The investigation into the crash that killed Buddy Holly may be reopened.
The article states ‘[T]he Civil Aeronautics Board blamed the accident primarily on the pilot’s lack of qualification and certification to fly solely by instruments and secondarily on an inadequate weather briefing.’
I don’t know the specs for a 1947 Model 35. It had a 165 hp engine. I did find specs for a later model with a 185 hp engine. The later one, which I believe had a higher take-off weight, had a gross weight of 2,550 pounds and an empty weight of 1,458 pounds, leaving 1,092 pounds to play with. It carried 39 gallons of fuel, so the payload was about 858 pounds. That’s for a plane with 20 more horsepower than a 1947 Model 35. Assuming the '47 Bonanza had a lower payload, and assuming luggage for the passengers, and assuming full fuel, they might have been pretty close – or over – gross weight. Any accumulation of ice and/or snow would have added weight and degraded performance.
I’ve heard that the V-tail Bonanzas sometimes had an issue with ruddervator flutter. I remember reading decades ago that this might be caused by something as seemingly minor as re-painting them incorrectly. In icy, snowy conditions, I imagine it might have caused an imbalance. Weight-and-balance, as I said, might have been an issue. ISTM that the pilot would have been using carb heat to avoid carburettor icing. That should have worked. But if it was snowing heavily, the air intake may have become clogged. The .pdf document in the article indicates it was lightly snowing, and that the tail position light was visible five miles away.
The pilot was 21 years old, so he may have lacked experience. According to the quote from the article, it sounds like he was not IFR rated. (I could look that up, I suppose, but I need to get back to work.) picunurse said she remembers hearing that the pilot did not want to take extra passengers, but succumbed to the pressure of celebrity.
Except for possible carburettor icing or a clogged intake, or the pretty small chance of flutter, it sounds like poor decision making by the pilot caused the crash. If he miscalculated the weight-and-balance or intentionally decided the risk of an over-gross take-off was small (assuming they were over-gross), it’s on him. Launching into adverse weather conditions without the proper training and experience is on him. Launching into adverse weather conditions that properly-rated pilots would sit out is on him.
I haven’t read the whole accident investigation report, but it sounds like the pilot was flying at night with snow falling, and that he probably became disorientated.
What do you think? Is there cause to re-open the investigation? Or did they get it right back in 1959?
