What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Accident/Incident UN prevented

Cadstat

Well Known Member
What more could I have done?
I watched my buddy in the next hanger finish his Zenair 701 over the last year. I warned him about the high speed taxi that I have seen damage so many light weight, low inertia planes and Ultralights. I offered to take him up in the RV for a little refresher. He said he would rent a Cessna before flying. He took a factory demo in type 2 years ago.
I wasn't there when he accidently lifted off last Thursday during a high speed taxi, cut the power and 'wheel barrowed' into the runway several times. Plane was not yet signed off. Prop gone and nose wheel almost through the floor board. Structural warps evident. Not quite a total. I feel I should have prevented this but how? Insurance in effect 2 weeks.
 
Sounds like your taking the blame for his lack of planning and fore thought?

Obviously you told him not to, even offered to take him flying. Aside from teaching him common sense and doing his own research not sure nor should you feel like you failed in this situation.
 
You feel bad for the guy but not your fault the guy passed up your very kind offer for some RV stick time to freshen up his rusty skills.

I just don't understand people lifting off during high speed taxi tests. If your stall speed is 50 knots, you pull back the throttle at 35- dirt simple. I did 30+ of these in my RV trying to solve a shimmy issue and test the unknown engine/prop/gearbox combo. Never came close to lifting off once because I called it quits at 40 knots every time and always did the tests in calm conditions.

The guy showed poor judgement in this case- twice. Maybe he needed this sort of brutal wakeup call before he really hurt himself later on.
 
This reminds me of the meeting with Mark Giron at Oshkosh and Paul Rosales talking about a person who he knows is building and about to fly unsafely.

Fools walk among us.
 
Now comes the test of the insurance company's integrity. Will they attempt to deny coverage because the plane was flown, inadvertantly, without an A/W certificate?
I'd like to hear of the outcome, good or bad, and the name of the company. Just for my info.
 
Short of taking his keys away (which you couldn't legally do), I can't think of anything else - you did more than many would have! The truth is, if he didn't take anyone else with him, then frankly (as cruel as it may sound), he "got what he paid for"....

BTW - the problem with high speed taxi's is that too many folks who try to do them don't have the experience to do them right - they accelerate faster than expected, and sudden;ly find themselves flying. Although we tell people "don't do them", the long-form answer is actually "don't' do them unless you have the correct experience, have practiced, and have a legitimate reason for doing them (finding a particular problem, or testing an honestly knew airplane design).
 
The secret of life

A man was searching for the secret of life. He went to the mountain top to see the wise guru, and asked him "What is the secret of life?"

The guru replied "Good Judgment."

The man thought for a minute, and asked the guru "Well, how do I get good judgment?"

The guru answered, "Bad judgment!"
 
I recently also had the bad experience of finding out that the gent I had just given 5 hours plus, of transition training in his new-to-him -9A, folded his nosegear under, bent the prop and crank flange, bent motor mount and damaged lower cowling. Luckily, it stayed upright.

It was on our EAA airfield, The Pea Patch, 2,700' long and reasonably smooth. We did many, many landings and quite a few go-arounds and I had shown him the latest he could land and get stopped.

The day of the accident, he was in a hurry to get back to the Pea Patch because of approaching thunderstorms and landed long and hard and bounced and stuffed the nosegear on the subsequent nose dive.

He later said that he shouldn't have landed but instead gone around.

I felt sick for days and my wife consoled me. He had been seen doing many nice nose-high landings alone, since the training and was very comfortable in the airplane. I had suggested that he practise a dozen or more landings there before he took his wife or friends up and he did.

That's the way it goes.

Best,
 
High Speed Taxi Tests

I thought long and hard about how I was going to taxi-test my -8A. The answer was there in numerous articles published by Vans: Don't do taxi tests beyond published stall / liftoff speeds unless you are prepared for Plan B. Even then, don't do it! Bad things have repeatedly been shown to happen to the unprepared.

