Mystery of Bonanza A35 N8743A

FlyWire looks at the Mystery of A35 Bonanza N8743A. What is the real story of what happened to this airplane and family? We may never know.
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #Flying Training #Learn to Fly #adventure
Memberships: / @flywirescottperdue
Website: www.flywire.on...
Merch Links: T-Shirts, My Novel: www.flywire.on...
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline

[@richoccet]

"For those of you in Rio Linda". Love it.

[@pamagee2011]

One thing for sure... if there is a celebrity on board the level of data collection is substantial. Otherwise, it is highly inconsistent

[@caryconrad3298]

Such as the Kennedy wreck, the Navy was dispatched

[@michaelh8890]

That's sadly generally very true. Its a result of the agency being publicly funded, meaning that they have to appear responsive. I'm not convinced that's a valid operating scheme, but I'm a scientist, not a politician

[@johnbaskett2309]

"For those in Rio Linda". Good one Scott. RIP Rush.

[@bigal1863]

I miss him too

[@sbc383zz]

Rush the drug addict?

[@PJHynes-ff5sg]

@@sbc383zz is it hard to be you?

[@brothersar5957]

Thank Goodness for Scott, Juan and Dan

[@CC-te5zf]

Dipping in and out of restricted airspace isn't necessarily the cause of anything, but it's a key indicator of flight planning and the state of mind of the PIC. There's been some recent examples of flights that wound up in restricted space a short time before an accident. And - when a well-intended pilot gets told over the radio that they are in violation, a thousand thoughts can go thru their mind which can only further complicate things during the flight. Every little part tells the story. It's important to study these to lock in our brains what not to do. We owe it to the deceased. You are spot on with your analysis here and it's most obvious your end goal is for pilots and their passengers to have more birthdays! Thank you Sir - Stay with it!

[@richardcarroll7107]

All information that can save one flight is worth knowing. I agree with all you said.

[@markchapman3229]

Well said Scott! Your examinations of crashes help me tremendously! Mark 2000 hours

[@duanequam7709]

olbuck said it all, Amen. I watch you and know that your the voice of reason!!!!

[@ronsites2694]

Excellent commentary, totally agree.

[@easttexan2933]

Scott, it is becoming more and more apparent that you and Dan should become the civil arm of the NTSB to go to these GA accident sites and collect this data for them, present them with your analysis and probable cause and recommendations. They would continue to do whatever it is they do with commercial aviation accidents. This is the way I would approach this very bad problem.

[@benkimball9388]

I really like the idea of a "Designated Accident Investigator" program akin to the DAR program for homebuilts. I suspect there are a lot of people who care about GA and have both the time and experience to help out.

[@davestarr7112]

@@benkimball9388 Absolutely Ben. Why should accident investigation be in the hands of a few government employee clerical types who are not pilots of A&P technicians. Even if they have developed appropriate skills over tie, they can not [possibly travel to and investigate every accident. Consider the fact that the FAA could not operate without DPE's. The idea of "DAI's" certainly is worthy of research and implementation. Hear hear!

[@carlospar3727]

Scott, you're school trained. I'm guessing Juan is too. How about Dan? I'm a retired ASO/IP/SP/IE and MTP. We have resources to which we can resort and not all are former military. A&Ps, IAs come to mind. If NTSB can't, we should be able to at least make an effort to secure that perishable data FOR the NTSB. We would have an opportunity to get a look at the site and secure data that is lost once the site is disturbed. Just a thought. You mentioned crowd sourcing... looking left and right...we're the crowd. Sorry. For clarification, we=us in the GA community (wasn't inferring you, Juan and Dan jump into a plane and respond to all GA accidents the NTSB won't respond to due to resource constraints). How about...the NTSB gathers info, possibly from AOPA, ABS and other such associations to id possible Associate Civil Site Investigators. These could be local, for the most part. You know that former military personnel are always willing to lend a hand; definitely, in the event of an aircraft accident. NTSB needs to help us help them. We all want the same thing, learn from these accidents to avoid similar ones in the future.

