L = off, R = off, Both = on. Another thought... With the electronic ignition operating independently, and the single magneto only operating in the Both position, you'd still get the RPM drop in the L and R position just the same as if it was an unmodified dual magneto system. In other words, it would still pass the mag check as per the check list. The actual RPM drop would probably be different though, depending on the timing of the electronic system. Final thought... Perhaps it would be better to not use the original four position switch at all, and simply have two new on/off switches - one for the magneto and the other for the electronic ignition, to avoid confusion.
Would it not be best to use a L/R/Both/Off switch which could work for both the magneto and the electronic ignition? That way there'd be no change in procedure.
@@SnakebitSTI Yeah that could work. Tricky to make it work with the original switch though but it could be done with a relay. Or if the electronic ignition module provided a "ground to inhibit" wire then you could just hook it up directly to the switch.
Seems to me that this 'hybrid' ignition arrangement loses the vital element of redundancy. You no longer have redundant magnetos, and you don't have redundant electronic ignition, either. Each has its own failure modes, e.g. loss of the operating voltage for the electronic unit - is there a backup battery? If there's no starter, and not enough airspeed to windmill the engine back into life, ignition failure will commit one to deadstick landing.
This pilot obviously did not do a magneto (and e-ignition) test prior to taking off. All he had to do was turn his electronic ignition off and then switch his magneto from Both to the appropriate position (L or R) and he would have had a mystery on the ground and not in the air.
I thought part of your preflight check was a run up on both mags then switch from both to mag 1 then mag 2 to check they are both working. That check would have shown this issue while still on the ground.
Was there a reason to fly the aircraft to check the operation of new installed electronics, surely you would test every configoration of switch positions and make damn sure and triple check everything has power or not and on the right switch setting,especially when there is no starter,
I’ve flown experimental since 1999 and when I get done with my annual I have my A&P come and do it again,nothing like 50 years of experience behind you.
As an ultralight pilot it seems senseless to die from an engine failure, because you should never put yourself in a position that you can't glide to a landing. I see all the GA planes land at my airport and they're usually coming in so low over the trees that an engine failure will kill them.
Doing your own Aircraft maintenance unchecked is akin to owning a Swiss cheese factory. UA-camr Louis Rossmann is always on about defective cheap wire crimps, I wouldn't be surprised that this is all connected.
So true. I heard Juan say something about some wiring routed with the fuel lines - didn't sound wise, but I didn't read the report. Good routing with good support, keeping in mind the movement of the engine relative to the airframe is very important.
There's no point in doing a "test" flight if the test is conducted so that an issue causes you to come down in tiger country. A test is supposed to be a safe check that systems work before using it in a situation where a failure is a disaster.
This is a corollary to the swiss cheese model: There are gaps in your knowledge. If you inspect your own work, the holes are aligned! Let someone else inspect your work so the holes in your knowledge do not coincide with the holes in the inspectors knowledge.
9:07 - non-flyer here. I don't understand the "this would have made it impossible...during runup" sentence. The two systems are not connected, therefore if the pilot had the electronic ignition off, surely he could test the operation of the magneto switch during pre-flight. If he had the magneto off, he could test the operation of the electonic ignition. What am I missing? If the system had been adequately tested on the ground, this issue would have been observed and presumably corrected.
Quite a few uninformed comments here. Crimp terminals are a completely correct method of terminating wires. The process was developed and refined during WW2 to allow relatively unskilled labour make quick, repeatable and reliable wire terminations.
The big problem with crimp terminals is that everyone thinks they can buy the cheapo $10 stamped steel crimping pliers and a $10 pack of terminals and go to town. Those crimping pliers and terminals are garbage. A good wire crimping tool will set you back $50-150, but given now little use it will have compared to a commercial user, will last you a lifetime.
Same with the terminals themselves- buy the quality brand name ones and never worry about wire terminations ever again.
There are a few very basic rules to follow when using the crimp terminals, mainly wire sizes/ terminal choice and how to prepare the wire end, but those are very easily and quickly learned.
I am currently certified in QA for aerospace related equipment- we use crimp terminals all over the place and with complete confidence.
Agree completely. Some of these comments are coming from left field wives tale territory 😅
Terminals are not splices and wires that can be terminated safely with crimped terminals are often not allowed to be spliced.
Totally agree. The problem is people buy cheap stuff and don’t fully understand that wire prep is key to a solid crimp connection. The only other wire termination I use in certain circumstances is the lineman splice when you need the wire to be more flexible and have a stronger tensile strength than crimping, and it’s great when you need it to be waterproof with the right shrink tube, of course.
I recently read that to crimp properly the tooth that forms the crimp should be applied at the solid side of the terminal and not at the split portion. Does anyone else feel this is the correct procedure and helpful in making a solid connection?
@@robertbennett6697it’s what I do. Doing the opposite results in awful looking crimps if you ever remove the insulating sleeve to check it.
But you’re really supposed to use the jaw that doesn’t have a tooth and simply compresses the terminal into more of an oval and doesn’t damage the insulating sleeve.
If you do your own maintenance, it's a really good idea to let the completed work sit for a day or two and come back and recheck. Sometimes, it's amazing what you will see the second time around that you missed only a day or two before.
And after that--get another person's eyeballs on your work.
@@thedevilinthecircuit1414 Both good advice. A pair of experienced eyes on your work can help spot things you sometimes didn't see when you did the work yourself.
Even if you can't find experienced eyes, finding somebody to explain it to while you are showing them will make you do all the steps and not skip any, because you are trying to show somebody.
Never work to the point of exhaustion. It's shocking how shallow some mistakes are with a fresh mind and "getthereitis" affects anything on the ground just as decisions in the air.
😊
Reminds me of the poem,
"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost, For want of the shoe, the horse was lost, For want of a horse, the rider was lost, For want of a rider, the battle was lost, For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe nail."
alls i got from this poem was a soldier sobbing in a field because he cant find his horse,
The thing was fundamentally miswired in the first place. It wasn't the "horseshoe nail"
Indeed.
What? 😂😂😂.
Are these all bot replies or what.
Edit: Great quote, by the way.
Again we are reminded that these regulations are written in blood. Thanks again Juan for this information and condolences to the pilot's family and friends.
I started working as an apprentice mechanic many years ago, and one of the first things a very smart coworker told me was,that I was going to have people offer to take me flying in their airplanes. He said don’t do it! because you don’t know how the airplane was maintained or it was maintained by. And then proceeded to tell me a lot of owners work on their own planes, but have no idea how to work on them properly. And after working in Aviation for many years now, and seeing some of the things I’ve seen,it was excellent advice.
Boating also, beware!
Boats are built almost as shitty as campers and other small utility trailers. The wiring on them is almost unbelievable to me for what the stupid things cost!
