The NTSB says show pilot and YouTuber Mike Patey knowingly installed an unserviceable 850-horsepower PT-6 turboprop in his highly modified Lancair Legacy “Turbulence” and that was a contributing factor in the uncontained failure of the engine over Minnesota on July 20, 2023. The board’s final report into the incident said purchase documents for the engine stated the engine was unserviceable. It also found that the owner conducted a 200-hour routine check when he installed the engine and that would not have involved inspection of the parts that failed. The cause of the failure was: “Mechanically distressed reduction gears causing an engine overspeed and turbine blade tensile overload and subsequent uncontainment. Contributing to the uncontainment was theoperator’s use of the engine after knowingly purchasing the engine in an unserviceable condition and only conducting a periodic inspection before flight.” We have sent email and Facebook messages to Patey asking for comment.
Patey bought the engine on July 8, twelve days before the incident which occurred while he was flying at 22,000 feet enroute from Rapid City, South Dakota to Rochester, Minnesota and about 40 miles from his destination. He deadsticked the slick and speedy Lancair to a safe landing on the runway at Rochester. The engine’s gear reduction system failed catastrophically and that caused damage to many of the other internal components, some of which left the aircraft by a fist-sized hole in the case. Patey later recounted the events in one of his popular videos but his version of the history of the transaction and the engine itself seems at odds with the board’s findings. As part of that discourse he says an AD from years ago was “missed” on the engine.
Patey billed Turbulence as the world’s fastest single engine turboprop and did a series of videos on its construction including one on the installation of a “monster” turboprop in the “tiny plane.” The aircraft was scheduled to appear at the 2023 AirVenture. Pate ultimately donated it to the EAA Museum in Oshkosh. Full NTSB report follows.
God bless you guys.
Thank you for saving aviation reporting.
Mark
Sounds like another example of an aviator chasing glory and notoriety in spite of innovation and achievement.
Juan Browne covered the details of the NTSB report in a video yesterday. Seems the operator is simply more interested in being an “influencer” gathering clicks than a diligent pilot. It’s sad because his antics and those of other hey-look-at-me types make the rest of us GA operator/maintainers look like a bunch of daredevil yahoos.
Mike Patey is definitely a highly intelligent and energetic serial entrepreneur, but he is transparently a thrill seeker and seems to be more than a bit over confident in his own abilities. This isn’t the first surprisingly dumb thing he has done, remember how he destroyed his extreme bush plane “Draco” with pax aboard, and it probably won’t be the last surprisingly stupid thing we get to see him do. I just hope the next one doesn’t kill or injure anyone.
In the distant and long-forgotten past, unairworthy parts and components deemed “not economically repairable” were mechanically “destroyed” to prevent unintentional reuse-especially critical pieces and parts not easily inspected before purchase or potential reuse. (Think crankshafts and high pressure turbine wheels.)
It remained this way until the Experimental market generated a new revenue stream for the unscrupulous and morally-corrupt who thought nothing of charging half the money for a component worth less than the sum of its scrap.
Patey may have his motivations, if not an agenda, but he may want to consider another supplier before he gets killed–assuming, of course, that’s not the objective.
I’m pretty sure his objective is to see how close he can come to killing himself without actually succeeding. That’s how you maximize the number of clicks you get on YouTube. Unfortunately, these guys tend to take other unsuspecting people with them when they go.
“Patey may have his motivations, if not an agenda, but he may want to consider another supplier before he gets killed–assuming, of course, that’s not the objective.“
A Stockton Rush wannabe/gonnabe maybe?
I was just thinking the same thing about Kirk Hawkins after reading the Icon article.
Really goofy KAKADOO, who needs this silliness.
Nice coverage of this topic. Thanks Russ.
