What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Speculation

RV7Guy

RV7Guy

Well Known Member
Now that I've got everyones attention and en light of our tragic loss, lets discuss a couple of things. Speculation is not always a bad thing and is often used when something like Tony's accident occurs.

When I attended the USC aviation accident investigation short course this topic was discussed. The discussion had many arms, but for here we can related it to how it will help.

We know from the evidence from Tony's crash that there was some nature of in fight break up focused on the tail group. There may be other points the investigation will bear out. That point is undisputed right now. What we don't want to do is speculate as to how or why it occurred. That, the investigation will show.

As a result of the in flight break up many have or will go and inspect the tail group on their planes. In another thread, a guy already did and found a crack. This is the good side of speculation.

I'm going out to check my tail group now. I hope others do to. I'm hoping the loss of our Brother will result in some good. Let's be careful out there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well said Darwin.

RV7Guy said:
We know from the evidence from Tony's crash that there was some nature of in fight break up focused on the tail group. There may be other points the investigation will bear out. That point is undisputed right now. What we don't want to do is speculate as to how or why it occurred. That, the investigation will show.
Click to expand...
 
One thing that I don't like from VAF

Right now I must admit I am afraid to fly my RV-8, I can live with pilot error, engine failures, etc. but in flight break out is my worst nightmare:(

I don't like that one of VAF rules is not to comment or speculate about accident, I feel we need to know as soon as possible what happens to Tony and that is for safety reason, not to have a great chat on a forum.

A time ago, we read about a similar accident, good investigation told us that the plane flew over VNE and probably tail surface were unbalance, so I can handle that kind of risk, balancing my tail surface and not flying over VNE.

Dear Folks, if anything happens to me on my plane, you have write permission to comment and speculate about what happens, this could save life!!! [ed. When the NTSB-equivalent report is published, it will be front page news here. And I hope it never is. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I support this thread. One of the useful things about this website and one of the reasons I support it financially is because it provides services and serves a range of useful purposes not normally available elsewhere.

I personally do not support the notion that discussing the specifics of an accident is disrespectful to someone who has lost their life in that accident. Discussing such issues in the same thread as those who are rightfully expressing their grief and condolences to friends and family---well, that's another story. I think that as long as we separate the two, we are on solid and useful ground. I commend Darwin for making that primary distinction.

Friends and admirers of the deceased should have the right to make their statements about their loss and sorrow, isolated even from legitimate speculation by others concerning it's cause. On the other hand, a separate thread of speculation about possible causes could encourage VAF members to inspect their own aircraft for indications of similar issues. Any process which adds to the VAF community's better understanding of the airplane we all enjoy so much---makes sense. So much the better if we arrive at a collective understanding and perhaps even consensus of what may have gone wrong, ahead of the NTSB/FAA inspectors. Perhaps at times we'll get it right and other times wrong, but there should be value in an intelligent, cumulative effort to understand what happened, regardless. Indeed, I have been personally involved with a number of accidents in which the "community" came to a different understanding of what had gone wrong than the official version---and acted accordingly and to our advantage, I might add.

[When the final report is published (14 page example here), I will be the first to post it so that we may learn from it (and discuss). Until then, thank you for respecting my wishes. Having said that, I think checking all the bolts that hold all of the lifting surfaces on and flight controls in place is a good idea anytime.

I would suggest more can be learned right now by going to http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/ . Select 'Airplane' from the 'Category field, then 'Yes' on the 'Amateur Built' field. Put 'RV' in the 'Model' field, and finally select 'Probable Cause' from the 'Report Status' field. You'll be presented with a list of over 500 probable cause accident reports that you can discuss here for years. dr]


​

This is, to my current knowledge, an isolated and not an at all well understood accident. As the days go by, both of those facts may change and there may be much to learn and reflect upon. My personal expectation is that our airplanes are just fine and that ultimately a cause will be found that largely if not entirely, exonerates the current design. Whatever that cause turns out to be, we will lose much of the value of this site if we don't provide an acceptable forum for us to work our way through it in a clinical manner. We need to understand very accurately what happened, but without compromising the legitimate viewpoint of those who have the family's concerns in mind.