[@jeffroclamp-it3405]

Also add Juan Browne to the team ,triple down for the cause ,thanks Scott

[@carmelobenicio139]

I dont mean to be off topic but does anyone know of a method to log back into an Instagram account..? I was stupid lost my account password. I would appreciate any tricks you can offer me

[@paulsautocm]

I'm 55 and getting ready for PPL training, following you guys is helping me choose who I'll take my courses from.

[@dks13827]

Fly into larger airports often. Not LAX or JFK........... but larger than non tower fields.

[@olbuck]

Amen, Scott! Be nice to make it happen...ombudsmen from the aviation community immediately appointed from a ready reserve to investigate the scene immediately would be a dang good thing.

[@77thTrombone]

Like a proactive (vs reactive) Civil Air Patrol.

[@brentdykgraaf184]

I caught it...... " for those of you from Rio Linda". Homage to Maja Rushdy....have not heard that since the cuddly fuzzball past away. Thank you.great video.

[@flywiseman]

Love the Rush reference

[@brianmurphy9269]

You are exactly right that we don’t need more regulation but more education. I’m not a Pilot but am a safety engineer and you are to be congratulated on what you said in this video.

[@michaelfahey3337]

Excellent analysis, thanks Gunny.

[@fhuber7507]

Just getting a lot of pictures from the site before anything is moved can be huge in preserving clued about the cause.

[@tommywalls141]

Very good Scott, I really like your comments and your knowledge.

[@jeffenglish9344]

I think you are spot on and I appreciate your experience and thorough review.

[@MsDenver2]

I enjoy listening to you , I wish that more people in charge would listen to you as a lot of lives could be saved by accident avoidance.

[@ReflectedMiles]

For whatever it's worth, from the perspective of someone who has been on the regulatory / investigative side, the commercial pilot's side, the private pilot's side, and part of a family marred by a needless aircraft accident that took the lives of two adults and several children, there are a significant number of accidents that are so similar in nature that, barring some indication that something unusual was afoot, the main focus will often be just establishing the primary facts of the flight and relevant events surrounding it. If nothing is produced from that which stands out beyond the usual earmarks of poor planning, poor decision-making, insufficient training, medical issues not addressed, reported, or certified, and the same with any mechanical issues on the airplane, the final report is unlikely to contain much more than that, either. The lessons that need to be learned are typically, though not always, those which have already been explored and explained, and the aviation community educated about, dozens of times each decade. Those responsible for investigative decision-making are not usually inspired or hopeful about repeating a recommendation or cautionary tale for the 12th time in the last 24 months, and an assembled team nearly always involves an expensive gathering of expertise by pulling those folks away from their normal jobs. Add to that any budget or COVID pressures, and the situation will need to be begging for in-depth analysis or be high-profile (lots of public interest) or of particular interest to several stakeholders in the industry. Not only are most people on such a team now not doing a manufacturer's check or not handling issues at a district office or not teaching or not working a radar or tower somewhere, but calling them away from those tasks has to be paid for in additional work hours that are often at overtime rates, plus travel expenses, and others with similar skills have to be assigned to cover for them in their absence, also on overtime in many cases, etc. In other words, the cost in time and money spirals quickly, so the prospective results had better be seriously worth the investment required. When that is doubtful, more extensive investigation may be left to the discretion of insurance companies and any court orders that result. Public regulators / investigators have a responsibility to consider the interests of the public since that is the party footing the bills.

[@leroycharles9751]

Thanks Scott,another good report.

[@dddenton3910]

Thank you Scott for the way you engage me, the audience. You are easy to understand for anyone, wingnuts or not, and you don"t bite when a polite growl does the trick. Always keep in mind ( I know you do ) that BAD things can happen when GOOD PEOPLE like yourself, Juan, and Dan are able and ready with your wisdoms to share but might not. I personally think I'm a safer pilot because of the 3 of you. Dave N2916V

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Dave, I'm glad I can help even in a small way!