Funny how we have lately seen a series of posterscomplain about the quality and quantity of info in Vans building instructions, but also seem to have a subset of folks ignore stuff that is published in great detail.
 
In the early '80s, I was at a local crop dusting strip that was used for glider towing on Sundays and there was a guy there giving instruction in an ultralight...he had a new student taxiing back and forth, and on one of his taxi trips, he lifted off, panicked, and hit the gas, up he went and for the next two minutes, we watched a real life "drunken farmer" airshow routine, which ended thankfully with his getting back on the ground safely somehow. The place was silent until someone yelled "cut off his shirttail!"...it could have very well ended up differently.
 
What does "integrity" mean?

Now comes the test of the insurance company's integrity. Will they attempt to deny coverage because the plane was flown, inadvertantly, without an A/W certificate?
I'd like to hear of the outcome, good or bad, and the name of the company. Just for my info.

Insurance company's integrity? Does integrity mean that they should pay the pilot, even though he's NOT done what the policy requires?
The insurance company will do exactly what the policy says it must do. If the pilot was paying for Not in Motion or Not in Flight coverage - which isn't unreasonable for a yet to be signed off project - then he'll get exactly what he paid for.

How much more would we all pay for insurance, if we expected them to pay for airplanes without requiring any underwriting?
 
When is "Not in Motion" in motion?

Jeff, if a pilot is attempting to start his engine, sees and smells smoke, and before he can find a fire extinguisher but after he has gotten out, the engine compartment erupts in flames which quickly destroy the whole plane...is this considered "Not in Motion?"

In other words, if he had only "not in motion" insurance, would the typical policy cover such a situation?

One of our RV builders here (here in these forums) lost an airplane in this manner (I have NO idea about his insurance coverage) and seeing his video brought that question to mind.
 
Last edited:
My insurance company told me pretty clearly that until I got the required transition training, i shouldn't even go ON the runway if I wanted to be covered. And so, I didn't.

I have done, subsequent to that training, a couple of "high speed taxis," in which I simulated a takeoff run and then shut down before I was airborne or shortly after airborne.

In both cases I was checking a specific change in the airplane that might have affected stability at those speeds -- adding wheelpants, for example or a tightened axle nut. In both cases I was fully prepared to fly and fully authorized to fly.

If I had tried it, however, before first flight and before transition training, there's no question I would end up off the side of the runway in a heap. I would have had no idea how much right rudder it takes to keep an RV centered compared to the spam cans I'd been renting.
 
You tried.

Don't beat yourself up over this. You did what you could. He will pay dearly for his judgement. Likely lose his license for a period of time.

I do not believe the insurance company should pay. Events like this is why we have high premiums.

Further, events like this are the exact reason the FAA is taking a more critical look at EAB. No aircraft should be allowed to move under its own power until it has been signed off. Just no reason. Brake tests etc.can be done after the pink slip is obtained.

Finally, high speed taxiing has no place in our homebuilt world. As Paul said, flight can occur very quickly.
 
There was an accident report in the most recent GA news magazine, which described an RV-6A fatality that was caused by the exact same scenario.
 
Jeff, if a pilot is attempting to start his engine, sees and smells smoke, and before he can find a fire extinguisher but after he has gotten out, the engine compartment erupts in flames which quickly destroy the whole plane...is this considered "Not in Motion?"

In other words, if he had only "not in motion" insurance, would the typical policy cover such a situation?

One of our RV builders here (here in these forums) lost an airplane in this manner (I have NO idea about his insurance coverage) and seeing his video brought that question to mind.

Policies are very clear in this regard. My GNIM (ground, not in motion) policy covers hull until the engine starts. Once the engine is running, the plane is in "motion". Ground in motion policies cover hull until you take the active runway.

No gray areas here. Very unlikely there would be an engine fire if the engine had never started in some fashion.
 
