Dan Lloyd RV-10 "Factual" report out...

[Kahuna]

Don't you dare.
Rant on.

[Steve Brown]

I'm very sorry he got killed, but I'm so glad he was alone and didn't kill anyone on the ground.

From the sound of that report, the only thing in doubt was which flight he would get killed on.

The list of problems is long and horrifying, but a few summery points stood out to me:

1-In a hurry, in a hurry, in a hurry, in a hurry....................................
2-Low time pilot acting as test pilot of a truly experimental airplane.
3-Builder who seems to lack a basic understanding of his airplane

I think #2 & #3 are very troubling, but probably would not have killed him if it were not for #1.

There has been some commenting to the effect that others should have intervened. My opinion:
After 911, none of us is going to let a couple of crazies with box cutters get control of a commercial airplane. Hindsight is 20-20. I think there may be lessons to be learned about exactly and when you should aggressively put your nose into someone else's business. However, the flip side is that if you push someone too hard with good advice, they may shut you out and you loose all ability to influence them. Anyway, this aspect is something to think about, but I would not blame others for what this guy did.

It seemed to me that this was someone who should not have been building an airplane because he didn't understand how they work, and he didn't have the patience to proceed methodically and learn. He also did not have the piloting skill or temperament to be test pilot of that airplane.

This was 100% his responsibility.

"A man has got to know his limitations". Pilots who don't are going to get killed eventually.

For me, reading this reinforces what I already knew about myself: I tend to be in a hurry all the time. I already deliberately force myself to slow down when flying and maintaining my airplane and I need to keep doing that if I want to live. This is the same reason that it is not clear to me that I have the temperament to build an airplane myself. If I can maintain mine over a period of years without doing something incredibly stupid, then I might attempt it.

[islandmonkey]

This guy deserves a Darwin Award. It seems he had a total common sense bypass.

I have every sympathy for this guy's family for their loss. However I have no sympathy for the pilot. Because of this guy's stupidity, there is now a family without a husband or a father. Thank goodness there was no one else hurt.

It is actions like this that give the Experimental community a bad press and lead to rules and restrictions that everyone then has to comply with.

[tomcostanza]

When I was learning to fly, my instructor gave me a stack of NTSB reports to read. The following phrases still come to mind 30 years later:

Failure to obtain/maintain airspeed...
Inadequate pre-flight preparations...
Continued VFR into IFR conditions...

Perhaps concerned DARs and EAA tech counselors should compile a list of reports similar to this RV10 disaster, and leave copies with ALL builders they encounter. Maybe Doug would like to collect a few and make them available for downloading.

The only way for me to make sense of this tragedy is if this one life can save many others.

[Danny7]

Originally Posted by Steve Brown

For me, reading this reinforces what I already knew about myself: I tend to be in a hurry all the time. I already deliberately force myself to slow down when flying and maintaining my airplane and I need to keep doing that if I want to live. This is the same reason that it is not clear to me that I have the temperament to build an airplane myself. If I can maintain mine over a period of years without doing something incredibly stupid, then I might attempt it.

"the temperament to build an airplane"

knowing several factory workers, working at a kitplane factory assistance shop, and hearing stories from cessna factories, i think anyone with a high school degree can build the airframe of a plane.

Now if someone wants to hone in on some specifics and say you need a continuing education to be a pilot and the mechanic for a finished home built, sounds good.

I wonder how many airplanes were built in factories by many people with no more education than a high school diploma. schucks, i'll bet all that is really required for 90% of the manual tasks is passing grades in shop class or a willingness to learn what is acceptable construction and to build to that standard, no matter how many times it takes to re-do.

[rv6ejguy]

After reading Kahuna's rant, I have a few observations:

In the end, yes, the cause of the crash appears to be a result of a poor cable crimp and speculatively a failure to maintain flight speed. None of the other factors mentioned appear to have had a direct result on the crash. However there are many things we can learn here I think outside direct causes.

These reports are to educate others to possibly prevent someone from making the same mistakes again. In that it goes into unusual detail simply points to the unusual chain of events and the fact that some of the story leading up to the event was documented in E-mails. These details do have bearing on how some people think, justify and ultimately act. I think we can all learn from that too.

Kahuna is right that we all accept risks in life and flying and I agree that is our choice however when it impacts others we should give careful thought as to what we are doing. It is doubly tragic when some fool takes another life or lives with him in a senseless accident because he does not realize the potential risk he is putting others in. Not only are family lives shattered but sometimes even more regulation is brought down on the rest of the surviving aviation community. In this case, only Dan paid the ultimate price for his mistakes but it is a chilling thought that had this test flight been successful, his whole family would have been put at risk on the very next flight.

In that dead pilots are often taken to task by their peers after reading an accident report, that's the way it is and that is not likely to change any time soon. Once you are dead, that won't concern you too much. Should this bother anyone a lot, my suggestion is to evaluate your choices and decisions on the ground and in the air and make smart ones as much as you can. Maybe we won't have to read about you.