[@WolfandCatUnite]

Great video and thank you.

[@Turbojets_Channel]

I remember being an intern for the NTSB in California about 20 years ago. It was such a different outfit back then. Today it isn't worth jack cheese. I'd happily do the work again but it's too bad that I love flying so much.

[@West-TexX]

“For those in Rio Linda, that means ‘not much.’” 😂😂😂😂😂

[@Gronicle1]

I love your channel. Wish the NTSB had issued a report on my friend when he went in on 2009.

[@SDB362]

Scott, you're a Rush fan!!!! I knew there was something about you! Love your channel!!!

[@stevefisher2553]

RUSH RULES

[@geraldhancotte7887]

Great job, Scott.

[@CJ_LEGAN]

Right on! I have that same question. Who cares unless your a celebrity. Celbs mean nothing to me just the same as the unknowns. We all deserve equal findings for tragedies. You and other like you are my celebrities.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks CJ!

[@theresters1]

YOU ARE AMAZING AND VERY VERY OBJECTIVE MINDED!

[@seti48]

You made many good points.

[@206dvr]

Scott, thank you for your observations on the lack of a thorough investigation and the consequences for the rest of us. I agree that there are many lost opportunities to learn from the misfortunes of others through rigorous investigation. One area of disagreement, however, is on avoiding MOAs. A direct flight from Chandler to Twin Falls is 565 nm. That’s just beyond the comfortable range of the airplane that I fly, which isn’t that different from the Bonanza in this case. There are two fixes for this route (obviously). If Direct were an option, then Wendover would make a logical stop for fuel and a bathroom break. When you look at the chart, though, there are three significant "hard" regulatory barriers to flying direct: the Phoenix Class B, Grand Canyon Special Airspace, and military Restricted areas. (By "hard," I mean areas where permission is required, but seldom granted, for entry.) Navigating around those three kinds of hard airspace increases the mileage to about 615 nm, or 50 more miles, allowing for a fuel stop at Ely (because Wendover would require an impractical out-and-back deviation). Plotting the simplest route around this airspace adds another 4 intervening turns to the route. If, as you suggest, we should avoid flying through MOAs, total mileage increases to about 635 nm-80 miles more than direct and 20 more than avoiding the hard airspace. There are 10 intervening turns to avoid all airspace, including MOAs. Add weather and terrain to this, and you have the makings of a very high workload for the VFR pilot and very limited options to deal with changes in conditions. Twenty more miles isn't a big deal, but when you look at the chart and the courses needed to pull this off, you will be flying in corridors in between multiple MOAs, Restricted Areas, and other airspace (like Alert Areas) with little room for error, and more the doubling the number of fixes for turns en route. It doesn’t help that radio reception below 15,000' msl in these areas is spotty and that there are large blank areas on the map without ADS-B ground stations or low level radar coverage. I always use flight following on long trips, but it’s common to be told that radar coverage and/or radio reception has been lost and to try contacting the next controller in 50 miles. The lack of ADS-B tracks for low level aircraft confirms this: there are airplanes there; you just can't see them. Flying around the Great Basin and the mountain west is complicated enough due to weather and terrain. The military already has locked up enormous restricted area complexes around Edwards, Salt Lake, and Fallon. If you consider MOAs off limits, navigating around the West becomes extremely difficult and our options for dealing with weather and terrain are even more constrained. Respectfully, how much airspace are we supposed to give up so that those who defend our rights (to fly, among others), can practice?

[@doncook2066]

I enjoy your stuff. Good work done in my opinion.

[@jimthannum7151]

That was an excellent, well artculated synopsis of the issues with the understanding of GA accidents so others may may learn. The discipline in your comments, speaks well to your experience and training as a military avaitor. Great respect for your channel as made me an avid listener.