@tucanoguy4719: I stopped hopping aboard any old aircraft or helicopter many decades ago for the same reasons. People love to wail about "oppressive regulation" in aviation but, having seen how the culture of taking "hacks" and shortcuts and of decisions tied to "risk assessments" based solely on costs in which safety is just one among many factors beginning to creep in from the larger society and take hold in aviation, I am glad that I made that decision and I am going to continue being cautious.
They could be crappy pilots too. You, as the mechanic don’t know if they’re good pilots or not.
@@mowtivatedmechanic1172 my point is most mechanics are qualified to run aircraft on the ground and some of them are qualified to fly them in the air. And usually you don’t stay in the business very long if you’re bad at either one of them!
When I flew my own 'Amateur Built' aircraft, I was always painfully aware that it had been assembled and was being maintained by a raw amateur - ME! It always was appreciated when local, more qualified folks, gave things a once over for me. Sad outcome in this case. Thanks for posting.
Truly trying to keep flying when you are low on money... And not trying to have a qullified A / P do a check... 😢 Very sad...
@@terrancestodolka4829 While money can be a consideration for some people, almost all the people I know build and maintain aircraft for pleasure and education.
I wonder if the guy realized he didn't know what he was doing and then felt embarrassed to have someone qualified look over his work.
My son and I have very low standards for our work, but we limit ourselves to junk lawn mowers and such.
@@the_mowron
He probably knew exactly what he was doing, notwithstanding a poor crimp job.
While there is no way of knowing what brought this thing down, it seems likely based on the mag switch position that he grounded an ignition system while he was low and slow which is a big no-no in a partial power loss situation.
While the installation workmanship may have something to be desired, I've seen fully certified mechanics leave cotter pins out of brake pedal connections to master cylinders and completely cut off grounding shields on coax where they should be crimped into the connector.
It seems like this accident would be best contributed to a poor decision to play with ignition system grounding while he was low and slow.
I really appreciate the broad knowledge you have to explain the context of what's in the report.
Juan has extensive knowledge of all aspects of flight and flight mechanics. incredible to listen to him expound on these different videos.
I totally agree!
Fantastic media skills! too.
Yup. I work as a Repairman (started as an apprentice mechanic, studying for my A&P but my commercial ASEL is taking priority right now) at a repair station. We've got strict procedures in place including progressive inspections and double-inspections to prevent this sort of thing. Before you close up a sub-assembly, you need to get another set of eyes on it and the work order signed "OK to close". And before the aircraft is delivered, it's looked over by the Chief Inspector as a double inspection. Redundancy is your best friend in maintenance.
I would fly an aircraft you and your shop worked on! This is a gold standard for aircraft maintenance and airworthiness!
Most of those okay to close sign offs are pencil whipped because the inspector is too busy or nowhere to be found. Don't kid yourself
@@bmw_m4255 I'm sorry that's been your experience. Sounds like you've been working with or at shops severely lacking integrity.
@@bmw_m4255 Never once did I pencil whip an "OK to close". It was crucial that I take a look. I have seen a few other inspectors who did and it bit them in the rear end.
@@bmw_m4255 Not where I work. Never. QA is responsible for Required Inspection Items (RII), and they always do a very thorough inspection of the work as it is being accomplished. They share equal responsibility for the correctness of the work, which lasts until the work is repeated, so they don't gaffe it.
Juan's frustration is palpable.
There's no reason to die this way.
The reason is that Aviation Authorities are happy to let owners use their own judgement, which in many cases they don't have! Using cheap or poor tooling, bad practices and so on is a sign of inexperience, complacency, or stupidity!
@@davidpowell7614
Such responsibility is the price of the freedom you are granted in this matter.
I lived in Irvine California in there late 70’s early 80’s. My neighbor was building this type of plane in his garage for a friend of his. a Judge, as I remember. On his first flight out of the airport in Chino California he was about 50+ feet in the air and there was an explosion that blew the rear off the craft. The pilot made a hard landing and had some minor strains and scraps. They found out the gas cap was not properly seated and the fuel was leaking into the engine compartment. Fortunately the accident happened at a very low altitude.
Wow!! Lucky he was so low.
😂
I am an A&P holding an Inspection Authorization since 1970. I am also a retired 767 Captain. Everything you said is 100% correct. I was the Technical Counselor for a local EAA chapter for several years. The improper (read dangerous) wiring I observed on home built projects were common. It required a lot of patience to get the builders to understand the importance of proper wiring.
Great video, Juan. My experience was to be especially cautious of single point failures that could stop the airplane from flying. I did not think about the 'no starter' scenario since every plane I was involved with had a starter. Maybe the extra weight of a starter is of value after all.
In this case what really got him was the miswired magneto. It hurts to even hear that. So simple. If he had done his mag check before takeoff he would have found it.
None Of those old guys without their a and P would let a plane go without a second set of eyes
How they got to be old guys
Juan, your final comments here hit the nail on the head. Retired 44 years of experience A&P here, military, GA/corporate, Part 135 DOM and commercial aviation . Butt splices must be carefully installed and crimped with a properly adjusted crimp tool. I never used these in any system critical application. I also don’t grasp the practicality of having a single mag paired with an electronic one. Mixing systems in this way is just another avenue for trouble. I actually flew in one of these many years ago built by a co-worker who built it himself. I looked everything over carefully and noted a proper mag check before takeoff. What a ride. Just a barrel of fun. Condolences to family and friends affected here.
Actually very common in the Experimental fleet. The single electronic ignition provides 90% of the efficiency improvement over dual electronic while the magneto is the mechanical backup that does not require an electric power source. Not having a working magneto as backup... an unfortunate and fatal oversight.
In my experience the only completely reliable connection is with solder, visually easy to determine it's conductivity.
I am not a pilot but I enjoy your videos and feel this is one time I could make my first comment on your channel Juan. Crimped connections are the de facto standard but they must be performed correctly.... you cannot just smash them down and call it good. When you use the proper tools and utilize the proper resources, the wire or cable harness will fail before the crimp. We operate a motorsport wiring harness company and in our daily work we use the same wire, shielded cable, interconnects, and terminals found in aerospace and aviation. Why? Because of the vast resources available to us when it comes to the components and their usage. Datasheets, procedural documents, testing requirements, tooling, the list goes on. We appreciate these resources because we know that if we follow them, we'll have success in terms of reliability, durability, and performance.
Juan, this is very sad as I see improperly crimped wires all the time. My retirement job is installing mobile radios in police fire, ems vehicles. Also, my company service vehicles that have been installed by butchers, you can't cut conductors strands and expect the same ampcapacity required for your device may require. Further, using poor butt and an improper crimping tool frequently leads to connection failure. This results in a system failure, which is a problem for a terrestrial vehicle but can be fatal in an aircraft. Thanks again for remaining us that we ALL should get a QA or second eyes on any maintenance/repairs.
