Door fell off in Brazil

Link to news in portuguese
http://g1.globo.com/goias/noticia/2...anapolis-go-e-retirada-para-investigacao.html

Google translation

The door of the plane that crashed on two residences in the city of Annapolis, 55 km from Goiania, in the early evening of Thursday (29), was taken away and will be brought to the Centre for Research and Prevention of Aeronautical Accidents (Cenipa ), Brasilia (DF). The information was given to the entry of the TV Anhanguera by Captain Felix, Anapolis Air Base. He reported that only a serial number found on the door of the aircraft. From it, the origin of the plane will be investigated.

Port plane hits two homes in Anapolis (GO) Pilot of plane that crashed out of the ICU in Goi?nia, but follows internadoAvi?o small falls in the backyard of residence in Goiania

Residents said the plane took off from the airport of Annapolis, which is about two miles from the Jardim Treasury. A loud noise was heard, and in seconds, the object fell into the homes. "Hence the ground, we saw people inside the plane," says Moreira Celio, owner of one of the houses damaged.

Lucilene Gomes, owner of another house damaged, says he had left home and when he returned, took a big scare. "I left a bit to go to a sale. When I returned, the staff was already there on the street. Everything was broken, "she says.

The door of the plane got stuck in the wall next door. According to Celio Moreira, after the accident, the aircraft had returned to the airport. He said minutes later in a car, four men tried to pick up a villager door. "They wanted to remove the piece of the plane to take, said that before but I would call the police so that they (the boys) pay for the damage," he recalls.

The street was blocked by the Military Police and Fire Department to await the expertise. "It is necessary to accomplish here in place to raise a skill which actually were the causes of this accident," said Lieutenant-Colonel of the Fire Department, Matthew Dewilson Altino.

Roof damaged

According to the Annapolis Fire Department, a house was damaged part of the roof and the other did not suffer major damages. Popular said it was a single engine. According to firefighters, there were no casualties. The Military Police (MP) in the region still does not know the causes of the accident. Residents said the plane landed at the airport without the door.

The news crew of TV Anhanguera went to the city's airport, but nobody wanted to record an interview. It was also tried to contact the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC), but the calls were not answered

So was the door of a -10?

Looks pink

Four now!

Best I can deduct, that makes four now.

Guys, it is a PRIORITY of mine to:

A) Personally check the door, and,

B) Ensure that the trim is set for takeoff. Both critical in a -10.

Best,

Yep!

Mine too!

They will not fall off for no good reason...........I hope!

500hrs and two doors still in place

There have been numerous threads about this, most of which I have read. I have my finish kit with all the doors and sensors. Even without any extra door locks, I fail to see how it is possible to get airborne with the doors unsafe IF you have a correctly fitted door and sensor system - whether it be wired to the supplied lights or a EMS.

Assuming, of course, that you do a proper Before TO Checklist.......

Is it possible to get a pin outside the frame and still get a locked indication from the magnetic sensor?

While I never actually tested to see if the magnetic door switch that Vans provides would activiate if the pin were on the other side of the fuse, I did check to see how close one had to put the switches together. It is alarming how far apart from the magnet that the switch will activate. I am going with mechanical switches to sense total pin engagement. That way not only does the pin have to be inside the frame, it has to be fully engaged.

Alarming?

Bill, you are correct in pointing out that the magnetic switch willl activate
about 1/4" from full contact.
It is up to you to position those switches at the correct distance or far
enough away from the pins to make you comfortable that the doors are actually closed.
Even a mechanically actuated switch will have a certain length of travel before electrical contact is made, much like the magnetic switch.

Loosing a door in Brazil sure made big news.

position sensors

Mine will not set off the magnetic sensors if the pins are outside the door. The cam holds the door away from the exterior so far but even if it didn't I think it wouldn't set them off.

pierre smith said:

Best I can deduct, that makes four now.

Guys, it is a PRIORITY of mine to:

A) Personally check the door, and,

B) Ensure that the trim is set for takeoff. Both critical in a -10.

Best,

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Only the PIC can shut the doors in my 10. Period.

The warnings lites work fine, but the problem is seeing them in direct sunlight. I have learned to just lean over and double check them by touching the pin or pushing on the aft side of the door to make sure the pin is engaged.

I have "check doors closed" twice in my check-list. Before engine start and before entering runway. Just in case. I imagine that door hitting tail feathers in cruise and the damage it may incurr and the consequences scares the heck out of me.

whats the cause?