[@steveshortridge6255]

I could listen to you all day on aviation

[@NoNonsenseScalping]

Thanks for covering this. I have a 47 bonanza with an e series engine and am in phoenix and make the trip to boise multiple times from deer valley which is just north of chandler. Your fuel estimate is very conservative for that trip. Pilot if he didnt request bravo transition from phoenix then he flew west just south of pheonix bravo and then north when he got to buckeye airport area. He had to have a rear fuselage tank or made a stop somewhere because there is no way he would have made it to the crash site with just the 34 usable in the mains. If it was fuel starvation with only main tanks he would have crashed before the actual site. Another thought is CG. In bonanzas like this and mine once you use up your mains the CG moves aft. If he had passengers in back and luggage his cg might have crawled too far aft to be controllable which happens when you run low fuel on mains with plane fully loaded and baggage full. In a scenario which i think he had to have a fuselage tank in the e series engines fuel overdlows to left main. You ha e to use up fuel in left main first so then he goes to fuselage tank and uses that then back to left main since the overflow went back to that and the to right main. As he burns those mains bis cg is moving rearward and pretty fast goes into aft cg out of limits. Just a different idea from flying that route and having basically same airplane

[@NoNonsenseScalping]

Excuse the typos. Typing from phone is not accurate. Lol

[@Codehead3]

Interesting point! Don’t worry about the typos!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

TS. Those are exactly points we don’t know the answer to. An assumption was made, but no evidence collected to determine anything. What a waste.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

When flying cargo Cherokees, Cessnas and Piper Aztecs in South America, i had to fly with a rear or off rear CG a lot. Airplane is sligthly faster, but elevator and rudder is very sensitive.. Very dangerous on landings, specially on turn of base to final or slow flights to a landings, or go arounds.. It is a different kind of flying (Altogether)..

[@ibcoull]

There is a 20 gal variant of the baggage compartment auxiliary fuel tank that would seem necessary for the circumstances. After first using an hour from the left ( overflow) tank, it was my practice to empty the rear aux tank to ensure CG stayed forward. I assumed that was standard practice?

[@felixmontwedimabung-henngw2855]

Great analysis!

[@gmonnig]

I love how you are exposing some of the shortfalls of the NTSB. My friends and I have been talking about your channel lately (we are FAA guys). I have personally seen how the FAA is ran, and it’s exactly like the NTSB. A bunch of people who don’t have any real interests in aviation...... sounds a lot like air traffic control.

[@javajav3004]

That’s pretty saddening

[@leeadams5941]

Basically a bunch of people looking after their careers and their own rice bowl. Sadly its the same way in most of the Federal Government which is why I retired the very day I could with minimum years...

[@bellboy4074]

You obviously have had zero interaction with ATC.

[@gmonnig]

@@bellboy4074 Not sure what that means. Ive been a controller for 15yrs, a pilot for 23yrs, have a degree in aviation and have been an aircraft owner for many years. When I'm not working ATC, I'm using it when I fly. So my interactions are daily....

[@alantoon5708]

Well spoken. Knowing what happened is pretty straightforward. Knowing why is not. And unless the "reason(s) why" are known, no lessons are learned.

[@apolloreinard7737]

spot on

[@rigilchrist]

You are a wise man and an excellent communicator. I hope the NTSB is listening. If the first resonders were instructed to take video and copious photos of all fatal crashes, that would be very much better than nothing.

[@scottfeatherstone7156]

Excellent video

[@padsliderfranco9561]

This industry is setting up for repeat error. Without analysis we can not improve. Thank you for speaking truth.

[@stacietaylor9961]

I can see Scott is a Rush fan!

[@nbt3663]

Not a pilot. But I didn't realize NTSB doesn't go to a lot of crashes. That is very sad considering the loss of life that happens when accidents happen.

