CHI00LA238
2000-07-30 · POPLAR BLUFF, Missouri, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport POF
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
the pilot exceeded the VNE speed restriction of 144 MPH. Factors included the ruddervator flutter and the out of balance ruddervators.
Factual narrative
On July 30, 2000, at 2200 central daylight time, a Beech BE-A35, N8530A, was substantially damaged when it experienced tail flutter near Poplar Bluff, Missouri. The pilot reported the airplane was in a descent in smooth air. He reported there was a loud noise and the airplane began to shake. He reported the shaking stopped when he pulled back on the yoke and pulled the throttle back. He reported he saw the airspeed indicator needle passing below 144 mph after the shaking stopped. An uneventful landing was made to Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport (POF), Poplar Bluff, Missouri. The pilot and passenger were not injured. The 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight had departed Oshkosh, Wisconsin, at 1810 with POF as the final destination. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, although, the pilot reported the flight had encountered rain showers in the area. No flight plan had been filed. The pilot reported he began his descent about 20 miles from the airport by reducing power. While he tuned in the airport advisory frequency he started getting a "control shake" in the control yoke. He reported, "I immediately pulled the nose up while simultaneously reducing the power which stopped the shaking. While applying corrective action I looked at the airspeed which was swinging thru the 144 red line. I slowed to gear speed extended the gear flew a straight in final and landed normally." The second pilot reported, "It felt like something hit the tail of the plane real hard and then there was a 2 second shudder. [The pilot] reduced the power and pulled up and I said what was that. He said I think its flutter. I said I think something hit us. We landed without incidence." A Federal Aviation Administration Airworthiness Inspector and a representative of the aircraft manufacturer examined the aircraft. The aircraft inspection revealed the left and right sides of the aft fuselage exhibited vertical creases and wrinkles at the Fuselage Station (F.S.) 256.9 bulkhead location. The upper fuselage skin exhibited creases and wrinkles running between the cutouts for the main spars of the stabilizers at the F.S. 256.9 bulkhead location. The lower aft fuselage skin exhibited bi-directional creases between the F.S. 233.5 bulkhead and the F.S. 207.0 bulkhead locations. All four corners of the F.S. 256.9 bulkhead were cracked. These cracks ran from the inside diameter of the bulkhead and extended outboard to the radius where the bulkhead attaches to the fuselage skin. The doubler was also cracked on the left rear side of he F.S. 256.9 bulkhead. The upper and lower skins of the left stabilizer exhibited a diagonal crease running form the outboard hinge location forward and inboard for about 5.5 inches. The ruddervator was primed but was not painted. The trim tab was installed correctly with the cambered side down and the hinge wire installed properly. The upper trim cable attached to the trim tab horn exhibited a radial movement of about 0.015 inches. After the ruddervator was removed from the empennage, it was noted that the middle and outboard hinge bushings exhibited an excessive amount of play. The lower skin of the right stabilizer exhibited a diagonal crease running from the outboard hinge location forward and inboard for approximately 1.0 inch. The upper skin of the right stabilizer exhibited a diagonal crease running from the outboard hinge location forward and inboard of about 3.0 inches. The trim tab was installed correctly with the cambered side down and the hinge wire installed properly. The lower trim cable attached to the trim tab horn exhibited a radial movement of about 0.025 inches and axial movement of 0.025 - 0.030 inches. After the ruddervator was removed from the empennage, it was noted the middle and outboard hinge bushings exhibited an excessive amount of play. Due to damage, the cable tensions were undeterminable. The ruddervator assemblies were removed and weighed with the trim tab and all mounting hardware included. The left assembly weighed 7.9 pounds and the right assembly weighed 8.0 pounds. The ruddervator static underbalance was checked. The left and right ruddervators were 20.25 inch pounds. The acceptable limits for ruddervator underbalance is 16.8 - 19.8 inch pounds. The tip weight assemblies were removed and weighed. The left weighed 2.8 pounds and the right was 2.6 pounds. The airplane's maintenance records were reviewed. The left and right ruddervators were reskinned on October 23, 1996. The ruddervators were primed but not painted. The recorded static underbalance for both ruddervators was 19.5 inch pounds. There was no documentation of any maintenance performed on the rudervators since they were reskinned. The Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-02 that placed a VNE (Never Exceed) speed restriction of 144 MPH indicated airspeed on the Models 35, A35, B35, and 35R airplanes had been complied with. The inspection of the airplane revealed it had the required placard and red line on the airspeed that notified the pilot the new VNE speed was 144 MPH. The VNE speed prior to the AD was 204 MPH. Parties to the investigation were the FAA and Raytheon Aircraft Company. The pilot reported the airplane was in a descent in smooth air when he heard a loud noise and the airplane began shaking. It stopped when he pulled back on the yoke and pulled the throttle back. He reported he saw the airspeed indicator needle passing below 144 mph on the airspeed indicator after the shaking stopped. The aircraft inspection revealed the aft fuselage and empennage received damage. All four corners of the F.S. 256.9 bulkhead were cracked. The left and right ruddervator static underbalance was checked. The left and right ruddervators were 20.25 inch pounds. The acceptable limits for ruddervator underbalance is 16.8 to 19.8 inch pounds. The airplane's maintenance records were reviewed. The left and right ruddervators were reskinned on October 23, 1996. The ruddervators were primed but not painted. The recorded static underbalance for both ruddervators was 19.5 inch pounds. There was no documentation of any maintenance performed on the ruddervators since they were reskinned. The Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-02 that placed a speed restriction of 144 MPH indicated airspeed on the Models 35, A35, B35, and 35R airplanes had been complied with. The inspection of the airplane revealed it had the required placard and red line on the airspeed that notified the pilot the new VNE speed was 144 MPH. The VNE speed prior to the AD was 204 MPH. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2000_CHI00LA238.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (stall, maintenance). All research papers
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2023 · Conference paper The Value of Strong Partnerships to Build a Successful Aviation Maintenance Career Pathway Program for Transitioning Military Service Members
The aerospace industry is competing with other industries for a qualified workforce, and many of those competing industries are investing heavily in creating workforce development pipelines.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA) From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Conference Paper Computational Analysis of Steady State Aerodynamics of Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration in Deep Stall
This study presents a computational investigation of steady state aerodynamics of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration over a wide range …
- Semantic Scholar 2026 · Article (Reliability Engineering & System Safety) Understanding human error in military aviation maintenance: The role of Performance shaping factors, cognitive workload and error orientation
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences) Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (Defence Science Journal) Modelling of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Using HFACS ME Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension and Bayesian Network
Aircraft maintenance is a complex task involving a skilled human workforce, spare parts, and various other resources. Human factors are an inherent element of the human workforce.