| Where: | Albuquerque,
New Mexico, USA |
| When: |
February or March, 1996 |
| What: |
RANS S-12 |
| How: | Pilot was practicing touch-and-goes at a GA (uncontrolled) airport
in winds gusting as high as 20MPH. Witnesses reported the pilot was in control
and was making excellent landings. Another aircraft in the the pattern ahead of
him made an emergency stop and he turned away on final approach. As he was
setting up to re-enter the pattern he apparently turned and stalled at low
altitude (estimated at 200' by a witness (himself a balloon pilot). The
aircraft hit the ground in a nose-first attitude. The pilot had deployed the BRS
(brand-name unknown) approximately 100' AGL and the chute deployed as the plane
hit. |
| Injuries: |
Pilot suffered massive closed head trauma and died instantly |
| Experience & Training of Pilot: | Approximately 15 hours in a Rans S12 (enclosed). Trained by
USUA-certified BFI. Pilot was also working on a GA PPL. |
| Notes: | The FAA and local pilots
agreed that he was 'too low and too slow'. The terrain in this location rises
200'/minute at 55MPH thus making it very easy to be deceived as to your altitude
AGL. Additional_Information: A USUA instructor and reporter of incident were
in the aircraft that made the emergency landing ahead of the pilot in this
report. We had decided that the winds were now too high to fly safely and were
making one final t-a-g when the accident occurred. |
| Selected from discussion of incident, causes,
and possible solutions from the ultralight mailing list, FLY-UL: |
| (nitefly@cybercomm.net) I just put up an article on
HIGHLIGHTS pages that deals with engine outs and how to train for them. Not many
people want to talk about the dangers and how to minimize them. This may be the
place to do it http://www.cybercomm.net/~nitefly/deadstk.html any help,
comments, whatever will be appreaciated. [Note: I don't know if this site
is still on the web.] |
| (anchored@gte.net)
Thanks for the info on the Texas crash, sounds like a BRS could have been
useful here. |
| (jre@campus.mci.net) I own
a QS, and have kept putting off buying a parachute. The guy who sold it to me
claims it isn't necessary, as most accidents happen near the ground, and a chute
won't do you any good near the ground. I'm more worried about an accident like
the one I mentioned above. $1600 for a chute is more than I can afford at the
moment. But then again, how much would you pay for one on the way down?? |
| (Beesticker@aol.com)....200 feet, to my
understanding, is a bit low for a "save". I think a BRS needs a
minimum height of 500 to 1000 feet to work reliably (BRS owners help me out
here). On the other hand, why NOT pull the handle? What have you got to lose
at that point? I think there *have* been some very low saves. But aside from
the altitude question, that kind of structural failure is exactly what the
'chute is for. |
| (bweber@micom.com)Au
Contraire! There was an incident at my club field a few months ago. A member
was flying a recently completed biplane kit in the pattern when (he says) the
control ceased responding. He popped the chute at pattern altitude, which is
about 200' agl here. It worked perfectly and he plopped into a farm field.
There was significant landing gear and other damage, but no injuries. In
general, if you have any control left, you would want to pop it at a fairly low
altitude to minimize wind drift which could end up putting you anywhere, like a
powerline or into the side of a cliff. In most of the discussions on this
subject, there are two situations to use the chute: structural failure or
engine out over unlandable terrain. In the first case, I think everyone would
pop it as quickly as possible. However, in the second, most pilots said they
would glide over the least threatening site and pull the chute at a low
altitude, say 200-300' agl. I also read a recommendation (in the USUA magazine,
I think) that if landing in trees, the chute should be popped just before
hitting them. Hopefully, the lines will entangle and keep you from dropping
through to the ground. Save the skin, then the tin. |
| (benny@soda.csua.berkeley.edu)... according to the article
"[the pilot] turned the engine back on but was too low to pull out of the
dive in time to avoid the crash." I thought that we had collectively
decided on this list that the first thing to do when you have a problem is FLY
THE AIRPLANE. Not troubleshoot the engine. It sounds like he did a great job of
troubleshooting the engine problem (since he got it restarted), but he forgot to
fly the airplane- and crashed. Does this seeem like an accurate injterpretation
of the accident? |
| (GARYWMEEKS@MSN.COM)Are
you able to speculate as to what caused the engine out? Was the fuel old?