[@trumpsmessage7777]

Scott. You are the Lieutenant Columbo of aircraft investigations.

[@02markcal]

Great points Scott, the death of the Kvanvig family members won't be in vain if it can be used to learn from and make the changes/improvements needed by examing accidents to find the causes.

[@dandaniel439]

Great work, Scott. You and Dan G have convinced me that there is a serious problem and the solution is not with the Government. The solution will be with caring civilians who love civil aviation enough to make a difference. You guys are on the right track. I am sensing that a bit of funding will be a part of the solution. And I believe that the funding is out there. Three cheers for Scott, Dan and Blancolirio.

[@Klamath1970]

Love the Rio Linda reference. You must be from Sacramento.

[@TahoeRealm]

I had no idea that most investigations turn out inconclusive with little detail. Thank you for explaining this. Very nice video.

[@dabuya]

I really appreciate your calm and professional demeanor in questioning these GA mishaps. If I could be King for a day, people like you, and Dan Gryder, would be appointed to positions of authority. Maybe then mishap prevention would become effective.

[@justinparker7795]

this is in my area and I didnt hear about it, thank you Scott for the coverage!

[@villagelightsmith4375]

Mountaineers and whitewater people are positively anal about understanding the minutia of their sport ... and their "accidents." Their analysis of their screw-ups has saved my sorry butt many times across the decades. Thanks, Scott. You're doing good!

[@billblack8575]

Great video, I always learn something. I'm sure the agency only has a certain number of personnel to send to a crash scene. When you look at his flight, it's sad we'll never really know what happened. Shame he took his family with him on a plane with either bad planning, bad piloting, poor or no maintenance, or some combination of all of those.

[@johnb7490]

You are so right. Good job Scott. Hopefully things will change.

[@gregpratt9432]

Scott....Well done......Nail on the head stuff!

[@specforged5651]

Scott, love the channel and love the Bonanza. As the past owner of two, I really have a passion for them. I have a request that you cover the crash of the A36TC Bonanza, N60WB; fatal that occurred July 26, 2017 out of Ogden-Hinckley Airport (KOGD), Utah. This is my home airport and I fly several times a week out of KOGD. I would appreciate a real expert and true accomplished aviators (not the NTSB or FAA because they are far from experts in my opinion) view of that entire very tragic loss. I am and acquaintance of the other partner in that aircraft as well as the owners who were on board. Thank you for all of your expertise and knowledge that helps us be safer up there.

[@Qrail]

As a retired bus accident investigator, photos and videos of the crash scene can help. Crowd sourcing is a great idea. The egos, lawyers, know-it-alls, and experts ruin it for everyone. A volunteer, grassroots accident investigation society would be useful to bring a “different” view than what the bureaucrats present. Funding it is another story.

[@natjennings7688]

Agree that standardized data collection and crowd sourcing the probable cause are the most efficient way to deal with this. Great video, thanks for bringing this up.

[@Thundersnowy]

Excellent

[@edgarmuller6652]

NTSB is mostly dedicated to comercial aviation. I always thought that without black boxes in GA aircraft it becomes much more of a puzzle to get an idea of what happened. It’s always good practice to have flight following, it would have kept him out of trouble with the restricted airspace’s and also is a helping hand in case the pilot needs.

[@donlowe7093]

Good review.

[@chrispetty8587]

Perhaps you need to start a civil organization called something like general aviation safety alliance, that could investigate the accidents.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Perhaps something like that would work.

[@andrewbill1956]

I like the idea of a 'universal' protocol for all law enforcement as they recover a downed aircraft.

[@germansnowman]

I would include the capture of the crash site with a 3D laser scanner and an aerial survey with a camera drone.

[@unclebob4964]

These need to be properly investigated, but it is not a law enforcement function. Unfortunately, as Steve and Dan have pointed out, we are letting NTSB get government funds to do NOTHING. Jennifer Homendy should donate her Honda 50 and all her NTSB team vests to the first 6 looky-loos that show up at a crash scene. They’ll do the same thing.