Not owning a 10, and not having flown in one, what is causing the doors to come apart? Obviously the doors "cant" be latched and locked. Is this something that we need to look at for a updated design?
Tom

TS Flightlines said:

Not owning a 10, and not having flown in one, what is causing the doors to come apart? Obviously the doors "cant" be latched and locked. Is this something that we need to look at for a updated design?
Tom

Click to expand...

Old subject, has been discussed pretty much to death.

Lots of info in the search archives.

There have been at least 5 different designs for an additional latch, that I know of.

Factory has a center mounted unit, that some folks use, and some dont.

Best one out there, IMHO, is shown here.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=54032

TS Flightlines said:

Not owning a 10, and not having flown in one, what is causing the doors to come apart? Obviously the doors "cant" be latched and locked. Is this something that we need to look at for a updated design?
Tom

Click to expand...

Opinion here: A top hinged door is an accident waiting to happen on a 200 mph airplane. When it pops open, there is a very high chance that it will depart the aircraft, creating the possibility of damaging the empennage, which could turn into a very serious event. Front hinged doors may swing open if not properly latched, but they rarely (never?) depart the aircraft.

Van's would do well to redesign the doors so they are front hinged. You can't idiot proof the current design that requires the door to be properly latched for the door to stay attached to the aircraft.

When the doors are properly latched they will not open in flight. I had an 80 lb dog test it and when my plane exploded the windows blew out but I still had to open the door to get out.

TSwezey said:

When the doors are properly latched they will not open in flight. I had an 80 lb dog test it and when my plane exploded the windows blew out but I still had to open the door to get out.

Click to expand...

Nobody disagrees with that.

The problem is that people continue to take off with them not properly latched. That isn't going to change. Front hinging the doors eliminates most of that risk.

It goes back to the concept that every time you think you've idiot proofed something, a bigger idiot comes along.

You could just stay on the ground and eliminate all the risk.


You are free to design a front hinged door if it makes you feel comfortable,
just don't place that burden on Van.
As far as I know, no injuries have resulted from the loss of a door on an RV-10 and the resulting damage can be repaired. Some bruised egos I would assume.

So far the greatest cause of damage and accidents in RV-10s has been fuel.
I suppose you are going to demand that Van design the fuel out of the system.

TSwezey said:

...and when my plane exploded...

Click to expand...

Boy, not many people get to use that turn of phrase!

One positive use

When my cabin was filled with smoke I knew I could open the door and let it fly away. That gave me a clear view to my left and allowed me to find a site to land. In a front hinged door I would be in a bigger trouble....

For security I did install Sean's door latch kit.

TS Flightlines said:

Not owning a 10, and not having flown in one, what is causing the doors to come apart? Obviously the doors "cant" be latched and locked. Is this something that we need to look at for a updated design?
Tom

Click to expand...

It's possible to improperly latch the door. I did it while we were still building so the only damage was to the paint. The rear pin actuated outside the door, likely because we were fitting the weather stripping.

Without testing that it's properly locked, or an idiot light, I wouldn't have known that it was not locked. The face of the owner was all the warning I needed; I thought I caught his fingers in the door from the pain displayed.

N427EF said:

You could just stay on the ground and eliminate all the risk.


You are free to design a front hinged door if it makes you feel comfortable,
just don't place that burden on Van.
As far as I know, no injuries have resulted from the loss of a door on an RV-10 and the resulting damage can be repaired. Some bruised egos I would assume.

So far the greatest cause of damage and accidents in RV-10s has been fuel.
I suppose you are going to demand that Van design the fuel out of the system.

Click to expand...

Let's keep this polite and on topic.

When a builder made poorly thought out modifications on his -10, Van's addressed those problems directly and from an engineering standpoint.

Similarly, the doors are an engineering problem that can be solved. Extra latches, warning lights, etc. are band-aids which don't address the underlying problem with the -10's doors.

Kyle Boatright said:

Let's keep this polite and on topic.

When a builder made poorly thought out modifications on his -10, Van's addressed those problems directly and from an engineering standpoint.

Similarly, the doors are an engineering problem that can be solved. Extra latches, warning lights, etc. are band-aids which don't address the underlying problem with the -10's doors.

Click to expand...

Kyle you are correct, I also thought it interesting how fast Van jumped on the flying safely topics but has yet to address the 10 door problem with anything more than a bandaid.