Mixed before the flight? |
| (ha030@sheridanc.on.ca)This
past week I had the opportunity to fly in seven ultralights at Sun-N-Fun in
Lakeland. Most guys turned on the Rotax and away they went with little or no
warm up. One pilot however run up the Rotax to over 6,000 rpm with me leaning
hard on the brakes. Was this a check to see if the engine would make it
through the take off? Can this help prevent an engine out on take off? I
don't know the answer, perhaps others can comment on this. |
| (dramsey@ro.com)Another thing a longer run up might do is
catch those few occasions when people accidently leave their fuel cut-off in the
off position and take off with just the fuel in their fuel line. |
| (BRUNYON%CMSUVMB@UKCC.uky.edu)....mechanics tell me that a
gradual warm up is the single most important thing you can do on an air cooled
engine. If you fail to do this parts of the engine heat up at different rates
and can cause serious long term damage. I think they said that the piston heats
& expands faster than the cylinder jacket, thereby causing a piston to be
traveling up & down in a cylinder that is smaller than it. It can cause the
engine to seize up |
| Where: | Baden-Wuerttemberg
- Germany |
| When: | April,
1996 |
| What: | RANS
Coyote XL with 503 Rotax engine |
| How: | Just after take-off the nose lifted to about 30 degrees then
fell. The plane went into a near-vertical dive. |
| Injuries: |
Pilot and passenger killed on impact |
| Training & Experience of Pilot: | Pilot
was a private pilot, licensed instructor, former jet pilot with a great deal of
experience. |
| Notes: |
The plane was equipped with a ballistic parachute, but it was
not activated. Preliminary investigation indicates the connecting screw of the
elevator pushrod was broken, but at time of report investigation was not yet
complete. |
| Where: | Sumperk,
Czech Republic |
| When: | May 26, 1996 |
| What: | Unspecified trike with SVS1400 engine |
| How: | Pilot attempted to perform a
loop in the trike. The wing separated from the rest of the trike at
approximately 3,000 feet. |
| Injuries: |
Fatal. |
| Training &
Experience of Pilot: | Highly experienced pilot, 3rd in
'94 World Championship, had flown over the Himalayas at 7200m (23,000+ feet) in
a trike, and had experience in other aircraft and in aerobatics in non-trike
aircraft. |
| Notes: |
Prior to this accident, he had attempted a loop in a trike,
which was unsuccessful although he survived. A trike is not suited to loops as
this pilot proved. There was no emergency parachute on either the trike or
the pilot although ironically the pilot was a dealer for a Czech ballistic
parachute maker. Not all aircraft are suited to aerobatics. |
| Where: | Longview,
Texas - United States |
| When: | June 9 or 10, 1996 |
| What: | Challenger II |
| How: | Collision with farm machinery while landing |
| Injuries: |
Pilot and passenger killed |
| Training
& Experience of Pilot: | Pilot had just completed
his training. Passenger was a private pilot. |
| Notes: |
Unclear whether this was a legal flight (to be legal either
this was a training flight or the Challenger was N-numbered as an airplane) or
not. Because two people were involved, the FAA is supposedly investigating this
crash. Be alert for obstacles in your flight path, especially when close to
the ground. |
| Where: | Woodland,
Washington - United States |
| When: | June 22, 1996 |
| What: | Possibly a Caspar wing or look alike - person reporting was
unclear due to how mangled the wreckage was |
| How: | Loss of control on
take-off. Plane climbed to 100-300 feet, then "lost its lift"
according to report |
| Injuries: | Pilot killed |
| Training &
Experience of Pilot: | Minimal - no prior experience in
aircraft of any kind, just learning to fly |
| Notes: |
Elderly gentleman just learning to fly. Had no previous
experience in any kind of a/c. Was seen taxiing his grandson up and down the
field. A local pilot felt this pilot did not have enough skill yet and suggested
(he said he was nice about it) that the gentlemen get more experience. The local
pilot later advised he was told to "mind his own business"...which he
said he did. The next flight the a/c "left the runway, climbed much too
quickly, and then stalled into a spin which it looked like the pilot was trying
to come out of when he hit, almost vertically" per the eye-witness report
on tv |
| Selected from discussion of incident, causes,
and possible solutions from the ultralight mailing list, FLY-UL: |
| (from Jcasper@woodbridge.dynatech.com) "I just went
to the meeting of USUA Club #1 on Aug. 1st, and all members received an update
on the FAA investigation into the crash of [the pilot's] Quicksilver....
According to the findings, the cause was a structural failure of the STEEL seat
support tube that runs under the seat, and up to the root tube. This is,
according to the other members, the only steel tube in the entire QS frame.