[@77thTrombone]

I like the idea of a protocol. Cops tend to be smart about cop work, not aviation accidents. I can imagine your average law enforcement officer is just gonna call a tow truck to drag the big pieces out of the gully/bushes onto a flatbed. The tow truck guy is the one who collects accident debris. Maybe NTSB needs to have registered GA wrecker services around the country.

[@jonathanloomis9348]

I agree with you keep up the good work

[@aroundontonagonwitholdeswi6377]

Well done Scott. I completely agree with you. Aircraft accidents are almost always composed of complex chains of events that are driven by numerous decisions that the PIC and others made leading up to the accident. There are human factors that need to be addressed in every accident, yet the majority of NTSB reports oversimplify the probable cause, leading to a “factual” report that does not yield a usable or credible learning point that can be plotted and discussed. We won’t appreciably improve the GA accident rate until we squarely address the human factors side of the equation. Once we begin to gather usable data on issues like pilot decisionmaking, workload management, effective monitoring, communication and leadership skills we will be able to move forward with training programs that address the root causes of these accidents. I’m 100 percent for increased privatization of these investigations, partnering with the NTSB and FAA to redefine the objectives of accident investigation. Nice work.

[@noelmareno9679]

Good job. I appreciate your valuable contribution.

[@johnclow3476]

I love your presentations. Your straight foreword and non-biased approach to each of these scenarios is refreshing. I also like how are you tell it like it is. You, Dan Gryder and Juan Browne are my favorite analyzers. Being retired and living on a fixed income are the only reasons I don't support you with Patreon. Although I never suffered an airplane accident when flying, I wish someone like you gentlemen were around when I flew to help my thinking about the the things to consider before taki8ng off. Keep up the good work!

[@backpages1]

A comprehensive evaluation of this crash. I’m not really a fan of the NTSB for several reasons, but you’ve covered that part well. 15 years of LE taught me a lot about ‘investigations’, my absence in court supports what I learned. But a question… if fuel was the problem, and the picture represents the final position, why did the pilot not land that plane? This just makes no sense to me. Is it not the pilots responsibility, engine running or not, to fly the airplane?

[@thesunrisechannel]

Excellent...bad data has a longer half life than truth...Amen brother!

[@measl]

*So well presented. I was unaware (I did not finish flight school, so while I have a general interest in aviation, I am for all intents and purposes just another engineer non-pilot observer) that the NTSB didn't go through the same protocol treee on **_every_** crash: that's criminal in my opinion. The risk of dying in an airplane is only 1 in 120 million (incredibly safe), but from this presentation, I'd be willing to bet that the risk of dying in a small aircraft is far higher - with all of the **_stupid_** things we have the government throw money at, you'd think they would at least treat every crash the same way: it's both a financial and a safety issue to ignore such a significant segment of aviation.*

[@brushitoff503]

This was fantastic Scott! Thank you.

[@Dr.DeHicks]

Excellent video. Crowd sourcing is a great idea.

[@briansaunders5557]

“Wisdom Of The Crowd”. A good book...

[@scottstewart2376]

Thanks, Scott. I'm a student pilot and really learning from your educational talks. Wisdom is gained from others persons experience. I appreciate you taking the time to put these videos out.

[@michaelmaylone9431]

Good job Scott, couldn’t agree more!!!

[@justacoupleofkids320]

It seems that at the very least, the NTSB should have a group of “volunteers” to contact when they choose not to visit the crash scene.

[@paulhendershott667]

Best Video Yet! So true...

[@tomgardner5006]

Nice shout out to the late Rush Limbaugh

[@michaelh8890]

Scott et al, As a recently retired NTSB regional investigator, I want to make a few comments to help clarify things. I'm not in the habit of participating in these blogs(this is my 1st) but the (high) quality and the even tone of your presentation deserves recognition and hopefully some useful additions. First a few critiques: The NTSB is not part of DOT; its the 2nd smallest independent fed agency

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Excellent point! Learned something new!