I was at a race track once when the main fire truck (apparatus on a F350). The truck died on the way back to the station (thankfully not while responding). Ended up being returned because of bad custom wiring. Not quite as big a deal as an aircraft, but still really important.
In a car, I avoid a crimp whenever possible, and rely on a simple twist connection.
Most amateurs don't do a good job of routing and strain relief - in addition to their general circuitry errors.
I’m a lifelong mechanic, I N E V E R use those cheap Amp butt splices. I don’t even use them on my lawnmower. Few mechanics have the correct crimp tools (I do) and there is just no way to ensure a solid mechanical and electrical connection. A much better solution are Raychem environmental splices used with the correct crimp tool. They are used by the airlines and military.
After seeing the Louis Rossman (sp?) video about the cheap terminals he bought on Amazon I went to the electric supply house and bought 3M terminals and already have the Klein ratching crimper. Can at least try to do things better
Just went and looked at those. They look pretty slick! Are they approved for use on mags?
Scotch-Lok connectors still give me nightmares. Tapping in to a car's wiring for a trailer? Strip, solder, and cover with heat shrink, or whatever. If it's out in the weather, it WILL corrode and fail.
@@paulgrieger8182we call them cowboy connectors in Montana.
And no guess work with enviros- it has the Inspection window- where you are able to see wire- before you heat shrink it! But LOL make sure you have the heat shrink on before the crimp- common mistake!!
Excellent discussion with safety and technical takeaways, as always. Thank you Blancolirio channel.
As an A&P with a very heavy avionics background, this is literally a textbook example of “HOW NOT TO DO AVIATION.”
It’s fairly obvious he failed to do a proper post-maintenance ground run. He never had anyone look at this work. He was unfamiliar with what he was doing. He neglected to take action on noted discrepancies with major components of his aircraft.
Yeah, this kind of stuff pisses me off. It’s so easily prevented, but either ego or cheapness almost always wins out.
I'm sure there was a little bit of "hey, I've XXXX number hours, why do I need an A&P?"
Yes, and because of that, he essentially killed himself :-(
Ifr6000
I'd be too scared to leave the traffic pattern after rewiring the ship.
@@Parkhill57 He was on final, same as being in the pattern.
JB, you are the go to guy for flight safety. You share in a way that even non-pilots can understand 🤙🏻✈️
It’s important to know what you don’t know!
Yes, there are videos on "The Click" UA-cam channel about people who are confidently wrong.
Juan, this was very well explained and documented. It's a sobering reminder that airplanes can fall out of the sky if not in proper flying condition.
You jogged my memory about an old John Deere tractor we had when I was a kid. It had a magneto that had a steel button on its side that had to be pushed against the metal side of the magneto to shut the tractor off. I loved that old tractor, it was an L model with a two cylinder 15 horsepower engine. It's actually the vehicle I learned to drive a manual transmission on.
Most people that were around the little 2 cylinder Continentals used in those tractors don’t remember them so favorably! My father had a JD 12a combine with the same engine I think. He always said if you ever killed it or shut it off, it would never start again until it had cooled off!
I learned to Drive on a 1912 Deutz Traktor with a 4 Liter 1 Stroke/zylinder engine with 12(european)Horsepower. And it's still working❤😂. That thing has No swing-Mass Distributor and the whole Traktor jumps a bit Up and down when the Motor is running slow😅
oo@@jimrankin2583
You are so right about proper maintenance of your airplane. I stopped taking lessons around Covid for fear that the flight school was not performing routine maintenance on the planes. It was probably my paranoia but I don’t like not knowing who is working on the plane that I’m in. Thanks Juan.
A bad crimp is one thing.......but miswiring the remaining magneto was what really got him in trouble. What else can you say?
I am an avionics technician and I crimp splices and contacts from time to time. They always taught us to do a pull test ....first of all, the three most important things are preparation, preparation, preparation. The right tools for the right job. The correct WIRE plus the correct contact. The wrong wires or contact could cause dissimilar metal corrosion and trouble down the road. The use of the ESPM, Electrical Standard Practices Manual (or it's equivalent) which will spell out which tool to use for your application and what settings on the crimper. And last but not least......give it a GOOD tug. Every time I tug on a crimp I'm afraid I'm going to pull my wire out.....and sometimes that can be bad because the wire might already be on the short side. But the final tug test MUST be done. It's better that it fail here than in the air. I give it a GOOD tug.....and am very happy when it holds. Re-crimping is NOT an option if the tug test pulls the wire out. You cut the strands off and re-strip it. A proper, aviation grade, stripper is crucial. And it must be calibrated on schedule by a proper PMEL lab (A Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) is a facility in which the calibration and repair of test equipment and tools is accomplished. Micrometers and tools like strippers and crimpers.) A proper stripper won't nick the wires. But if you don't have the proper stripper make sure to stop short of cutting all the way through the insulation. Only cut part way through, by scoring the insulation and then flex the remaining insulation until it separates. That way you won't nick the strands. But in this case.... bottom line......a bad crimp shouldn't be a show stopper. One of your banks of spark plugs quit....so what??? Limp back to base. But in this case it was a double whammy. Very sad.
Bob Nuckolls said that the tug should be about the same as lifting a gallon milk jug, about 8 lbs or 4 kgs. That's a lot of pull for a #20 butt splice, but it's what I do.
@@dermick I'm not sure if I put that much pull on it. I use the ol calibrated elbow. Like I say....if I scare myself tugging on it and it holds....I'm satisfied.
As an electrician, it definitely looks like that wire was not properly crimped in the beginning as you said, and then shoved back into the connector. The wire needs to be cut back, stripped, twisted, and then recrimped under a new connector. It's sad to see such a simple thing like crimping a connector properly had such a catastrophic result. That's why when I work with terminating wire in things like fire alarm panels and devices that I double check all my terminations are done properly since sometimes wires can miss being held down correctly and pop out easily. I took as much care with low voltage things similar to this as a high voltage termination of a heavy gauge cable.
That looks like a soldering connector to me.
The use of the correct crimper with the correct wire gauge and quality connecters will get the reliability you need. I leant the hard way by taking short cuts to save money but in the end it cost you more in rework.
@@stefanmargraf7878 replacing the wire without a but splice is the best coa.
@@audigga4396 on a critical component you should just replace the entire wire and avoid but splices period. After all you are in an airplane. None of us would approve of Boeing or Air Bus crimping wires regardless of how good the connection is. Wouldn't you agree?