Correspondingly, I would like to encourage broad acceptance of the idea that both purposes are legitimate and that over time, the need to understand what happened should eventually compete on equal terms with the need to memorialize. Darwin, Fernando, Mike S., and Kinger are all correct in my opinion.

Regards,


Lee...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whatever that cause turns out to be, we will lose much of the value of this site if we don't provide an acceptable forum for us to work our way through it in a clinical manner. We need to understand very accurately what happened...
Click to expand...
I cannot see how "speculation" can help with your stated correct aim, since until (or if) a comprehensive final report is published, your last sentence does not apply?

Concern has been expressed on this site about the relatively poor level of NTSB investigations into RV/Experimental accidents. Compliments were given to the Canadian TSB's report into C-GNDY - albeit it was still fairly inconclusive.

Here in the UK the AAIB tend to produce good reports, although again cost concerns are tending to see their priority towards commercial operations. We do have "regulation" over RVs by an organisation (the LAA), and they do comprehensive articles / feedback / liaison with AAIB etc. for non-certified types (inc RVs).

Is there any body in the US who will liaise with the NTSB, providing resources if needed to carry out tests / research? Is that worth exploring? I suspect the "experimental" category does not help here, since it assumes / allows builders to do what they wish. In practice however 90% of the RVs probably have 90% components built to plans and any lessons learned are more applicable than "Experimental" indicates?

The AAIB (and I presume NTSB) are in no rush to produce a "Final Report", but do have a remit to publish any urgent safety advice / findings. Do readers here have the confidence in the NTSB process that if there was a design issue, or potential common build / maintenance error, this would be investigated and published in a timely manner?
 
Can we expect Vans to be involved in this process? My memory is sketchy but wasn't there another RV crash in the last year or so that Van's was involved in the investigation? If so, were the results ever revealed?
 
Tony happened to agree with this whole speculation thing. Below is his response to RV7Ron's post on same subject.

RV7Ron said:
I've always respectfully disagreed with this "rule" on here. Four things to consider...

1. When is a good time to discuss accidents? My answer, contrary to some opinions, is when they are fresh...if we wait until the NTSB report comes out, its old news and its never brought up again. The learning oppurtunity is lost.
2. Whats wrong with speculation? It gets me thinking about all kinds of things that could happen when I fly, even if it had nothing to do with the accident...its like accident brainstorming, I've seen ideas come out of these discussions from other people that I never would've considered otherwise. Thats useful.
3. If I have a mishap, I give everyone permission... I want you to disect it, speculate about it and any other possible thing you want if if helps advance your safety. Please learn from my mistake, no offense taken.
4. This all can be done in a respectful way...just mind your manners and the discussion will be just fine.
Click to expand...
Tony's response:
tkatc said:
I agree 100%. If it hurts the pilots feelings, if he/she is alive, then it enforces the point that much more. I am not talking bashing here....I'm talking sound respectful criticism. I learn a lot from this forum besides how to rivet, that's the value of the forum.

On the other hand, I do see how those discussions can turn into a circus side show. That's where our moderators, who do a great job, edit and or close the thread.

my 2 cents
Click to expand...
 
Ron Lee said:
Can we expect Vans to be involved in this process?
Click to expand...

Personal opinion ONLY here, but I suspect they are already looking into this at a design level---------no idea if they are going to be involved in the "official" NTSB investigation------or if they will ever make public their involvement unless there is an item of safety to flight that comes up.

Ron Lee said:
My memory is sketchy but wasn't there another RV crash in the last year or so that Van's was involved in the investigation? If so, were the results ever revealed?
Click to expand...

You are correct, as I recall it was CALLED an RV6, but not a factory production kit--------something done by a person who did a lot of prototype work for Vans IIRC.

No idea if the final results were published.
 
Mike S said:
You are correct, as I recall it was CALLED an RV6, but not a factory production kit--------something done by a person who did a lot of prototype work for Vans IIRC.

No idea if the final results were published.
Click to expand...

Mike, that may be it. I lost my hard drive last December so my info on that may have been lost. Someone found enough info that I decided that I need not worry about my RV-6A.

As for the 7A, the mentioned thread in the Safety forum does offer one thing to check just to be cautious, regardless of whether it was a factor or not.
 