[@kenbrownfield6584]

Nice plane in background

[@williebrown3941]

Thank you!

[@josegregoriogonzalez874]

Scott, another fantastic non bias acidente review. I you ever want to come to Patagonia, Argentina just give me a call. We have a small flying Comunity that would love your knowledge. Kudos to your work.

[@golfbravowhiskey8669]

Rio Linda! Miss old rush.

[@billylain7456]

Another excellent critique, Scott. Reminds me of a simple thing I learned many years ago when I first took stastics....In God we trust all others must bring data..

[@alrivas1477]

Yes. It's either crowd funding or we GA pilots need a deep pocketed benefactor to fund the GA Flight Safety Board. Maybe you, Dan, and Juan could consider leading the main board while volunteers contribute what we can. Having gone through one, maybe you could setup a crash investigation course for GAFSB volunteers. I don't claim a tenth of your knowledge but in 35 years of flying I've known way too many people who've left us in preventable ways. Thus, if I can help. Count me in. At the very least, you guys make me a better pilot so you're probably saving lives already.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Al!

[@ollivud63]

Excellent analysis as usual! Thanks

[@georged3736]

Great analysis, Scott.

[@rickcline2762]

Another great report and ditto your remarks. Semper Fi from another (even older) Marine.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Many thanks!

[@Kromaatikse]

What I do for some of these cases is draw up a flight plan myself, using SkyVector, then fly it in X-Plane using some appropriately similar aircraft. This is often quite educational. For this particular case, starting at KCHD and proceeding north requires first navigating the highly congested Phoenix airspace, via the VFR corridors - in this case the one across the western runway thresholds of Phoenix Sky Harbor at about 5000'. From there it is straightforward to proceed due North (magnetic) to join the V257 airway, climb to 8500' and follow it as far as MAIER, then continue in pretty much the same direction towards Colorado City (AZC) NDB. In the latter part of this leg is the Grand Canyon, which is a Special Flight Rules area, and it is necessary to climb to 11500' and make some relatively small course changes to follow the Tuckup Corridor, which crosses one of the narrowest parts of the canyon. It would not be difficult to program these waypoints into a GPS, and while there is a gap in the ADS-B track exactly in the vicinity of the canyon crossing, the data is consistent with a climb before and a descent after a traversal of the corridor. The last ADS-B data shows the aircraft passing just west of Colorado City in the vicinity of the AZ-UT border, and proceeding towards a mountain pass, this being the beginning of the shortest path over relatively low ground that avoids the eastern limit of the Desert MOA and the western limit of the various Restricted areas over the Salt Lake Desert. I think I would prefer to take that pass at a somewhat higher altitude than the ADS-B data records. From there, it is possible to squeeze past the Indian Peak Range without entering the Sevier MOA, and from there the Sacramento Pass appears to be straightforward to navigate VFR, again preferably at increased altitude, crossing into Nevada in the process. A track directly North (true) from there, through the Gandy MOA, is consistent with arrival at the crash site, which is in the northwestern corner of the Gandy MOA and close to a narrow window where it can be exited without traversing any other MOA. From that window there is a more-or-less straight route to the intended destination at KTWF, crossing yet another state border into Idaho, and dodging around various tall outcrops with small course changes. Military Operating Areas (MOAs) differ from Restricted areas in that they are not in operation at all times. There are methods by which a pilot can enquire as to whether a particular MOA is in operation on a particular day, and if it is not, he may consider it valid as part of his planned route. The evidence I see is consistent with competent route planning and navigation, as least as far as terrain and restricted area avoidance is concerned. There is however still an unresolved question as to fuel endurance. The lack of a post-impact fire is certainly suggestive of fuel exhaustion, though not conclusive. It is certainly noteworthy that at almost 600nm, the intended route is about half the north-south length of the contiguous United States. I chose to re-enact the flight using a Robin DR401, which is a somewhat slower aircraft than the Bonanza, but with a 155hp turbodiesel engine, it has excellent climb performance and impressive range for a piston single. Taking off with both main and reserve tanks full, and payload set for the occupants of the accident flight plus some luggage, then proceeding at a "fast cruise" power setting of 2150rpm (about 7.2 gph at 8500'), I was able to fly to just a few miles short of the KTWF approach pattern before the main tank threatened to run dry. At this point I opened the reserve tank valve, which empties its contents into the main tank (refilling it almost halfway), and landed successfully. I note that the Bonanza is quoted as having roughly half the range of the DR401 I used, auxiliary tanks included. This is roughly consistent with the accident location. Putting the numbers into a Bonanza flight planning calculator also clearly shows insufficient range to fly the whole trip in one go, even with a 10-gallon auxiliary tank. So this seems to explain the accident in terms of "immediate cause". Colorado City airport would have been an obvious place, about half way and almost exactly on the route, to conduct a fuel stop - so the question must therefore be asked: why not?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