Sorry to say but many accidents are the result of purely stupid decisions and this is not just with the benefit of hindsight- some reasonable thought on the subject would have revealed these decisions as imprudent at the time with the facts available at the time. It is the simple truth that repeated "high risk" activities do indeed put you at higher risk of eventual injury.

When faced with a situation, we can only do our best under the circumstances. Putting yourself in the seat with the facts available at the time to a pilot and realistically evaluating how you would have reacted is often enlightening. Often you might say, I would have done the same things. We do learn something that way.

It is unfathomable however to see time and time again yet another stall accident after power loss. (not saying that is what happened in this case for certain) I really believe training and paying attention to flying basics like airspeed can prevent most of these accidents from being fatal. I've often thought that we should have a big yellow arrow sticker on the ASI for best glide speed so we don't have to think about that while we sort out the rest of getting down safely. Train to look at the ASI every 5 seconds in engine out training or any time you are below 500 feet for that matter with the engine running.

Dan Lloyd's accident is high profile and has garnered lots of attention and discussion. Perhaps a few people will remember some of the lessons here and how they might apply to their building and flying. I sure hope to.

I wouldn't shoot the messenger here. They have simply presented facts, not drawn any conclusions so far. It is a free world for people reading the facts to interpret them as they want and to express those feelings. Fair? Perhaps not but I think the discussion is useful nevertheless.

[terrykohler]

Kahuna:
Every accident/incident is a learning opportunity. Hopefully, the end result is that it will prevent someone else from heading down the same road. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that the lessons are often times lost. Reading this accident report is like a primer on aeronautical decision making.
The Rules are for Someone Else - Test flights, work standards, documentation - not for me.
I'm helpless - Don't understand my own flight systems. I'll just ignore them rather than calibrate and learn them. If things go really wrong, I give up.
Invinceable - I'll just fly by the seat of my pants, who needs input.

As to the cause of the accident, are you suggesting that everyone accept the issue was a lost electrical connection and let it go at that? The FAA report suggests a chain of nearly unbelievable events. Each one certainly a learning opportunity for both pilots and builders. This report should be required reading at every EAA chapter meeting in the coming weeks.

You speak about your "freedom", and I agree that we live in a great country where much of what we do we consider as our "rights". Unfortunately, all too often, poorly exercising those rights has an impact on others. Had this "test" flight been successful and the connection let go the following day, the point would perhaps be clearer.

I close by offering that sometime during nearly every flight lesson, I'm able to offer an example of poor decision making or airmanship that's happened in the past 38 years. It's usually presented in the form of "One time, this friend of mine..." Of course, the student always knows who "this friend" is. Hopefully, some of it will sink in deeply.

Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

[allbee]

This thread is going on and on, but that is ok. What I think is something is the situation around this happening. Here is a guy that has broken pretty much all the rules, rules of the FAA as well as common sense. What motivates a person to bypass everything to put blinders on and do what is the wrong thing, just to make it so a totally experimental engine can, "make it". With total disregard to safety and not only that, this is a fresh pilot to boot. Just doesn't make sense.

What I hope WON'T happen from all this is new standards brought out to limit what we as responsible builders and flyers' can do in the future. This, I hope, is an isolated cercumstance that will just fade away but NOT be forgotten.

Be careful out there, there is nothing like the proven. Enjoy the hobbie.

[rv6ejguy]

Perhaps something that has not been touched on so much here is the electrical system layout on engines equipped with electrically dependent EIs and/or EFI. Careful thought should be given to design and operation of the primary and backup systems. I can suggest a few points to ponder:

1. Backup systems probably should not rely on the primary contactor, battery or wiring to the main bus

2. Automatic switching of backups needs to be carefully constructed and designed

3. Consider redundant ground wires for critical systems as well. A broken ground path is just as critical as power paths.

I am wondering how many Lycoming installations equipped with twin electrically dependent EIs have backup electrical systems fitted?

It might be a good time to review your system design and emergency procedures.

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

Perhaps something that has not been touched on so much here is the electrical system layout on engines equipped with electrically dependent EIs and/or EFI. Careful thought should be given to design and operation of the primary and backup systems. I can suggest a few points to ponder:

1. Backup systems probably should not rely on the primary contactor, battery or wiring to the main bus

2. Automatic switching of backups needs to be carefully constructed and designed

3. Consider redundant ground wires for critical systems as well. A broken ground path is just as critical as power paths.

I am wondering how many Lycoming installations equipped with twin electrically dependent EIs have backup electrical systems fitted?

It might be a good time to review your system design and emergency procedures.

I'll add a few more:

4. If safety depends on backup systems, the response to failure of the primary system should be demonstrated. This testing should be done on the ground, if possible. I've participated in more than one test, on aircraft from multiple manufacturers, where the response to failure of a major primary system was different from what had been predicted. Some of these bad responses would probably have resulted in an accident had they occurred in service.

5. If safety depends on backup systems, the serviceability of those backup systems should be checked at some reasonable interval.

6. Emergency procedures should not only be reviewed, they should be practiced. Too many people are killed because the pilot mishandles an engine failure.

7. System failure procedures should not only be reviewed, they should be practiced. I'm aware of multiple fatal accidents where the accident was caused by poor pilot response to a switchover to a backup system.