@@Catch_The_Irishman Crimp terminals are used all over the place in aviation. The process was specifically developed for aircraft assembly during WW2.
I can guarantee you the average commercial aircraft has thousands, if not tens of thousands of crimp terminals.
As a young boy flying with my Grandfather I remember him checking both Mags before we ever left the ground... He would full throttle both of them to confirm they were smooth and functioning...
I’m an electrical engineer. When I want a reliable splice I solder it, after sliding on a section of shrink tubing, then seal up the joint with a heat gun on the shrink tubing. If it’s a wet environment I might just replace the entire length of wire or apply silicone grease before heating the shrink tube. I’ve had too much trouble with crimp connectors.
Once, though, soldering wasn’t the right thing to do. A ground wire from an antenna mast needed to be spliced with a bolt-style clamp. The state electrical inspector explained that a big surge of current could cause the solder to be blown out of the joint. I re/did the joint.
The point is to apply recommended or mandated procedures.
I'm an electrical engineer....."solder to be blown out of the joint."??? Methinks the state electrical inspector had a few too many joints. Solder pots are used all over the place for overloads -- they are not instantaneous like that. As a matter of good practice, I just don't splice earth ground wires.
Splices in general are poor practice, pre-insulated crimped, butt splice should not be allowed in any type of passenger vehicle.
Raychem is preferred in aviation.
Thanks! It seemed strange to me. Don’t know why solder would have “blown out” - his terminology. I can understand how it might melt and fall out under gravity. Maybe that was the basis of his experience or of those who wrote the regulation.
@@maxenielsen sorry dude. FAA AND AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL are the Bible of the industry. You aren’t qualified for this discussion. Solder is subject to vibration and heat. In an aircraft fire, the proper terminals don’t fall. They don’t melt. Most soldiers joints fail at 700-900 degrees Fahrenheit. Not acceptable. Shrink tube is what I use in automotive applications. Definitely not acceptable in aviation.
Thank you for your continued focus on safety. The lessons learned often can be applied in a general sense far beyond the aviation world to other fields of endeavor to great benefit. The best way to honor those who have been lost is to learn well and apply thoroughly the hard won knowledge.
Thank you Juan, keep working.
EXCELLENT!
CRM philosophy for maintenance too.
Love it! ❤
Great Explanations !
I m not a pilot.
Just a fan learning on UA-cam in retirement.
Things learned on aviation videos easily transcend to lessons for life on the ground.
I agree. CRM is true for so many things.
That's why I'm here.
I worked as an Avionics technician, my boss always told us to remove all crimp type and environmental solder sleeve splices as we came upon them and replace with more reliable, traditional solder joint, heat shrink, and proper wire prep. Was strictly avionics though, nothing powerplant related. Far too many times to count, diagnosis found improperly crimped/stressed butt splices. Although, I have seen 60+ year old solder joints still holding strong and at low resistance.
Oh my God... He should tell this to all certified aircraft manufacturers as it looks like they are doing all wrong since 40-50 years...
I don't know about that. Soldering has the side effect of hardening a flexible wire - leading to fatigue on long vibrations.
Cars on the other hand have all crimped wires, they are many more than planes and if crimping would be that bad, we would have find out about it by now.
That's exactly what I do. I am a A&P as well. Never had a connection fail in nearly 50 years.
@@cristianstoica4544 If a crimped connection fails on a car, perhaps the engine fails and you coast to wherever you choose to stop. When a crimped connection on an aircraft fails, perhaps the engine fails and you go in wherever gravity takes you. Quite a bit different set of dangers and risks to life and limb, don't you think?
@@cristianstoica4544
I remember hearing in ground school 45 years ago that soldering was discouraged, if not downright prohibited, on aircraft wiring for that very reason. The stresses of the vibration are concentrated where the solder has stopped wicking away from the joint up the wire to where the temperature is too low or rosin flux hasn’t reached, and the strands start breaking.
You might be surprised how often failures occur after maintenance even when done by a licensed A&P.
@SFY241: Professional AMT(A&P) speaking here, no, after over 40 years in the trade, I am not surprised at all. The difference is that A&Ps, unlike some other professions, have no "qualified immunity" or protected cult status to hide behind. Accountability is a real thing, and those who take their jobs and sign offs lightly learn real fast.
In aviation, you can’t say “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
You need preventive maintenance. So you may get
“If it ain’t broke, fix it ‘til it is.”
If he did a run up he likely fell back into habit by doing a normal L, then R check not realizing the electronic system was never turned off and it didn't trigger any alarm bells because both the L and R positions would show a "mag drop": each was going to electronic only mode. This is a big danger of mixing and matching controls like that. Better to switch to a DPDT or other switch style that can ground the mag and control power to the electronic system in a one, two, or both setup so the runup check conforms to what you already know. Or put the mag on a toggle switch like the electronic system.
And don't leave a useless wire hooked up like that. He probably thought it made sense for redundancy or he thought he would remember that L and R did the same thing (bad idea).
I don't like crimped butt splices - I'd rather run a new wire or use a splice with set screws, but those butt splices for aircraft have semi-transparent insulation and slots in the middle for a reason! So you can visually verify the wire is fully inserted on both sides and that the thing is fully crimped down. How you don't yank on both sides to make sure it is actually secure I don't know. An airplane is no place to just YOLO it.
Not all electronic ignitions require power to generate spark. Emagair (aka P-mags), which I have in my aircraft, make their own power above around 850 rpm. Internal power is checked by switching off the ignition power source after run up and at 1,000 rpm.
The word is, wow!
This pilot lost his life because of what appears to be his own haphazard workmanship...such a needless and senseless price to pay.
Thank you, again, for an excellent report. Thank you, also, for the wisdom. God bless.
As a new owner, I take this to heart. Thanks Juan.
My friends grandfather would build these and Long-EZs in his garage for sale. Loved seeing the aircraft take shape.
As I recollect, the standard procedure when doing the engine runup, was to switch the mags to L, back to both, then to R, and back to both. If there was a significant RPM drop on either L or R, shut the engine down and get it checked.
A normal indication would be a change in RPM. Too much and you have a problem. But if you switch thru the positions and not see ANY change is cause for investigation.
If I understood Juan correctly both the 'P' wires, that would have gone to each magneto in the old system were wired up to the one remaining one. So in this case you'd see the desired response but it would only be the one mag reporting as good on all switch positions.
It would be tragic if replacing one mag with the electronic system was cheaper than a mag overhaul, as they should both have been overhauled before any work took place.
I was an electrician foe a few years in my early 20s. Then got into low volt logic level electronics so I'm pretty good with wires. Always room for improvement. I am lucky and fortunate to have these skills. It always amazes me how bad most people are with wires and electronics in general. I take my experience for granted. Some thing that comes natural to me most people find very difficult and struggle with. It hurts that this mistake cost this man his life. Hope his family is able to prosper in his absence. I wish them well.