Apparently what had happened is that the tube filled up with water, and rotted
from the inside. The tube was solid/plugged at the bottom, and rain or
condensation built up inside, corroding it so badly that it the Inspectors
could deform the tube by pushing on it with one finger in spots. Anyone with a
Quicksilver who leaves it outside, might want to do a thorough inspection on
this part. Apparently there is no drain hole drilled at the bottom end of the
tube, which will allow rain/condensation to build up inside. One person on the
list wanted to know why the 'chute went thru the prop. Well, when this tube
failed, it allowed one wing to fold upwards, pulling the whole wheel axle
assembly up with it, deforming the entire frame, and apparently redirecting the
BRS upwards into the prop, instead of staying pointed downwards. The parachute
deployed, but never fully opened. Apparently, all Quicks have this steel
underseat support tube, so anyone who parks theirs outside should probably
double-check this part for softness. And maybe drill a small weep hole at the
bottom end." |
| (from
Jcasper@woodbridge.dynatech.com) I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN MODIFYING ANY
FLYING MACHINE, BUT A TINY PIN-SIZED HOLE SHOULDN'T COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF
THE TUBING ( WOULD IT, EXPERTS? ) |
| (from
truex@ncweb.com) I don't know about the Quick part you're discussing, but
there are places that one more hole in a tube(or other member) will cause it to
be less than the desired strength. Check with the designer or manufacturer
before drilling any unspecified holes in a structural member. |
| (from SYSDCW@atscv1.atsc.allied.com) "Given what I
have heard so far (in -one- posting on this group), I think a careful inspection
of the steel tubing of -any- craft would be in order. Structural degradation
from the inside out is not a new problem in aviation, steel, aluminum, wood, all
can have bad things going on under a smooth, shiney coat of paint. Piper
ragwings have an AD requiring original struts to be punch- tested every two
years. Certain Beechcraft V-tails had alloy sheeting on the tail surfaces that
would corrode in the grain of the metal, turning it to a crumbly rotted paper
consistancy. So now we know that a plane doesn't have to be old or complex to
fall victim. Do your pre-flights. Do your annual (or more frequent) full
inspections. Suspect -any- low areas where moisture can collect. Suspect -any-
areas where dissimilar metals join. Suspect any area that is subject to
vibration or wide temperature variations. BTW - the NTSB -preliminary- report
on the accident, found at http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/IAD/96A116.htm, says the
craft was a Quicksilver Sprint. Also take note of the fact that they view the
craft as being "unregistered" operating under Pt91, not Pt103,
supposedly due to a gas jug amoung the baggage." |
| (from rbennett@oasis.novia.net) This is just my 2 cents
worth on the possible problem with the steel cross over tube on Quicksilvers. I
am not an expert but it seems to me a simple cure would be to 1st: inspect the
tube for rust, water, and strength, second: if found to be still usable I would
clean the inside of the tube with compressed air and or a brush, rag tied to a
rope or what ever, and finally: seal the ends of the tube with silicon or some
other type of water proof sealant. If you are not concerned about a few ounces
of weight you could even fill the tube all the way with the sealant. This should
not weaken the tube, but it would protect it from any further damage by
moisture. |
| (from
czarnijc@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu) An FAA approved method of doing this would
be to use "Tubeseal," an internal tubing corrosion inhibitor marketed
by Stits. This stuff is a blend of oil that you pour into one end of the tubing
and it climbs the walls to spread over the internal surface of the structure.