Ron Lee said:
As for the 7A, the mentioned thread in the Safety forum does offer one thing to check just to be cautious, regardless of whether it was a factor or not.
Click to expand...

Not just the 7a, but considering that the control surface mounting method is pretty common among the various models it is probably a good idea for everyone to check this area.

I am going to, that is for sure.
 
The AAIB (and I presume NTSB) are in no rush to produce a "Final Report", but do have a remit to publish any urgent safety advice / findings. Do readers here have the confidence in the NTSB process that if there was a design issue, or potential common build / maintenance error, this would be investigated and published in a timely manner?[/QUOTE]

Andy, I am a huge believer in learning from the mistakes or problems others experience. I believe it has kept me alive more then once. I have a background in aviation safety and try to come to some understanding on most accidents involving any aircraft type I might be flying.

I have read many NTSB reports relating to RV's. For the most part I have little confidence in the NTSB to properly investigate and come to a conclusion on a RV accident. This is not a rebuke of NTSB investigators. They are very good and highly qualified. The problems is that they are slammed with investigations and simply have way to large a case load. As a result most RV investigations end up being a minimal effort to clear that accident. In most cases there is very little actual investigation and the final report relies on phone conversations with witnesses ect... More often then not they never even visit the accident site. They simply have higher priority accidents on their plate.

This accident raises questions that I am sure Vans will want answers to so perhaps it will get a bit more visibility. Still it would not surprise me if the NTSB gets the radar plots, looks at photo's of the damage and makes a few phone calls and calls it complete and posts a probable cause that may or may not be correct.
I have a lot of questions in my mind already focused on the damage the aircraft sustained not long ago. I wonder if when the rudder hit the elevator there could have been some unseen elevator damage. There was none mentioned in the thread on the subject. Could this have led to flutter or failure on a elevator component? Others on here have vastly more experience then I have in the construction aspects of the aircraft and can probably provide some great information. I hope the NTSB will at least look into the damage and repairs even though it appeared to me minor at first glance. It may be the incident has no bearing on the accident but the timing suggests it should be looked at. Hopefully Vans will push the NTSB and have some of their own people involved. Perhaps the wreckage will yield a smoking gun and give RV7/8 owners a understanding of what may have happened and how to avoid it in the future. I certainly hope that will turn out to be the case so something useful can come out of this tragedy.

George
 
Proceedure for tail checking

Due to this recent incident, I have also decided to give my tail section another look. Even though I did build my 7A, and yes, I am "licensed" to inspect and repair it, could someone with "A & P" type experience post a short procedure on exactly what to look for and the best way to go about it?...Yes, I know that seems simplistic..look for cracks, loose bolts, etc...I am hoping someone can take me to a higher level, i.e., on this design, where is a small crack most likely to manifest itself first? Even the part numbers might be helpful. If someone has had experience with metal fatigue of any kind on the tail, how did it appear to start? Was it in an easily seen area..or was it "hidden"? (by the way, I'm not trying to imply that metal fatigue had anything to do with Mr. Kelly's incident).

If I am going to re-inspect it, I would like the best information available on how to go about it.

As usual, with most of my silly questions, this didn't come out exactly right..I'm hoping all of you can get the flavor of this question.

Again, even though I built it, I would gladly accept any suggestions from a more qualified repairman or more experienced builder...

Thanks in Advance.
 
I need help figuring out what is going here.

The photo below is the outboard section of the elevator.
The counterweight does not look like mine at all. My counterweights are way up front.

Was there an earlier version of the elevator?

523ce434d4294_image.jpg



Mark
 
Inspected 3 planes today

I inspected a 4, a 6, an 8, and a 9 and found one jam nut loose and a third of the other jam nuts on the horz. stab and rudder needed to be tightened a bit. No cracks.

Steve "The Builders Coach"
 
Mark Burns said:
I need help figuring out what is going here.

The photo below is the outboard section of the elevator.
The counterweight does not look like mine at all. My counterweights are way up front.

Was there an earlier version of the elevator?

523ce434d4294_image.jpg



Mark
Click to expand...

Yes that is the early version of the counter weight location, I have the same style on my 7.
 
Do not count on the NTSB for anything these days. They are most interested in the Chairperson worrying about getting up in front of the cameras and engaging in immediate speculation. Read the Air Line Pilot Assn's Press Release on the Asiana SFO 777 crash.