I think the best practice for crimp type is to use bare connectors then cover with heat shrink tube. It is easy to observe proper insertion and crimp location. The heat shrink provides strain relief for the connectors. Some heat shrink also has a waterproof coating. If you want complete bonding, solder the crimp.
Solder or use gas-free crimping aero style terminals. After a crimp, the copper flows inside the crimp, and all the air is driven out from the crimp volume. Those are as good as solder, except can last through temperatures that would melt the copper. But they do take expensive crimpers. If you know what you’re doing, you can set up eBay saved searches for those crimpers. Every once in a while a good deal pops up on a used one, spare dies for them, etc. For basic terminals for #8-#18 wire, I use a hydropneumatic T&B desk crimper I got for $50 ok eBay. I refurbished it and got good dies for it. For a couple hundred bucks I have the same capability as wire harness manufacturers. It just took a long time for the deals the show up. Sometimes it takes years. You have to be patient and research in major brand datasheets and catalogs. I only buy used what I can buy new from a catalog. Didn’t go wrong yet.
This report shows the absolute need for 100% meticulous, very careful work, with getting another pair of experienced eyes to inspect the work!
As a builder/pilot of a Lycoming O-235 powered VariEze, using one magneto and an electronic ignition, I really want to completely understand what happened. However, the description isn't adding up for me.
The magneto and EI were on separate switches, if I understood correctly, with the mag using a key switch and the EI controlled by a toggle switch. Even if the magneto switch was incorrectly wired, the report states that it was operable on the BOTH position. So each ignition system was independently testable at run up, and if the EI failed in flight due to faulty wiring, the mag should have continued to operate with the switch in the BOTH position.
It's possible that the pilot noted a drop in RPM when the EI failed and turned the magneto off while troubleshooting, unfortunately at an airspeed low enough to stop the prop rotation. In my experience that would only happen at minimum flying speed for the VariEze, below around 70 KIAS. With a running engine, even if something isn't right (e.g. loss of RPM), I certainly wouldn't start troubleshooting systems at low altitude and airspeed.
I don't know if the accident aircraft had a starter, but contrary to what's stated in the video, most VariEzes with Continental O-200 engines *do* have a starter and are not hand-propped. My airplane does not have a starter because its larger, heavier Lycoming O-235 makes adding a starter problematic due to weight and balance.
I've flown in and out of Columbia many times in my VariEze and the terrain around the airport is terrible for an off-field landing, full of rocks and lava flows.
The theory is, the Magneto failed also, as it was a dirty pile of junk and he was told to have it repaired.
There’s just too many things left out of the NTSB report. As wired, there’s no reason the pilot couldn’t have checked both ignition sources prior to takeoff.
In reality, as you point out, having both p-leads connected to the one remaining mag really made no difference to anything in the chain of events here.
Say there was only one p-lead connected…….the engine looses power…..the pilot would probably have switched the mag off as a check just as before he installed the EI unit. The difference is that the switch no longer can ensure that there’s one source of ignition enabled at all times unless the key is in the off position. Really need a new switch that can do that if you want to have it work like the old two mags setup.
If his EI is functioning, switching the mag changes nothing
Say the EI died and the engine looses power…….. Switching the mag switch may have been an instinct/memory item, but since the engine had already lost power, that tells the pilot the mag is also dead already, no chance turning the key is going to make any difference! So him switching it does not worsen his situation.
Say the mag quit or started causing a rough running condition, but the EI is functioning, pilot doesn’t know what the problem is and has the choice to switch off either the mag or the EI to diagnose the problem.
If the EI is functional, no problem. Switching mag off either makes no difference or maybe makes the engine run smoother by removing erratic sparks.
If he picks the EI switch first, engine looses more power as soon as he switches it and he immediately turns it back on.
If EI is bad……..pilot chooses to switch EI power off …..no change and he should have known to leave the mag switch alone
Or pilot switches mag off as his first check. Unless he completely forgets that it only runs in the BOTH position, when the engine cuts out as soon as he moves it, he would return it to BOTH and continue flying as far as he could.
I think there’s just not enough information in the report to make any conclusions about the actual cause of the failure except to say that his wire connecting and securing methods were sub par and may have caused the accident.
Also that his decision to keep flying the mag and carb after the recommended overhaul time most likely contributed as well.
I think it’s very possible since the key wasn’t in the ignition that the pilot made the decision to test fly the new EI without even turning on the old mag (which may have shown up bad during preflight check) and then after a successful flight, some event (possibly associated with landing preparation) killed the battery bus and stopped both the ADS-b and the EI at the same time. Battery may have just died and voltage on the bus decayed below minimum required for those components to function.
Engine probably windmilled until close to minimum speed just as you say. Pilot would have certainly had aircraft at as low of a speed as possible for impact, so prop being stopped is the expected result.
More information about whether the mag and the EI unit were functional on a test stand would help narrow it down a little but they just didn’t dig that deep. P-lead wiring had nothing to do with this one!
Your suspicion is well-founded, and it's worth noting the report writers will almost always find some way that the pilot was wrong somehow. It's cheap and easy content for tubers to just agree with the findings of the NTSB because it's the NTSB.
I agree that the NTSB is certainly wrong on the part that it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify the proper operation of the ignition systems, assuming all the wire separations happened post impact.
There was no evidence discovered indicating that the system wasn't working at departure.
Thank you for sharing. Sorry for this loss. I used to fly into Columbia for a day trip with a friend. Special time. Hope his family has found peace.
Great review. Columbia is one of my all time fav places to land, but you are right, the terrain around there is very inhospitable, shall we way. RIP aviator.
I live a few miles from the Columbia Airport and know exactly where this happened, because a friend of mine lives a couple hundred yards away from the crash site. We walked over there a few days later. The plane came down in someone's back yard, so we couldnt see anything.
If the engine had conked out 20 seconds later he would have already cleared that rise north of the airport and could have dead sticked the plane in. It's a damn shame that we lost a brave airtanker pilot to some wonky wiring and overdue maintenance.
Given how he wired this up; he should have discovered there was a big problem when he did the engine runup test before he left the ground. Not to mention the obvious, he had no business going anywhere near the ignition system of this engine
A drop of 100 rpm either magneto would render unsafe. Had an incidence once failure of second magneto due to a leak in the second inner O'ring in the magneto shaft.
The magneto has 2 O'rings unfortunately one leaked and oil seeped into the carbon brush.
Change both O'rings...
Thanks for the videos.
if he could, I’m sure he would agree with you.