Last edited:
What more could I have done?
I watched my buddy in the next hanger finish his Zenair 701 over the last year. I warned him about the high speed taxi that I have seen damage so many light weight, low inertia planes and Ultralights. I offered to take him up in the RV for a little refresher. He said he would rent a Cessna before flying. He took a factory demo in type 2 years ago.
I wasn't there when he accidently lifted off last Thursday during a high speed taxi, cut the power and 'wheel barrowed' into the runway several times. Plane was not yet signed off. Prop gone and nose wheel almost through the floor board. Structural warps evident. Not quite a total. I feel I should have prevented this but how? Insurance in effect 2 weeks.

John,

We have had four fatalities in experimental aircraft in our area that everyone associated "saw" coming. In each case the doomed pilot was unwilling to accept any statements of concern for their dangerous situation....and while we were saddened by their loss......we were in no way surprised. I'm sure many on the forum have seen the same movie play out in their community.

Some people are just hard headed.
 
Sam, can you elaborate?

I'm not interested in names or even hints of names. I am interested in the behaviors you were referring to. This could help turn this into a real learning experience for many. It is a very good thread and I appreciate that John started it.
 
Finally, high speed taxiing has no place in our homebuilt world. As Paul said, flight can occur very quickly.

disagree... taxi is a required phase of flight operations and requires careful exploration just like every other. The term "high speed" is up for interpretation however.

Done correctly the risk is easily managed. Just because some loon messes it up doesn't negate the value when done with careful planning and diligence.

What I've witnessed too often is simply improper perspective and a focus on the speed rather than the handling qualities under evaluation. Too many pilots add the power as if they performing a normal take-off thinking they can chop the throttle to keep from exceeding rotation speed (minus a healthy margin). Unless they have experience with make/model/engine/prop combination judging the acceleration and throttle response is gonna be very tricky. Nothing in flight test should be tricky.

This is how I did it (with a well thought out test plan):

Planned Ground Speed DNE (Do Not Exceed) of 45mph,
Wind DNE 5mph,
no flaps,
aft CG,
45psi tire pressure
Test Day Conditions
6000ft paved runway (dry),
DNE 3000ft with power applied.
RPM DNE 1800 (max static of 2150 noted) = ~80% Take-off power
Airworthiness signed off, insurance active, pilot current.
Full aft stick throughout run, trim neutral
Normal throttle application from idle to specified RPM with concurrent brake release.

Run 1: 1000 RPM, noting ground speed per 1000ft marker. At halfway marker throttle to idle, moderate brake application, noting stopping distance. During the run noted any track, yaw, shimmy, vibrations. ~8mph @ 3000ft

Run 2: 1200 RPM ~14mph @3000ft
Run 3: 1400 RPM ~23mph @3000ft
Run 4: 1600 RPM ~ 36mph @3000ft
Run 5: 1675 RPM ~ 43mph @3000ft
No further runs completed as the ground speed DNE would have been exceeded.

It was valuable for several reasons: I was confident the plane would track straight at higher speeds, I was able to give the brakes a good break in, I began to get a feel for the acceleration potential and braking effectiveness prior to first take-off, and noted no adverse handling qualities issues. Airspeed came alive (Dynon Skyview) at ~ 30mph and matched well with GS (no wind). I also gained some foresight into CHT behavior and knew I would have some issues during flight (which I did) and therefore not surprised (surprises are not good in flight test). I also gained a great deal of insight into the pedal workload to maintain centerline with a rocket link installed and was happy for that during the first T/O and Landing.

The only thing dangerous about taxi testing are the pilots who do not give this test the same respect they would give any other phase I task.

Do it or don't, your choice. I found it to be very valuable and the risk easily mitigated through planning and execution.

.02
 
Insurance

I see I need to clarify my post. I assumed (my error?) that full, in motion insurance was in force, with all pic requirements met, etc. I wanted to know if the company would attempt to deny coverage solely due to an FAR having been inadvertantly violated.
I am as unhappy as everyone else that my insurance premiums help pay for carelessness or high risk taking; but I also don't want to be with a company that might deny coverage due to a technicality that had nothing to do with the accident.
 