It's about $7/quart, one of which would probably do dozens of quicks (1.5 cc/lin
foot 1" dia tubing). Ideally, the structure should be sealed after
treatment. Probably not possible with all the bolt holes, though. |
| (from "Cautionary Tales Feedback",
mpmrc@nbnet.nb.ca)Reading accident report on the "Quicksilver Spirit"
I disagree with the comments about silicon being used to help prevent
corrosion. Silicon promotes rust in steel and electrical connections and I don't
think it would be wise to use it to fill a structural tube to help prevent
corrosion. The special oil "Tubeseal" or similar product suggested
would be a much safer solution. |
| Where: | Norwalk,
Ohio USA |
| When: | August
24, 1996 |
| What: | Trike
(particular type not specified) |
| How: | Pilot had been performing loops cleanly and consistently. As he
exited his last loop, he appparently planed out, flying straight, dropping
slowly and gaining a bit of speed. Then, according to witness, the nose SLOWLY
rose and rose and rose with no apparent pilot input and no attempt to turn the
wing. Once the trike climbed to vertical, the trike went into a tail slide,
tumbled, and broke up. The altitude was about 1800' when he entered the tail
slide. There was no attempt to deploy the recently installed parachute. |
| Injuries: | Fatal |
| Experience & Training of Pilot: | Pilot
had been flying since he was 16, held multiple ratings including multiengine and
instrument ratings, former hang gliding instructor. |
| Selected from discussion of incident, causes,
and possible solutions from the ultralight mailing list, FLY-UL: |
| (from AVISAUTO@aol.com) [This] accident is certainly a
tragedy for all ultralighters, and hits very close to home for me. This, by my
recollection, is the third trike fatality mentioned on this list in the last few
months. Two of the three involved the performance of aerobatic maneuvers, and
two involved steep ascents agravating stalls. In my estimation, the only
conceivable way a trike could initiate a vertical ascent from level flight,
would be under full power, and with some positive pitch input (bar out). I
cannot see how this could be construed as "no...pilot input"....It
might also be of interest to know how widespread the practice of trike loops is.
My understanding has always been that trikes are inherently unsuitable for
aerobatics. |
| (from H.G.Denton@lboro.ac.uk)
I fly a Flash 1 with a Fuji Robin 440 here in the UK. I have it on a reliable
authority that this type has been looped. I can't see how it could be done from
level flight - but I do remember in my early post-qualification flying in a
moment of exuberance (dangerous stuff) I put the nose down and then did what I
thought would be a "little swoop". The nose went up like it had never
done before - well beyond the max pitch advised for the machine. I just managed
to hold it at the top - but I was very close to either a very sharp stall or a
tail slide. Terrified the life out of me - I have always flown very sensibly
since! If I had really built the speed and had the guts to keep that nose up I
suppose it would have gone round. Some of the more modern trikes over here have
engines on them that allow quite incredible rates of climb - I would have
thought the potential for fun/trouble might be increased - though I do not mean
that powerful engines are inherently dangerous. I note that the tike fatalities
I have read about often follow the pressure on the control bar building so
rapidly that it is snatched from the pilot's hands and hits the front downtube
so hard both break. This has even broken internal back-up wires and the sudden
stress on the main vertical tube to the wing has broken it - wing and trike part
company. Could something be done to prevent massive and sudden bar pressure
other than the obvious - flying sensibly? |
| (from
R.A.Benson@tees.ac.uk) I am a low hours trike pilot currently undergoing
solo training in the UK an have never heard of a trike performing loops. All
our machines have notices forbidding aerobatic manoevres at all times. Is it
normal for trikes to be flown in this way in the US. If so, how on earth do you
manage to maintain positive wing loading and avoid the trike unit falling
through the wing - are we talking seriously high speed entries here? Also,
regarding the nose rising to vertical with no apparent pilot input, The only
way that I can envisage anything like a vertical climb is by using full
throttle and control bar pushed *Hard* forwards. Again a vertical climb could
only be attained by a very high speed entry to this manoevre. I can't see how
this situation could occur without significant pilot input. |
| Where: | Chicago,
Illinois area, USA |
| When: | September 1, 1996 |
| What: | Titan Tornado, 2-place (legally registered as homebuilt with
N-numbers) |
| How: | According
to his passenger who survived the crash, they had been flying along the
shoreline doing aerobatic maneuvers for the crowds on the beach. The passenger
said that he just kept getting crazier and crazier with his maneuvers --
probably in response to the crowd. During a hammer head stall, his engine quit
and he was too low to recover. Upon impact with the water, the wing separated
from the plane, allowing the passenger to escape. He either died from a broken
neck or by drowning or both - the cause of death hasn't been determined yet. |
| Injuries: | Fatal to pilot,
passenger survived |
| Training & Experience
of Pilot: | Pilot had a PPSEL (private pilot) and was
taking aerobatic lessons. |
| Notes: | He had a history of performing low-level aerobatics and had been
cited by his flying club twice in the past year for this. |
| Where: | Maple Lake,
MN, USA |
| When: | October
3, 1996 |
| What: | T-Bird
Tandem, legal ultralight trainer under US regulations |
| How: | Local television reported the
crash and had helicopter footage of the crash site. The left wing was flat on
the ground and obviously destroyed. The right wing and tail were up in the air
and appeared to be un-damaged. The extent of cockpit damage was not evident
from the film footage.