Their reports on air carrier accidents is woefully slow - sometimes years and years in the release - and then ignoring some of the most blatant items that cry out for further investigation.

I am a Full Member of ISASI - the Intl Society of Air Safety Investigators. in one case, I (and my wife) were eyewitnesses to a fatal experimental aircraft accident that happened literally in front of our eyes and less than 200-300 feet away. I observed the entire sequence, from pilot pre-flight, to boarding, start-up, taxi-out and crash from alongside the runway. It was a classic departure stall/spin. I called the IIC (Investigator-in-Charge), a man who I had sat with at many dinners and meetings and left a message stating I was an eyewitness and could provide a report - a "qaulified" witness would be the appropriate term.

When he declined to return my call, I called again, and again. He never did make contact with me.

Thinking the manufacturer will contact, promote, and encourage the NTSB to do a thorough investigation is naive. It might happen. It could happen. In some cases. But, in MOST cases, manufacturers are more than happy to allow some of these phone call investigations to proceed in their slow and lackadaisical way, preferring to let sleeping dogs lie.


Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspection

Again said:
I am still building, so service issues for this aircraft can be better addressed by others. What I have to offer is general in nature, base on 25+ years of structures maintenance.

Inspect visually, audibly, and by feel for security by loading and operating the system. Example, get someone in the cockpit to operate the controls slowly while you place a load with open palms on the flight control. Go from stop to stop while loading in both directions. Listen for pops or clunks, look for oil canning, feel for roughness or rubbing. Removing the middle bolt and looking for relative motion at that hole while moving the control will show hinge alignment.
The stabilizers (or any rigid attachment) can be checked by shaking with one hand, and placing a finger on the joint with the other to feel for relative motion. (Listen and look to!)

When cracks start, it is usually the last fastener at a cross section change, or out of a bend at the end of a piece. Determining the significance of any crack can be done by imagining the load the part carries. A small crack coming out of a bend in the last rib is likely a stress relief of a part that didn't quite fit right and can be stop drilled once. Small smooth skin dents or small holes a fastener diameter or two away from any underlying structure can be considered negligible. Dents that show a ridge or crease should be considered a crack. Any hinge attach, component attach or spar defect needs to be addressed before further flight.

This sums up what I have read in every production structural repair manual I have read that has been published since the 1950's.

If anyone can tell me how to inspect by taste or smell, that would be great;)
Click to expand...
 
Even if Van's did encourage the NTSB to do a thorough investigation, I am not sure it would make a bit of difference regarding the outcome. The NTSB is going to do what ever they want. I admit that there seems to be a variation in the amount of investigative effort that is invested, from one accident to another. It may be based on what region it occurred (same as differences with dealing with the FAA).

Regardless the reason, I think it unfair to characterize that all gen. av. accidents get poorly investigated is false.
HERE is just one example. I wont go into detail (you can read it yourselves) but it was a rather in depth investigation because there was no clear explanation for why it should have happened. Van's was asked to be involved (as we sometimes are... BTW, anyone (engine & avionics mfr's, etc.) involved in assisting with an investigation signs a nondisclosure agreement with the NTSB). Bottom line, the investigation uncovered a very plausible explanation for the accident. Do they always? No, but I think they should be allowed a chance to do so. When the final report on this unfortunate accident comes out, who knows, we may all be surprised at the determination.

BTW, the difference in elevator counterbalance weights was a simple design change that allowed a reduction in the amount of balance weight that had to be used (removes weight from the far aft of the aircraft and reduces overall empty weight, both good things from a designer perspective).
 
NTSB

NASA515 said:
...I am a Full Member of ISASI - the Intl Society of Air Safety Investigators. in one case, I (and my wife) were eyewitnesses to a fatal experimental aircraft accident that happened literally in front of our eyes and less than 200-300 feet away. I observed the entire sequence, from pilot pre-flight, to boarding, start-up, taxi-out and crash from alongside the runway. It was a classic departure stall/spin. I called the IIC (Investigator-in-Charge), a man who I had sat with at many dinners and meetings and left a message stating I was an eyewitness and could provide a report - a "qaulified" witness would be the appropriate term.