Actually, for his activities and how he uses his planes, I don’t think he was unreasonably irresponsible. He gave it a 200 hr, whatever that involves in a PT6. He knew the history of the engine and decided it was ok for his purpose for the moment. The AD that should have alerted him, long buried in stacks of overlooked paperwork. Yes , a real overhaul or an in-depth inspection by a PT6 facility should have found that. But again, for his intended use of it, he did give it a good once over I think. Of course unfortunately he ended up sitting behind it when it decided to self destruct. Even recent and very certified engines decide to give up the ghost at unexpected and wrong times. My opinion.
The NTSB made it quite clear that Patey did not do a thorough inspection of the engine, and even if he did, the manufacturer said it was unserviceable. Guess Patey knows more than Pratt and Whitney.
I think it’s time for the NTSB to include a check-box on accident forms which says,. “YouTube Clicks.” It will save a lot of time for the investigators.
This looks a lot like Wayne Handley’s Turbo Raven. PT6 in a small lightweight airframe. I saw fly and it was impressive. But notably it crashed in a year!
Some things that look easy are not so easy!
NTSB findings are succinct and to the point.
I recall watching the engine failure debrief video. Being a PT6A; it seemed strange that it not only failed, but failed spectacularly. These turboprops are known as the most reliable aircraft engines ever made, with mean time between in-flight failures in the order of 50,000hrs. (Compared to just 3,600hrs mean time between failures for our ubiquitous air-cooled, horizontally opposed, piston engines).
Did not realize it was thrown into the airplane only a few days before, and somehow managed to disintegrate over another state, over 1,000nm away, well outside a reasonable range for proving and validating a complete engine swap, let alone major upgrade.
IIRC, the outgoing engine was an IO-720 piston, 8cyl Lycoming. Went from 400hp to 850hp. Flat-rated to the flight levels, so normally-aspirated equivalent of 1,600hp at cruise altitude. A week is simply NOT enough time to test fly and validate an aircraft after this sort of change. Let alone time to re-write operating limitations & checklists to match the newfound performance. In the spirit of EAA standard procedure, FAA regulations, good judgement, science, and reason: The owner/builder should probably consider conducting a 40-hour phase-1 flight test flight program.
Eight days from engine swap, major upgrade, to a long cross country, Actual IFR, with another soul onboard, is squarely in the category of “reckless endangerment” in the context of this story. This is reminiscent of a previous scenario regarding Draco, the Turboprop powered Wilga.
Wonder if Ridge wallets is a sponsor? He and Trevor Jacob would make good cell mates. Social media is the bane of existence and clowns like this are the reason GA gets tarnished with a broad brush.
Define ‘unserviceable’ in this context?
Does that mean lot legal to use in a certified airplane? If so, not applicable here.
Was it’s unserviceability such that it should not have been flown in an experimental? Yes, obviously we can see now that it blew up – hindsight is 20/20. But was there any reason why it shouldn’t have been installed in an experimental? Genuine question.
Yes, the reason is that the engine did not the meet the manufacturer’s approved specifications, rendering it unserviceable or non-serviceable. Although experimentals do not have to meet certification standards, they do have to be in a condition for safe operation. In this case, because the engine did not meets it’s design specifications, the aircraft that it was installed on was not safe to operate.
Cameron G:
Therein lies the real question. How “unserviceable” is “unserviceable?” The crankshaft worn under limits because the nose case seal lost its elasticity and cut a groove into the crank material, or those heat cracks that won’t blend out at a crank fillet. Both are sufficient to “red tag” a part, but which would you use for a fraction of the cost of new?
Patey let someone else decide the risk he would take in accepting the PT6. For the rest of us, we rely on the system and definition for the term “airworthy.” It provides some assurances to what is otherwise a crap shoot.
Indeed, you can put whatever you want in your Experimental airplane but someone somewhere expects you to use good judgement in the selection.
“In the spirit of EAA standard procedure, FAA regulations, good judgement, science, and reason: The owner/builder should probably consider conducting a 40-hour phase-1 flight test flight program.”
Aren’t you required to start a new 40hr phase one with a major change like this? Wasn’t he violating this rule? How is he not in trouble for this?