The FAA was called by the Sherrif's office to
investigate the crash. Since our ultralight community has a good working
relationship with our local FSDO they went out to look at the crash even knowing
that it involved an ultralight. [Note: in the United States, the usual
aviation authorities - FAA and NTSB - are not obligated to investigate an
ultralight crash and frequently don't.] First accounts were that there was
only about a 20 foot circle of corn knocked down around the ultralight
indicating a high angle of impact. Witnesses say that the ultralight "fell
out of the sky". Some said they heard the engine surge, get quiet, and
then surge again.
The training ultralight was based out of a nearby airport and was
probably out on a routine training flight. The instructor and student wore a
standard headset with no helmet. They were equipped with an intercom and VHF
radio. This ultralight was not equipped with a ballistic recovery parachute.
After navigating to the Maple Lake airport the instructor and student maintained
normal radio communication and were following a right-hand traffic pattern.
They had just announced a turn from base to final approach just before the
crash. They went down in a corn field approximately 500 feet short and 100 feet
left of the runway threshold. It's possible that they had turned from base to
final about 100 feet left of the runway centerline and made a tight turn to get
back on track. The tight bank could have caused an accelerated stall resulting
in a spin. The crash site and wreckage support a spin and near vertical descent
theory. Wind could have also been a contributing factor. We examined the
wreckage for possible control failure and found none. All linkages were intact
except for an elevator connection at the rear control stick which appeared to
have been sheared off on impact. The engine was probably running on impact due
to one broken propeller blade about a third of the way down from the hub. It
was equipped with a two-blade Warp Drive propeller. The left wing obviously
impacted the ground first bending the outboard leading edge at about a 45 degree
angle back for about the first two feet. The outboard trailing edge was broken
off from the tip to the first compression strut. The entire wing was bent in a
curved manner right up to the root. The inboard leading and trailing edges were
broken off but the struts were still attached. The right wing and tail were
virtually untouched except for one bent tail tube on the left side. The left
landing gear was bent underneath the fuselage and had a very flat spot on the
aluminium rim. The front tire and fork assembly were broken off but not visibly
damaged. The cockpit was very badly damaged. Nearly every support tube,
including the steel tubes, were either broken off or completely gone. We don't
know how much of this could have been caused by rescue crews but most connection
points appeared to have been sheared off by the impact. Four-point harnesses
were in use but the impact broke off most of the connection points. Both
instrument panels were missing as well as most of the windshield, doors, and
fibreglass pod. Both plywood seat supports were broken. The gas tank was
ruptured and was found away from the wreckage. We presume the tank was moved
away by rescue crews fearing a fire. Overall the cockpit was squashed down and
mostly to the left side.
|
| Injuries: | Fatal (presumed,
not stated explicitly in report) |
| Experience &
Training of Pilot: | Experienced instructor described as
"by the book" |
| Notes: |
It is possible this was caused by too tight a turn in
a landing pattern, leading to a stall/spin at low altitude. As a tandem, with
one person sitting in front of the other, each with their own controls, it is
possible that the student and instructor got into a "tug-of-war"
with the controls. However, all this is speculation. Although a crash
unquestionably occurred, it is not at all certain what happened to cause it. |
| Where: | San Matero
State: Nuevo Leon, Mexico |
| When: | December 7, 1996 |
| What: |
Rans S12-XL with a Rotax 582 engine |
| How: | Pilot made a steep bank (60+
degrees, possibly as great as 80 degrees) right after take off. Plane went into
a spin too low to the ground (50-60 feet) to permit recovery.
Witnesses
said at the time of the crash there were 10-15 knot (11-17 mph) cross-winds, but
the pilot had been flying just before the accident for about an hour without any
problems due to metereological conditions. |
| Injuries: | Pilot killed on
impact. Co-Pilot injured |
| Experience &
Training of Pilot: | 2,200 hours experience. Held
private pilot license with instrument, twin engine, and jet certification. Flew
a Citation on a regular basis. One report said 10 hours experience in the RANS,
another said 5 hours. In any case, little experience in type. |
| Notes: |
Pilot was not using a shoulder harness. It was unclear if
that would have prevented death, but it might have helped.
Niether
pilot nor co-pilot was wearing a helmet. This may or may not have affected the
type or degree of injuries suffered.
There was no ballistic recovery
parachute (BRP) on the plane. Although some very low "saves" have
been made with such 'chutes, given the very small amount of time it would have
to deploy at such an altitude it is by no means certain that BRP would have been
of use. |