When he declined to return my call, I called again, and again. He never did make contact with me. ...
Click to expand...
Hi Bob, It would be interesting to know if you feel that the final report missed something that you could have contributed.
 
External force during preflight

Andrew M said:
... Inspect visually, audibly, and by feel for security by loading and operating the system. Example, get someone in the cockpit to operate the controls slowly while you place a load with open palms on the flight control. Go from stop to stop while loading in both directions. Listen for pops or clunks, look for oil canning, feel for roughness or rubbing. ...
Click to expand...
I love this idea. It can also give the GIB something useful to do during the preflight.
 
sailvi767 & NASA515 - your posts were what I was thinking.

Re:
Thinking the manufacturer will contact, promote, and encourage the NTSB to do a thorough investigation is naive. It might happen. It could happen. In some cases. But, in MOST cases, manufacturers are more than happy to allow some of these phone call investigations to proceed in their slow and lackadaisical way, preferring to let sleeping dogs lie.
Click to expand...
I would hope Vans would co-operate, even more, provide resources, and I believe has a history of doing so. However, bottom line is they are a business, with Insurance & Liability concerns, and so even if individuals within Vans would wish to be open, honest and inquisitive, they may be prevented from doing so. Vans took a fairly "robust" attitude to the A model nosewheel issues for instance. Note from the Link above, Garmin at some point refused to assist the NTSB further...

What I was hinting towards, and your posts further, was based on:
I am a Full Member of ISASI - the Intl Society of Air Safety Investigators
Click to expand...
As a result most RV investigations end up being a minimal effort to clear that accident. In most cases there is very little actual investigation and the final report relies on phone conversations with witnesses ect... More often then not they never even visit the accident site. They simply have higher priority accidents on their plate.
Click to expand...
and I stated above why the "Experimental" category probably does not help in this regard when there is actually a widespread common design worldwide.

Is there scope for some sort of "organisation", of competent / qualified / experienced individuals in the RV / Experimental sphere to assist the NTSB i.e. go further than the NTSB are able to? Such a body would need to be discrete (i.e. the opposite of the 'Speculation' thread), self funded (EAA?), comply with non-disclosure.

The RV-12 fatality in Aus on a 1st flight had some similar comments - due to the category apparently it would not be formally investigated, but IIRC it was stated a 3rd party body would probably ensure some form of competent investigation would result?
 
i would imagine, that most RV's , are low time at this stage, even though there are 1000's flying all over the world.
there are often SB's etc on TCA, even after decades of use, so maybe there needs to be some serious look by VAns into this item, and make a decision.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
BTW, the difference in elevator counterbalance weights was a simple design change that allowed a reduction in the amount of balance weight that had to be used (removes weight from the far aft of the aircraft and reduces overall empty weight, both good things from a designer perspective).
Click to expand...

If I may ask,when did this change occur? Outside of the arm and glass pieces,what other parts are involved? As a light engine/prop 7a builder any weight off the tail is a good thing especially if doubler or backing plates are found to be needed.
 
I totally disagree with this tone that Van's shys away from thorough investigation of accidents that have design or structural implication.

And further, what federal government entity doesn't spend more time - emphasis on camera face presence - on the incidents that make the mainstream media headline. Par for the course in a society that fully expects modern technology to provide zero risk, and a government that unrealistically panders to this fantasy.

Last, many won't get this one, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for the NTSB to take a minimal approach to exp-ab incidents. The further government agencies dig into our life, the more they will want to control us. I will gladly accept an aviation life without their added input on aircraft accidents in my exp-ab world. We do just fine on our own. I would argue that the collective intellect on the subject reading and posting in this board far exceeds that brought to bear by all of the NTSB.
 
Last edited:
Low Pass said:
Last, many won't get this one, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for the NTSB to take a minimal approach to exp-ab incidents. The further government agencies dig into our life, the more they will want to control us. I will gladly accept an aviation life without their added input on aircraft accidents in my exp-ab world. We do just fine on our own. I would argue that the collective intellect on the subject reading and posting in this board far exceeds that brought to bear by all of the NTSB.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Well said.
 