Type of thinking

How many time have I put myself at risk with the "Full of my self" or " I can handle it" feeling typical of late teens. Honestly, as an adult?? With or without an airplane? I watched a friend scare himself, me, and his hole family this last week over this type of thinking. Another incident in Denali Park the day after I was there, cost someone their life. I have taken kind of a "saftey stand down" for some calm quite reflection and deliberation of all my past and current behaviors.
We all of could benefit by looking in, and sharing with those close to us our mistakes. When one person brings something to my attention, my thinking is suspect. When two or more people bring the same issue up, then my thinking must be flawed. I have learned to accept that my judgement is bad without understanding why, just trusting that the people who care about me know what they are talking about. Put my inflated ego down long enough to be open to understanding.
Franklin said about pride, and I am para phrasing, that pride is so sneaky that if he were rid of it, he is sure he would be proud of that fact.
 
Last year one of our local guys perished in an airplane that he honestly shouldn't have been flying.

The airplane had been sitting for years in the same hangar as my RV and was in a terrible state of disrepair.

Factual

Probable Cause

I saw him three days before the accident and tried to get him to put the plane on a flatbed trailer sitting behind the hangar and drive it to Florida to the man he was selling it to (who was going to re-build it anyway) but he insisted on getting it there by air.

Many probably think that I should feel guilty, but I honestly don't. I spoke my mind and that was it. Nothing short of the airplane not actually making it off the ground was going to prevent him from trying to fly it to Florida.

I speak my mind when people do things I consider to be unsafe. And for God's sake I hope everyone else challenges me in the same way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
disagree... taxi is a required phase of flight operations and requires careful exploration just like every other. The term "high speed" is up for interpretation however.

Done correctly the risk is easily managed. Just because some loon messes it up doesn't negate the value when done with careful planning and diligence.

What I've witnessed too often is simply improper perspective and a focus on the speed rather than the handling qualities under evaluation. Too many pilots add the power as if they performing a normal take-off thinking they can chop the throttle to keep from exceeding rotation speed (minus a healthy margin). Unless they have experience with make/model/engine/prop combination judging the acceleration and throttle response is gonna be very tricky. Nothing in flight test should be tricky.

This is how I did it (with a well thought out test plan):

Planned Ground Speed DNE (Do Not Exceed) of 45mph,
Wind DNE 5mph,
no flaps,
aft CG,
45psi tire pressure
Test Day Conditions
6000ft paved runway (dry),
DNE 3000ft with power applied.
RPM DNE 1800 (max static of 2150 noted) = ~80% Take-off power
Airworthiness signed off, insurance active, pilot current.
Full aft stick throughout run, trim neutral
Normal throttle application from idle to specified RPM with concurrent brake release.

Run 1: 1000 RPM, noting ground speed per 1000ft marker. At halfway marker throttle to idle, moderate brake application, noting stopping distance. During the run noted any track, yaw, shimmy, vibrations. ~8mph @ 3000ft

Run 2: 1200 RPM ~14mph @3000ft
Run 3: 1400 RPM ~23mph @3000ft
Run 4: 1600 RPM ~ 36mph @3000ft
Run 5: 1675 RPM ~ 43mph @3000ft
No further runs completed as the ground speed DNE would have been exceeded.

It was valuable for several reasons: I was confident the plane would track straight at higher speeds, I was able to give the brakes a good break in, I began to get a feel for the acceleration potential and braking effectiveness prior to first take-off, and noted no adverse handling qualities issues. Airspeed came alive (Dynon Skyview) at ~ 30mph and matched well with GS (no wind). I also gained some foresight into CHT behavior and knew I would have some issues during flight (which I did) and therefore not surprised (surprises are not good in flight test). I also gained a great deal of insight into the pedal workload to maintain centerline with a rocket link installed and was happy for that during the first T/O and Landing.

