Cessna R172 N180CM

Summary

On 17 September 2015 at about 18:30 local time, a Cessna R172 registered N180CM was involved in an accident near College Station, Texas, United States. 2 people were on board and 2 were seriously injured. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

17 September 2015 at 18:30

Classification

Accident

Location

College Station, Texas, United States

Coordinates

30.5886, -96.3639

Aircraft

Cessna R172

Registration

N180CM

Category

Airplane

Year built

1976

Engines

1

Operator

Not recorded

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Personal

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Canton → Port Aransas

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

CEN15LA416

2 people were seriously injured.

The total loss of engine power due to the fatigue failure of the No. 1 connecting rod. Contributing to the accident was the manufacturer’s exclusion of the accident engine (by serial number) in a revision of a service bulletin.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

The airline transport pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight. The pilot reported that, during cruise flight, he heard a loud "pop or bang" and that the airplane started vibrating. The engine subsequently lost power. During the forced landing to a road, the airplane struck a building and then a truck. An examination of the engine found two holes in the crankcase. Further examination revealed that the No. 1 connecting rod had failed due to fatigue. The engine manufacturer had previously issued a service bulletin (SB), which recommended the examination and potential replacement of the connecting rods in the accident engine due to wear or fatigue; the SB included both the accident engine's serial number and the connecting rod's forging stamp identification. The engine manufacturer subsequently revised the SB; the revision excluded the accident engine by serial number but the connecting rods were still included. However, it would not be possible for a mechanic to identify the connecting rod serial numbers without taking the engine apart. A review of the maintenance records revealed that the accident engine was last overhauled about 5 years after the issuance of the revised SB; no entry was found indicating that the connecting rods were examined in accordance with the SB, and no subsequent maintenance occurred that would have allowed for the examination of the connecting rods. However, because this was a Part 91 operation, such an inspection was not mandatory. Despite the fact that the SB was not mandatory, because the manufacturer removed the engine serial number from the revised SB, a mechanic would have very little way of knowing whether the connecting rods should be inspected.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.