RV6 incident,South Australia

[scrollF4]

Great debate...and it?s an ongoing one regarding strengths/weaknesses of the A model nose strut, pilot techniques, modifications, etc.

NONE of this identifies the mishap?s cause. Please observe VAF Posting Rule #2: No speculation on the cause.
http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm

[Hornet2008]

There is a dirt cross strip at WC.

[Malndi]

Passing through that region a couple days ago I saw the notam for William Creek said runway 03/21 was closed due disabled aircraft, that?s the gravel cross strip.

[Malndi]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2019-037/

[Capt]

I went and took a look at the wreck when it was pushed into a shed up there, what a mess, the two occupants where damed lucky to even survive! The so called 'Anti-Splat' didn't do a thing, other than keep that small length of leg straight, the rest folded up like a plastic drinking straw! Personally I would never own an A model but that's just my opinion.

[Captain Avgas]

Interesting that the ATSB pointed out that the Anti-Splat nose brace was not effective in this accident.

[AlexPeterson]

It is unfortunate that the style of nose wheel bearings was not reported. See my earlier post in this thread.

[Malndi]

The ATSB did not say the antispat device was not effective. The report notes that the brace was intended to increase rigidity and transfer forces to the top of the strut - where it is thickest. It then points out that ?The principal deformation was the bending in the aft direction at the top of the strut, near the engine mount?. In other words the brace did what it was intended to do.

The analysis found the strut or fork must have contacted the runway ?imparting significant forces on the gear assembly and initiating the damage sequence?.

My reading of the report is that the brace ?did not prevent the accident? because the forces involved in the landing exceeded the capacity of the strut and the brace, not because the brace was ineffective.

[flightlogic]

"significant forces" can hurt, if applied in an abnormal manner.
My RV9A can hurt me... if I am not careful. So can my Ford SUV.
Vigilance on landing an A model is of utmost importance.
Glad they both survived.

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by Malndi

My reading of the report is that the brace “did not prevent the accident” because the forces involved in the landing exceeded the capacity of the strut and the brace, not because the brace was ineffective.

Well that’s YOUR reading of the report....it’s your interpretation...but it’s not what the report actually says. I have the Antisplat Nose Job on my RV7A but I’m now inclined to believe that it’s effectiveness is very questionable. I have a sneaking suspicion that the comfort that the device provides to builders and pilots comes more from the placebo effect than the actual performance.

My advice to RV pilots is to keep the nose wheel off the ground whenever there is elevator authority available to do so (take-off or landing). Plopping an RV down virtually flat on landing is a recipe for disaster, whether you have an Anti-splat brace or not.