The only thing dangerous about taxi testing are the pilots who do not give this test the same respect they would give any other phase I task.

Do it or don't, your choice. I found it to be very valuable and the risk easily mitigated through planning and execution.

.02

Gotta agree with everything said here. A detailed proper plan in place prior to starting the engine with good safety margins in place. This is not rocket science, just common sense. People with the "light the fire, let's go" complacent mentality are going to get bitten eventually, especially when test flying. Do it right or get someone else to do it for you.
 
disagree... taxi is a required phase of flight operations and requires careful exploration just like every other. The term "high speed" is up for interpretation however.

Done correctly the risk is easily managed. Just because some loon messes it up doesn't negate the value when done with careful planning and diligence.

What I've witnessed too often is simply improper perspective and a focus on the speed rather than the handling qualities under evaluation. Too many pilots add the power as if they performing a normal take-off thinking they can chop the throttle to keep from exceeding rotation speed (minus a healthy margin). Unless they have experience with make/model/engine/prop combination judging the acceleration and throttle response is gonna be very tricky. Nothing in flight test should be tricky.

This is how I did it (with a well thought out test plan):

Planned Ground Speed DNE (Do Not Exceed) of 45mph,
Wind DNE 5mph,
no flaps,
aft CG,
45psi tire pressure
Test Day Conditions
6000ft paved runway (dry),
DNE 3000ft with power applied.
RPM DNE 1800 (max static of 2150 noted) = ~80% Take-off power
Airworthiness signed off, insurance active, pilot current.
Full aft stick throughout run, trim neutral
Normal throttle application from idle to specified RPM with concurrent brake release.

Run 1: 1000 RPM, noting ground speed per 1000ft marker. At halfway marker throttle to idle, moderate brake application, noting stopping distance. During the run noted any track, yaw, shimmy, vibrations. ~8mph @ 3000ft

Run 2: 1200 RPM ~14mph @3000ft
Run 3: 1400 RPM ~23mph @3000ft
Run 4: 1600 RPM ~ 36mph @3000ft
Run 5: 1675 RPM ~ 43mph @3000ft
No further runs completed as the ground speed DNE would have been exceeded.

It was valuable for several reasons: I was confident the plane would track straight at higher speeds, I was able to give the brakes a good break in, I began to get a feel for the acceleration potential and braking effectiveness prior to first take-off, and noted no adverse handling qualities issues. Airspeed came alive (Dynon Skyview) at ~ 30mph and matched well with GS (no wind). I also gained some foresight into CHT behavior and knew I would have some issues during flight (which I did) and therefore not surprised (surprises are not good in flight test). I also gained a great deal of insight into the pedal workload to maintain centerline with a rocket link installed and was happy for that during the first T/O and Landing.

The only thing dangerous about taxi testing are the pilots who do not give this test the same respect they would give any other phase I task.

Do it or don't, your choice. I found it to be very valuable and the risk easily mitigated through planning and execution.

.02


Your plan was fine and I don't consider this "high speed." I'm talking about speeds where flight could occur. I still stand that virtually everything you need to know before flight can be done at lower speeds.

"if it predictable, it is preventable." The odds of an incident rise with speed. Speed that in most cases is uneccessary. Too many events support, "don't do it."

As you said, "it is your choice."
 
Insurance...

I see I need to clarify my post. I assumed (my error?) that full, in motion insurance was in force, with all pic requirements met, etc. I wanted to know if the company would attempt to deny coverage solely due to an FAR having been inadvertantly violated.
I am as unhappy as everyone else that my insurance premiums help pay for carelessness or high risk taking; but I also don't want to be with a company that might deny coverage due to a technicality that had nothing to do with the accident.

Sam - To clarify, there are two types of "ground" coverage. One is GNIM - Ground Not In Motion. The other is GNIF - ...Not In Flight.