A glaring question indeed. Seems on the face of it to be fuel exhaustion... but no facts available to support that assumption.

[@danielsniezek3571]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Great analysis and presentation. I have one observation I would like to make - in the early e-series engine Bonanzas there was a 20 gallon aux tank as well as a 10 gallon aux tank available. My 1954 E35 had the 20 gallon aux fuel tank in the baggage compartment mounted immediately behind the rear seat. The fuel filler was on the pilot side of the fuselage back there. I believe the 20 gallon tank was available for an A35 also, and if they had that, could have had the range needed. It worked well, but I have to admit I was always a bit nervous about having that fuel tank in the baggage compartment behind the seats, and it added to some limitations in weight and balance calculations when full.

[@johnmagnin5797]

Excellent Video!

[@4bulldurham]

I was surprised to hear you say they didn't check for fuel present. I thought that was a given.

[@turnbank3492]

Well said

[@billlowe6883]

Excellent presentation.

[@paulbrunner1818]

Wow, well said and done !

[@zombrero7870]

Thank you for using the word paucity

[@Mike-jq9jo]

Well stated Sir.

[@davestarr7112]

Another aspect of investigation which seems virtually ignored these days is forensic post mortem/autopsy. In addition to drug screens and arterial/heart disease evaluations, much can be learned from simple X-rays of hands and feet of bodies in pilot positions. This can sometimes provide really critical clues in otherwise "mystery" crashes. It's a relatively simple procedure, but very seldom undertaken in the standard cause of death post-mortems.

[@akb5531]

What kind of evidence can be provided from x-rays of the pilots hands & feet? I really am interested, I'm not being snarky. Thx

[@davestarr7112]

@@akb5531 One example from the real world ... many other examples. The pilot holding the controls often has fractured hands or wrists caused by the crash impact. Some years back a number of Boeing 737s' had crashes involving rudders hard over to the left. X-rays of the captain's and FO's ankles proved both pilots were exerting literally "leg-breaking" force on the right rudder pedals, desperately trying to correct. Without evidence like that, anyone could always speculate "Oh well. maybe the pilot was disoriented and pushed the wrong rudder".

[@akb5531]

@@davestarr7112 Thanks. Very interesting.

[@johngoogle7626]

Paucity of information: mega ditto's!!

[@dchapero6929]

If restricted airspace is not being used, it’s like it doesn’t exist. You can get a briefing on the ground to find its status. You can’t depart out of phoenix, VFR, without bumping into a MOA. [nearly, being a bit hyperbolic]. I built about 1500 hours flying out of the Scottsdale and Williams Gateway airports.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

True, sort of. If its restricted you still have to ask. This pilot did not ask.