If it was a certified aircraft, he wouldn’t have been allowed to. That’s the trade off with experimental home builts, on the one hand you have the freedom to build it, on the other hand you are the manufacturer and the chief mechanic.
@@jamesweir2943 if he had done the proper ignition check on the ground, the engine would've stalled when it should've kept running. That should've been a big clue. People always seem to think that procedures and proper checks are for someone else
@@PRH123 If it was a certificated aircraft, an STC would be required to install the damn ignition module in the first place.
Some of you are missing the point that there may not have been/ probably wasn’t any problem with either ignition source when checked before flight.
Once an ignition problem occurred, the mag may have been dead already when the electronic ignition failed, so engine may have stopped before or without pilot doing any mag switching.
Or mag may have been working somewhat after electronic ignition failed and engine performance decline prompted pilot to perform the usual memory item (that would have been an automatic response before he made the modification) of switching mags so he killed it.
Thanks. Far too many commenters are thinking the pilot was not aware of the mag switch I got working one mag. I think Juan's hypothesis that he turned it off to diagnose and didn't realize it would never restart is pretty likely.
@@brianhaygood183but why was the key not in it?
I’m wondering if he didn’t have the key and/or decided to test fly it just using the new electronic ignition powered up by the main /battery switch.
The ADSb data stopping suddenly may indicate a failure on the battery bus, possibly something to do with lowering the nose gear that pulled the voltage down below the limits of both the ADSb and the ignition unit. Before the modifications to the ignition system that would have had no effect on the engine performance so it may not have even been anything new.
Edit…..original design uses a manual lever to retract and lower the nose gear but there are electric retract systems available that some people have used.
I just want to say thank you for sharing this issue and findings of the investigation. As a builder and operator of amateur built experimental aircraft I appreciate and absolutely agree with you on your input to have a well experienced IA review your work/maintenance, regardless of your experience.
This was sobering for me…
Regards
Thanks Juan for the informative video. Tragic that poor workmanship and inattentive post-maintenance testing led to his death. There may be some who declare that the rules should be tightened; however, that would take away the great freedom of E-AB. With great freedom comes great responsibility.
11:12 I was an AE aircraft electrician in the Navy, but last year I installed circuits in my truck. I bought connectors and crimpers on Amazon, but none would properly crimp the lugs or slices. I had to revert back to the Sta-Kon Crimpers I used in construction. I do love the heat shrink connectors for weatherproof protection.
The keyed magneto switch was in the OFF position and the key was not in the switch. So it wouldn't matter if he had a working magneto or not.
I have a problem with wiring ignition systems with opposing concepts. A magneto is hot,wired to return, to stop its function. The electronic system is made hot and goes to return to make it function.
Crimp connections are best made with a ratcheting crimper.
All joints and connections can be checked by "shooting" them with a laser guided infra red thermometer. A high resistance shows up as a higher temperature at the connection. Useful in corrosive conditions.
If you could see the scary things this electrician of 40yrs has, you might want to go back to candles. 😮
Sad to hear. my condolences to his family.
Juan, Informative video. It's always good idea to have someone else look over our work. One correction though. You mentioned that electronic ignitions or electronic magnetos all need an external battery. E-Magair makes a self powered electronic magneto. I have them on my plane. Yes, you need an electric source to start the engine, but once running, a small amount of RPM will keep these ignition systems running. They can be checked during the run-up by turning off the electrical power to them. I did that by wiring in power switches so I can turn them off for checking purposes. There's also a keyed ignition switch like most single engine airplanes so I can select each mag separately to make sure their self power function is working. I've had them on the plane for the last 11 years and they have worked very well.
But yes, you are correct that the system that was installed on this aircraft did need an external power source.
You see this in automotive repair all the time. Very few DIY folks know how to make an electrical connection that will outlast the vehicle.
“Another set of eyes”… Juan, you remember the 781 Exceptional Release… the Crew Chiefs do the Pre Flight … and The Super followed us up ( a good Super got out of the truck ). It didn’t matter if it was a 130, 141… or any other USAF JET.. the Super was the E-9 on the line. If I as a Crew Chief messed up with something as small as a Schrader Valve while servicing a strut… that could be catastrophic.
I remember an A&P coworker of mine doing a wire splice on the Starter/Gen of a Dornier 228 aircraft that our company operated, they didn't realize that particular wire used a wire shielding, so they crimped the splice to the shielding instead of the wire, that aircraft popped circuit breaks and gave us hell for several days before we figured out what was going on. Even A&P's make mistakes when they're unfamiliar with certain systems, Im sure the pilot thought he was qualified to do what he did, obviously he didn't understand magnetos and P-leads
My father built a Long EZ in the 80s, and his small local airport has 10+ owner /builders that all were incredibly high level pilots and builders... Flew with him on many occasions.
My all-time favorite plane.
Thanks for the breakdown of this information Juan.
Thanks for the report Juan. This should hit home for a lot of us guys with relatively limited budgets that like to do as much of our own maintenance as we can.
I am a certified A&P mechanic. A second set of eyes is critical when performing safety of flight maintenance. A another A&P or an I.A. Are the best choice.
That is true no matter what credentials you have . . . I built my RV7 and had several guys I trusted to do a very thorough inspection. I made notes as fast as I could write. It took me more time in the research for requirements than it did for the assembly. I have a gig of digital NASA and FAA standards. Knowing what you function want is different than how to get it and actually assembling the pieces. This is followed by testing it on the ground - - to validate the expected function. Juan, while this behavior is certainly not uncommon in experimental aviation, we all work hard to see that it doesn't happen. A purchased amateur built plane presents the highest risk of this happening. It is such a short time from crimp to flight. Typically that is years, and accidental learning has time to take place.
It is very common for people to not crimp properly. So common that there are many "alternatives" to crimping, most of which are worse.
I can't count the number of times I have had people tell me "This is how I've always done it and never had a problem."
Use a good tool, use it properly, use good terminals.
Costs more, but saves grief.
Connecting the primary lead for the magneto he replaced to the magneto he kept didn’t keep him from being able to check both magnetos. Putting the ignition switch in any position other than both would disable the magneto so the he could check the new electronic ignition. He could then put it back to both and flip the toggle switch for the electronic ignition to off to check the mechanical magneto. By using both primary leads, he didn’t have to remember whether the old magneto was the left or right. What he needed to remember was that he shouldn't turn either switch off if he wasn't within gliding distance of a runway. And besides, who turns the ignition switch while they're in the air?
Yeah, I see no reason why he wouldn’t have been able to check both mags at run up.
If he did turn off the ignition in flight before it quit, I suspect he was trying to trouble shoot the issue on his way in…He probably noticed it loosing some power maybe running a bit rough and was trying to figure out if it was a mag issue or something else on the way back to the field. The only way to diagnose it from the cockpit would be to turn off one of the mags.