Most of the time the coverage you get for non-flying aircraft (or to self inusure in flight losses) is GNIM. The policy clearly defines what Not In Motion means - (READ THE DEFINITIONS OF YOUR POLICY) - for airplanes, it means "moving under its own power or the resulting momentum thereof." Stationary engines runs ARE covered under GNIM. Taxing over to the hangar next door or to the fuel pumps is not. Towing the airplane 14 miles to the other side of the airport IS covered under GNIM, turning around on the ramp under power is not. Jumping the chocks during an engine run that was supposed to be stationary IS NOT COVERED by GNIM. The best choice is to go ahead and buy full coverage (IN FLIGHT) before running the engine.

Bob - It is a common myth that insurance companies deny claims due to FAR violations. Your car insurance doesn't deny claims because you were speeding when you got into an accident, or because you didn't notice the stop sign. Same's true with aviation policies. Even dumb things are covered.
But, he may have problems from flying without a CofA. Holding a current and valid CofA is a specific policy condition.
 
But, he may have problems from flying without a CofA. Holding a current and valid CofA is a specific policy condition.

And that right there is best argument I can think of (besides basic common sense) to keep taxi tests limited to about .7 Vso.
 
Your plan was fine and I don't consider this "high speed." I'm talking about speeds where flight could occur. I still stand that virtually everything you need to know before flight can be done at lower speeds.

"if it predictable, it is preventable." The odds of an incident rise with speed. Speed that in most cases is uneccessary. Too many events support, "don't do it."

As you said, "it is your choice."

35-40 knots is a very high speed "taxi" IMO. How fast do you normally taxi?:eek: If you are getting up to near the power off stall speed in these tests, you are asking for trouble power on and you are no longer in what I'd call taxi mode. This is about setting reasonable, safe limits for the exercise.

These tests are valuable in certain situations, I'm not saying everyone should do them but this whole thing about saying people shouldn't even do this is silly. How about aerobatics? Would most people start doing them without some training or experience? "Too many events support"- have a proper, safe plan and follow it. If you can't get something simple like this right, you shouldn't be doing the initial flights IMO. You lack the stick skills and decision making skills to give you the best chance of a safe outcome.

If you call it quits at .7 times stall speed (cross check ASI with GPS) in calm conditions, the airplane simply cannot fly and if you have at least 2500 feet of runway, check the brakes before pushing the throttle up, have a safe throttle off landmark picked out on the runway ahead and pay attention to directional control, any competent pilot should be able to safely do this exercise.

Virtually every fast taxi accident has happened because people did not have a good plan in place or broke "the rules"- just like any other type of aviation accident.
 
Last edited:
Now comes the test of the insurance company's integrity. Will they attempt to deny coverage because the plane was flown, inadvertantly, without an A/W certificate?
I'd like to hear of the outcome, good or bad, and the name of the company. Just for my info.

If the insurance companies did not have to pay for mistakes by people being stupid, all our rates would be lower.... After all, the insurance company is not paying this claim, we are.....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
But, he may have problems from flying without a CofA. Holding a current and valid CofA is a specific policy condition.

This is what I was thinking exactly!
If you flew the plane (intentionally or unintentionally) without a Airworthiness Certificate how would think that the insurance company would pay you anything. Doesn't sound like he had any transition training either, I was required to have some. Shouldn't matter if he intended to fly or not, he did!
My vote is, no check due.

So what is the out come, we can't wait to hear.
 
If the insurance companies did not have to pay for mistakes by people being stupid, all our rates would be lower.... After all, the insurance company is not paying this claim, we are.....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Every year my insurance premium is lower. This year it was $600 lower than last for the same coverage... despite all the "stupid" pilots...
 
Accidents

The Zenair airplanes appear to have a pretty dismal accident rate. Another one yesterday-two fatal.
As far as the high spped taxi accident, why attempt this at all until the A/W is in Hand?
The pilot is very likely looking at a certificate suspension.
 
Back
Top