Here's a good example of a crack, most appear as a very fine line eminating from a bolt hole, rivet hole or radius/bend line. It will generally appear as a VERY fine pencil line or small crack in the paint. As shown in this pic, it's easy to mistake or overlook a crack that is just starting out as there is no seperation of the material which is what most folks consider a "crack", in the begining it's just a very fine "line".

FB_02_12-17.jpg
 
I'm not opposed to speculation as long as it is based on facts or any assumptions used as a basis are clearly stated. In the tragic case of last Friday it appears an in-flight breakup occurred but I'm not aware of the evidence of such as I just haven't read them and have no first hand knowledge.

The fact that some aircraft have experienced cracks at the elevator mount points is reason for concern, not alarm. While the RV designs have evolved to the point where there is less variation in key dimensional aspects (pre-punched holes, etc.) each aircraft is constructed differently little quality control on how the aircraft are constructed other than the fact the builder should follow aircraft construction quality standards. So each airplane will be different to a greater sense than one, say, built on an assembly line with AS9100 level QC inspections at each step of construction. That is not to say that there is a lot of shoddy construction going on just that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if a big problem for the fleet overall.

Add to the the fact that the flight history of the aircraft is unknown. Who knows to what level of g load had been applied to that aircraft in its history? We simply just don't know.

What we do know is that the control surface attachment points can crack and therefore should be inspected. The advice on checking jam nut torque seems very sound and a likely contributing factor to such cracking.

I'm going to check mine before next flight.

As to what happened on Friday I just don't know and will wait to hear what comes out over time. It is a reminder to me that this is a potentially dangerous activity that demands diligence at every step of the way.

Hopefully that facts that come out will help me better manage the inherent risk I accept in flying my RV.

Richard Bibb
N144KT
 
Canopy

Let's not forget that the canopy came off also.
Maybe we should be checking the canopy attachment points, closer.
 
NTSB Response Time

I went to the NTSB site and looked up pending investigations. The last one listed for NJ occurred July 5. The last report entry was July 25. By this I am assuming that they are busy and will wrap up their posting of information within the next 30 days, even if it is not "final".

A. Does this sound consistent with others experience?

B. Would it make any difference to encourage the Virginia regional office with the interest and support of thousands of safety minded RV owners/builders to be timely and complete in their investigation and reporting?

Reviewing a report of the Georgia stall/spin event, I thought they did a pretty thorough job of providing data, even if the final conclusion was weak. I am hopeful that this (tragic) event will be addressed in a similar manner.
 
rbibb said:
I'm not opposed to speculation as long as it is based on facts or any assumptions used as a basis are clearly stated. In the tragic case of last Friday it appears an in-flight breakup occurred but I'm not aware of the evidence of such as I just haven't read them and have no first hand knowledge.

The fact that some aircraft have experienced cracks at the elevator mount points is reason for concern, not alarm. While the RV designs have evolved to the point where there is less variation in key dimensional aspects (pre-punched holes, etc.) each aircraft is constructed differently little quality control on how the aircraft are constructed other than the fact the builder should follow aircraft construction quality standards. So each airplane will be different to a greater sense than one, say, built on an assembly line with AS9100 level QC inspections at each step of construction. That is not to say that there is a lot of shoddy construction going on just that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if a big problem for the fleet overall.

Add to the the fact that the flight history of the aircraft is unknown. Who knows to what level of g load had been applied to that aircraft in its history? We simply just don't know.

What we do know is that the control surface attachment points can crack and therefore should be inspected. The advice on checking jam nut torque seems very sound and a likely contributing factor to such cracking.

I'm going to check mine before next flight.

As to what happened on Friday I just don't know and will wait to hear what comes out over time. It is a reminder to me that this is a potentially dangerous activity that demands diligence at every step of the way.

Hopefully that facts that come out will help me better manage the inherent risk I accept in flying my RV.

Richard Bibb
N144KT
Click to expand...

Richard,

You're right in saying there's a lot we don't know about the event. But if the track information is accurate, something very dramatic happened at 20:51:10.

In the next 6 seconds, the aircraft heading changed 56 degrees to the left, airspeed decreased 78 mph and altitude decreased 211'.

Also if the data recorded is accurate, there was considerable variation in airspeed the previous 5 minutes and 26 seconds, 68 mph to 184 mph.