I really like the way that you make the most effort to use technical and accurate terms for everything. Keep doing that! Thank you!
Call me old school. Cut off new fangeled insul-grip type connector, Grab a mil-spec, double crimp x 2, tug test, shrink tube, second shrink tube, and cage the wire with a zip tie or two if at all loose,
And since keyed switches aren't the most reliable relegate the darn thing to ground out and add a mil-spec DPDT on-both-on configured switch. I'd rather be unable to shut the engine down than bump a key accidentally and ....
Thank you Blancolirio channel.
In the 80's we all switched to something similar on our Harley Davidson motorcycles, to eliminate the points system. The only problem with eliminating your mags means you absolutely have to have good battery voltage for the system to work properly. No power=no spark.
E-mags don't require power.
@@StanfordJohnsey Yes, thats why they made them. Electronic ignition great but once you lose power you're in trouble.
Have to have to have to have to
@@bmw_m4255 lol I was half asleep when I posted that.
Excellent synopsis and highly informative as always. Another stark reminder that even highly accomplished individuals can succumb to critical mistakes.
The splice terminals appear acceptable type, but the right hand side of the crimp is incorrect, and easily visible in the pictures. The proper tool and dies for hand application of crimp terminals is about $700. The dies are specific to the type and brand of each terminal. Properly applied, crimp terminals are better than soldered terminals. Solder requires a lot of specific, skilled steps. I was certified for spacecraft soldering assembly technician in the early 1980's. Solder is great, but difficult, expensive and prone to error.
There's a reason you can buy a $10 set of wire tools... but there's an even better reason to invest a couple hundred bucks. The difference in the quality of your results is night and day. This goes to the quality of the connectors themselves as well, again there is a huge difference between the budget/HF stuff and top-grade.
And yes, always get your work checked by another pair of experienced eyes. EVERYONE makes mistakes.
Thanks again Juan.
This is why Run up checklists always call for mag checks - both to right BACK TO BOTH back to left to both
Thank you Juan for putting this out. I live in Jamestown on the flight path for Columbia and watch these pilots and their aircraft in and out of the air attack base constantly during the fire months. I have the flight radar program so I am to clock them as well as follow them to their sites as their battle plan unfolds. I sent you a note questioning the silence of this tragic incident when it happened as I had many questions how this could happen to such a seasoned pilot and someone I knew through watching and monitoring this professional pilot so many times visually and via the program. What a tremendous loss. I know a fellow from Columbia with the same plane who told me of a dead stick landing he had at five thousand feet and having to do the calculations and make the decision to land at San Andreas or Columbia. He chose San Andreas having to scrub a little speed through S turns to safety set it down. He blew an oil line in flight coming from Tracy which he had replaced himself. He heard the line pop off, shut the motor down soon to realize he had to restart the motor until it seized to make it somewhere safe. Through the right circumstances and his skillful decision he lived.
You know your stuff as we would say inside and right all the great Road Racers always had two mechanics one to do the work and one to do a final check to make sure the first guy got the job done correctly.💯
There were several video shorts showcasing electrical panel horror shows.
Voiceover:
Electrician: Who did you have work on your wires?
Older ladies voice: My nephew. He’s very handy that way!
E: Oh? When did his house burn down?
O: Oh, about two mon- Say, how did you know his house burnt down?!
Thanks for explaining the light propeller and no starter as that was critical to understand that the propeller would stop quickly and it became an off field landing into that terrible terrain at that point. I flew a DA-40 with an MT 3-blade composite propeller and if you cut the throttle too quickly during run up, it would just stop, not enough rotational mass unlike a larger diameter 2 blade aluminum Propeller.
The common P Mag electronic ignition supplies its own 12 v unlike most of the other electronic ignition. Devil is in the details and can be critical Good analysis generally. 👍
I've seen so many electrical bodges on motorcycles and cars, it is quite scary to think some people are doing the same stuff on aircraft!
I see this all the time in Experimental’s and older Certified avionics or owner operator repairs. Being an A&P for over 34 years and a Marine electrician for 8 years. I own all the proper electrical tools and splices. I gave my Avionics shop.. Montgomery Avionics to my son Jamie at KMYF. They work on experimental aircraft or I can if they are too busy. Please don’t risk your life or your family thinking, I can do this, because it’s an experimental. As Blanco said, if you did not build it, an A&P must complete the work, or you must have gone through the training to attain a repairman certificate to allow you to work on your aircraft.
I saw this with a RV6 G3X at Fallbrook. Man buys a a RV6, he didn’t build the aircraft, yet he installs an experiment G3X display with no repairman certificate or A&P sign off. It’s illegal!
Love this channel!
As a retired A&P/IA I always made it a rule, you NEVER used butt splices on any critical item such as Magnetos. They simply are not safe to use on Aircraft. There are far superior methods to splice wires.
If you DO use a butt splice, after making it you then grab each of the wires going into the splice and tug firmly to ensure the splice is secure.
@@stephenj4937 That's true of _any_ crimp terminal.
As a US Army generator mechanic instructor back in the early 70's the only splice we used on control wires was the pigtail splice multiple twists of the wires then ends twisted together and all taped down tight. No way to pull it apart without breaking the wires.
A serious look needs to be taken at this ignition product. If it requires splices instead of providing terminated wires, that is asking for trouble. There is rarely an actual requirement for splicing as opposed to running an intact wire from device to device.
interesting. Like what methods are better? Keeping in mind this scenario and the DIY'r...
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
I heard that attributed to Will Rogers.
Airline test pilots told me (an A&P mechanic) that ....first flight out of heavy maintenance always has their full attention.
lying for a large GA shop and FBO in the 70's, whenever I was tasked with a "shop" flight, either for analysis or post work, if a A&P or even and AI wouldn't fly along, I wouldn't go. Period. (See the 421 at Troutdale recently.)
Many flights, ferry flights, for example, allow necessary crew only, which would never include a mechanic or IA.
I doubt such a rule applied to this flight, but it's still not a bad idea.
I'm an Ap/IA, comm/ multi/inst/cfi...I think the mechanics have more to fear from a stupid pilot move than the pilots do from the mechanic, with the HUGE difference that bringing the A/P along is not likely to help after an engine failure, it isn't probably a good time for a discussion.
You're simply risking another life on what is a higher risk than normal flight, no matter who fixed it.
It would just be a little bravado by the A/P, which a sensible pilot shouldn't care about...he should be more worried about keeping possible off field landing sites in mind, reviewing emergency procedures, etc...
The Mech would be a detrimental distraction, they'd probably talk. No sterile cockpit below 10k with a yakking mechanic on board.