This of course provides opportunity for speculation, which I will not engage in, on what flight activities occurred up to the time point 20:51:10.

Hopefully when the track data is couple with physical evidence, and engine monitor data if there is any, a clearer picture will come into focus as what actually happened.

(I can not help but hold track data suspect as to its accuracy. How come it takes a fix at such a wide range of time intervals, in this report ranging from 2 minutes, 5 seconds to just 6 seconds? Not having used the system, I do not know how it works.)
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Regardless the reason, I think it unfair to characterize that all gen. av. accidents get poorly investigated is false.
Van's was asked to be involved (as we sometimes are... BTW, anyone (engine & avionics mfr's, etc.) involved in assisting with an investigation signs a nondisclosure agreement with the NTSB).
Click to expand...

When you review most GA accidents, and I do, you can't help but be struck by the shallowness of the investigation and the boilerplate Probable Cause that gets inserted at the end. Maybe there are just so many ways you can describe a mid-air (Failure of the PIC's to See and Avoid), or a Base to Final Stall/Spin. And maybe there are too many accidents to give each one the full treatment (BTW, the NTSB delegates a lot of these investigations to the FSDO.)

Fact is, some of my colleagues in this field who went into business for themselves, mostly on behalf of insurance companies and aviation lawyers, have uncovered completely different facts on major accidents that completely changed the NTSB's findings. I could give examples.

As for manufacturers cooperating, check out the nasty exchange of letters between the NTSB's lawyers and Boeing (my former employer) over the investigation into the JAL 787 battery fire at BOS. Also, checkout the history of the Zenith flutter investigations and the Chris Heintz letters of explanation and denial.

Finally, for a real eye-opener, review the Gulfstream G-650 fatal accident during flight testing at Roswell, NM. The entire Docket is on-line. Be prepared to be amazed at how Gulfstream obstructed, obfuscated, and refused to meaningfully participate in the investigation.

No, it's not a lily-white world out there, on both sides of the investigation process - with incompetent or over-worked or political or whatever govt investigators on one side and market driven, lawyer-driven, insurance company driven manufacturers on the other. Toss in a fair amount of engineering ego for good measure (It's the pilot's fault.)

When viewed down in the trenches, there's a lot of nasty stuff going on - like the bottom of a football pile-up - that goes unseen. Not saying they're all like that, and that many investigations aren't supremely professional and well-done. It's just that - from my perspective - many of those are more in the past, and the political and liability and media frenzied world of today is less conducive to that level of impartial professionalism.

In an accident like this one, I'm not worried about encouraging more govt interference with our activities, but in quickly finding the correct answer and disseminating it to the concerned parties - namely us! Checkout the number of planes and pilots lost in the Zenith fiasco, with various countries grounding the airplanes while others - like the USA - continued operating and risking people's lives while a bunch of bureaucratic paper-pushing took place.

Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
 
Collision?

Like everyone here, I will wait to read the accident report and hope that it will shed light to what happened to TK's RV and provide valuable lessons if need be.

Just thinking, could it be (and this is of course an aspect that will need to be looked into by the investigators) that an in-flight collision with something, anything, caused this?
 
NASA515 said:
When you review most GA accidents, and I do, you can't help but be struck by the shallowness of the investigation and the boilerplate Probable Cause that gets inserted at the end. Maybe there are just so many ways you can describe a mid-air (Failure of the PIC's to See and Avoid), or a Base to Final Stall/Spin. And maybe there are too many accidents to give each one the full treatment (BTW, the NTSB delegates a lot of these investigations to the FSDO.)
Click to expand...

Years ago, I spent a summer with the NTSB's regional field office in Chicago as an intern working with the air safety investigators there.

For the most part, you're not wrong. The NTSB has a limited budget and (at least the guys I worked with) did they best they can with the resources at their disposal.

Many regions experience multiple accidents/incidents a day. It's just impossible to send an NTSB representative to each one of them. The investigative portion will be delegated to the FSDO, though the NTSB will still write the report based on what the FAA and pilot gives them.

For some accidents without reliable witnesses or flight data recorders, it's almost impossible to discern what really happened. The investigators are going to take their best guess based on the facts presents....which is why the statement following all accidents is labeled as "probable cause" instead of "definitive cause".