@@firstielasty1162 I tend to agree, but it was kind of a first filter; an "are you certain sort of thing?" A strong positive could often result in "I got it, see ya in a bit." A "Yeah-h-h-..." was a flag. Always, other considerations came into play, regarding emergencies and what to do and where to go. Fortunately, at the time, there were many open fields around for that possible off-airport landing.
@@firstielasty1162 Wow, you really hate mechanics. I suppose pilots have to look up to someone.
@Rael5469...reread my comment- I am a mechanic, and pilot. I also said that an accident is more likely to be caused by the pilot. Who probably doesn't need the distraction of an excited mechanic talking after an engine failure, when he should be both running an engine failure checklist, and working out a plan for when it stays failed.
Would this have been the kind of issue that would have been discovered with some ground-based testing? Even if you cannot get a second pair of eyes on the system, from the explanation it sounds like running through a few simple test scenarios could have uncovered some major issues with the wiring.
Though seeing the state of those crimps, it'd likely have failed while in flight anyway. Simply amazing that someone would trust their life to such a sloppy crimping job and hasty wiring without any kind of second-guessing or second opinion.
The switch operation should have been tested on the ground, selecting: magneto, both, electronic ignition.
Accurate crimping, even with the correct tool for the part, is not as easy as it looks and needs to be learnt. 🙁
RIP
@@TonyNaggsI am sure the guy was aware of how the switch would behave. He knew the mag switch controlled one set of plugs and the new switch he added controlled the other. This would not be a "discovery"
I find it a little hard to believe someone would do work like this without any research. Given how similar the workmanship is to junk quality car stereo/remote starter installs, I bet that is where he ended up when he tried to look it up.
from the explanation in the video, it seems that the connector wire broke in flight, after the ground test would have been performed. I'm not sure exactly how the mis-wiring factored in, but I'm assuming that the runup "left, right, both" check would have appeared to be successful(even though it wasn't testing what he thought it was testing due to wiring issue). then, I think it is assumed that when the wire broke the pilot noticed an engine performance change and attempted to check the mag with the left/right/both switch and once he moved that switch the engine was shut down and lacking an electric starter had no options to restart it at that point. somebody correct me if this doesn't seem like what was being suggested in the video.
The owner took less care with his “life-critical” wire connections that I do with the stereo in my 16 y/o’s car.
Completely off the subject, but a lot of folks in North Carolina are hurting right now, and pilots anywhere near there with STOL aircraft could do a lot of good by stuffing their planes with whatever you normally buy for your weekly shopping and flying that into the affected areas. These communities are cut off because the roads are out. Get your neighbors to help.
He may have thought that grounding the P-lead enabled the magneto, as opposed to disabling it. If that was the case then connecting it to both L and R would make sense when there's only one magneto, because you really just want an on/off switch i.e. Off = off, L = on, R = on, Both = on. This is also logically consistent with having a separate switch to energize the electronic ignition i.e. the original mag switch is just on/off for the one remaining magneto. In reality, as Juan pointed out, connecting it to both resulted in Off = off, L = off, R = off, Both = on.
Another thought... With the electronic ignition operating independently, and the single magneto only operating in the Both position, you'd still get the RPM drop in the L and R position just the same as if it was an unmodified dual magneto system. In other words, it would still pass the mag check as per the check list. The actual RPM drop would probably be different though, depending on the timing of the electronic system.
Final thought... Perhaps it would be better to not use the original four position switch at all, and simply have two new on/off switches - one for the magneto and the other for the electronic ignition, to avoid confusion.
Would it not be best to use a L/R/Both/Off switch which could work for both the magneto and the electronic ignition? That way there'd be no change in procedure.
@@SnakebitSTI Yeah that could work. Tricky to make it work with the original switch though but it could be done with a relay. Or if the electronic ignition module provided a "ground to inhibit" wire then you could just hook it up directly to the switch.
Seems to me that this 'hybrid' ignition arrangement loses the vital element of redundancy. You no longer have redundant magnetos, and you don't have redundant electronic ignition, either. Each has its own failure modes, e.g. loss of the operating voltage for the electronic unit - is there a backup battery? If there's no starter, and not enough airspeed to windmill the engine back into life, ignition failure will commit one to deadstick landing.
This pilot obviously did not do a magneto (and e-ignition) test prior to taking off. All he had to do was turn his electronic ignition off and then switch his magneto from Both to the appropriate position (L or R) and he would have had a mystery on the ground and not in the air.
I thought part of your preflight check was a run up on both mags then switch from both to mag 1 then mag 2 to check they are both working. That check would have shown this issue while still on the ground.
as a just retired life long avionics tech , its down right shameful and scary the things ive seen, .
Was there a reason to fly the aircraft to check the operation of new installed electronics, surely you would test every configoration of switch positions and make damn sure and triple check everything has power or not and on the right switch setting,especially when there is no starter,
It bares repeating, how terribly unforgiving is the air when problems occur....
the air is not the problem... it the ground!
I’ve flown experimental since 1999 and when I get done with my annual I have my A&P come and do it again,nothing like 50 years of experience behind you.
As an ultralight pilot it seems senseless to die from an engine failure, because you should never put yourself in a position that you can't glide to a landing. I see all the GA planes land at my airport and they're usually coming in so low over the trees that an engine failure will kill them.
You're just jealous of the real pilots
I am a real pilot. And I don't experience jealousy because I am the pilot of my mind.
Doing your own Aircraft maintenance unchecked is akin to owning a Swiss cheese factory. UA-camr Louis Rossmann is always on about defective cheap wire crimps, I wouldn't be surprised that this is all connected.
Correct routing of wires and harnesses are just as important as correct splices and crimping ends.
So true. I heard Juan say something about some wiring routed with the fuel lines - didn't sound wise, but I didn't read the report. Good routing with good support, keeping in mind the movement of the engine relative to the airframe is very important.
There's no point in doing a "test" flight if the test is conducted so that an issue causes you to come down in tiger country. A test is supposed to be a safe check that systems work before using it in a situation where a failure is a disaster.
This is a corollary to the swiss cheese model: There are gaps in your knowledge. If you inspect your own work, the holes are aligned!
Let someone else inspect your work so the holes in your knowledge do not coincide with the holes in the inspectors knowledge.
A variation of trust but verify philosophy.
A good example of a dual redudant design compromised by a dormant fault caused by careless modifications.
Great show as allways !!
9:07 - non-flyer here. I don't understand the "this would have made it impossible...during runup" sentence. The two systems are not connected, therefore if the pilot had the electronic ignition off, surely he could test the operation of the magneto switch during pre-flight. If he had the magneto off, he could test the operation of the electonic ignition. What am I missing?
If the system had been adequately tested on the ground, this issue would have been observed and presumably corrected.