For what it's worth, there are essentially 3 levels of accident investigation performed by regional offices of the NTSB. The level of detail (or shallowness, in your description) of each can be discerned by the accident number.

If you see a "CA" in the accident number, that's just an accident/incident in which data was collected from the pilot via the 6120 and maybe a phone interview. The NTSB will not be onsite, and the FAA probably won't be either. Most of the accidents, in my experience, fall under this category as they deal with non-fatal accidents in which generally the pilot admits some error.

An accident with "LA" in the accident number is a limited investigation. It is more in depth than a "CA" accident - the FAA usually will perform a field investigation in this case, as there may be a factor in the accident that warrants some extra digging. For example, engine failures not determined to be fuel exhaustion will generally fall into this category.

The most intensive investigation at the regional office level will be an "FA", or field investigation. In this case, it's usually a fatal accident, and the NTSB investigator-in-charge will travel to the scene. The reports in this case will be much more detailed and in-depth than a "CA" or "LA" accident. If you're looking for accident reports with more detail, these are the ones you're gonna be looking for.

Thank you, Joness0154. In my opinion this is one of the most informative posts we've seen in this thread. D. Hull
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has there been enough of the airplane found to make a map showing where the pieces were located on the ground? That would be worthwhile.

Dave
 
Canopy

I think the key is where was the canopy located. With the tail parts or the plane wreckage.
 
Sig600 said:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=97775&highlight=damage
Click to expand...

We're all yearning to know what happened..... and while we're speculating, this previous damage sure looks like it could be a possible contributing factor.

Given that the rudder hit the stop hard enough to shear the rivets and knock the stop completely off the fuselage and smash hard enough into the right elevator to poke a hole in the rudder might have left hidden damage to the right elevator/horizontal stab structure, and that the right elevator appears to have separated from the aircraft first along the flight path is a pretty big coincidence.

EDIT: My personal hope is that it would be discovered that he collided with a flock of geese because that would make it an Act of God and thus easier to accept.
 
Last edited:
David-aviator said:
Hopefully when the track data is couple with physical evidence, and engine monitor data if there is any, a clearer picture will come into focus as what actually happened.

(I can not help but hold track data suspect as to its accuracy. How come it takes a fix at such a wide range of time intervals, in this report ranging from 2 minutes, 5 seconds to just 6 seconds? Not having used the system, I do not know how it works.)
Click to expand...

David,

APRS trackers are customarily set to transmit a beacon every 60 seconds when traveling in a straight line. But they will go into "Smart Beaconing" mode and transmit every few seconds when heading changes rapidly. The track should be as accurate as the GPS feeding the tracker data.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
David,

APRS trackers are customarily set to transmit a beacon every 60 seconds when traveling in a straight line. But they will go into "Smart Beaconing" mode and transmit every few seconds when heading changes rapidly. The track should be as accurate as the GPS feeding the tracker data.
Click to expand...

Except that the track is always presented as a straight line between the reporting points. That's not necessarily the actual aircraft track. As Sam says, "smart beaconing" is an automatic clue suggesting rapid heading changes, not straight lines.

You can prove it to yourself here with a little calculation. Measure the distance between reporting points. Record the number of seconds for each of those legs, based on the times in the beacon reports. Now divide the distances by the seconds to get feet per second, convert to MPH, then compare to the reported velocities. You'll find the values will be lower than reported, indicating the vehicle was taking an indirect, longer, path between points.
 
Neal@F14 said:
We're all yearning to know what happened..... and while we're speculating, this previous damage sure looks like it could be a possible contributing factor.

Given that the rudder hit the stop hard enough to shear the rivets and knock the stop completely off the fuselage and smash hard enough into the right elevator to poke a hole in the rudder might have left hidden damage to the right elevator/horizontal stab structure, and that the right elevator appears to have separated from the aircraft first along the flight path is a pretty big coincidence.

EDIT: My personal hope is that it would be discovered that he collided with a flock of geese because that would make it an Act of God and thus easier to accept.
Click to expand...

It wasn't speculation. Someone asked the question about his post from earlier damage, so I dug it up.

I'm staying away from this one until more facts come out. So far we have a handful of pictures and 5 pages of guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top