Kyle Boatright said:

Opinion here: A top hinged door is an accident waiting to happen on a 200 mph airplane. When it pops open, there is a very high chance that it will depart the aircraft, creating the possibility of damaging the empennage, which could turn into a very serious event. Front hinged doors may swing open if not properly latched, but they rarely (never?) depart the aircraft...

Click to expand...

N427EF said:

...As far as I know, no injuries have resulted from the loss of a door on an RV-10 and the resulting damage can be repaired. Some bruised egos I would assume...

Click to expand...

tc1234c said:

When my cabin was filled with smoke I knew I could open the door and let it fly away. That gave me a clear view to my left and allowed me to find a site to land. In a front hinged door I would be in a bigger trouble....

For security I did install Sean's door latch kit.

Click to expand...

There were some pictures of an RV-10 that lost the right door. I can no longer find the pictures as they appear to have been taken down.

The door hit the HS, bent it pretty good, and twisted the tail cone. Pretty significant damage and the pilot was lucky to land the aircraft. (I still wonder how it didn’t jam the elevator.)

I would think twice about opening the door inflight and would take every precaution to avoid that scenario.

Here is the thread regarding thet incident of the door hitting the tail.
Here is the NTSB report.

N941WR said:

There were some pictures of an RV-10 that lost the right door. I can no longer find the pictures as they appear to have been taken down.

The door hit the HS, bent it pretty good, and twisted the tail cone. Pretty significant damage and the pilot was lucky to land the aircraft. (I still wonder how it didn?t jam the elevator.)

I would think twice about opening the door inflight and would take every precaution to avoid that scenario.

Here is the thread regarding thet incident of the door hitting the tail.
Here is the NTSB report.

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, there was some information that led some to believe that the airplane you are talking about, had suffered a VERY hard landing at some time prior to the door leaving. Hard enough to have popped empennage rivets and caused some deformation. I seem to remember some speculation that this hard landing and resulting bending of metal may have had some bearing on the door leaving the airplane. All speculation, of course, but I do remember some respected members of this forum having knowledge of the incident.

I, too would have concerns about opening the door in flight, but this is something Rosie the Riveter and I discuss prior to overwater flights, where an engine failure means certain ditching. Ted's smoke filled cockpit is another scenario that might justify opening the door. One more tool in the bag is my opinion. And that, of course, is worth just what you paid for it!

dmaib said:

If I recall correctly, there was some information that led some to believe that the airplane you are talking about, had suffered a VERY hard landing at some time prior to the door leaving. Hard enough to have popped empennage rivets and caused some deformation. I seem to remember some speculation that this hard landing and resulting bending of metal may have had some bearing on the door leaving the airplane. All speculation, of course, but I do remember some respected members of this forum having knowledge of the incident...

Click to expand...

This is speculation, as you pointed out.

The aircraft in question had the tail cone twisted a significant amount. A hard landing would most likely bend the tail cone down and if he struck the tail, it would bend up, not twist it. In addition, any landing hard enough to damage the tail cone would have also damaged the landing gear.

If I remember the pictures correctly, it was pretty obvious that the door caused the damage.

So, if I am correct, a properly latched door will not open in flight and all the losses are due to an improperly closed door. And if the sensors are adjusted correctly, they will indicate a door that is open either via the warning lights or EMS equivalent. In that case, it all comes down to correctly running the before TO cheklist.........

Interestinngly, this is the view taken by the UK authorities who have NOT mandated the fitting of the VANS safety latch SB.

N941WR said:

This is speculation, as you pointed out.

The aircraft in question had the tail cone twisted a significant amount. A hard landing would most likely bend the tail cone down and if he struck the tail, it would bend up, not twist it. In addition, any landing hard enough to damage the tail cone would have also damaged the landing gear.

If I remember the pictures correctly, it was pretty obvious that the door caused the damage.

Click to expand...

I agree, Bill. It was pretty obvious that the door damaged the tail feathers. However, as I said, there was some information out there at the time, that the airplane had had an extremely hard landing at some point prior to the door departure. It has been a while back, but if I remember correctly, there was some damage to the gear/wheel pants as well as some evidence of stress where the cabin top meets the tailcone. Then again, my memory ain't what it used to be.
I'm not arguing that the door design isn't a problem. On the contrary, I think it is the weakest link in the design of this airplane. If it is not latched properly, or if it somehow becomes unlatched in flight, the door will most likely be gone in an instant.

my 2 cents

My RV10 now has 100 hours. I built the doors ala stock Vans by the plans with exceptions.
1. I installed the gear tracks all the way to the last tooth to get all the throwout possible. I didnt want to be short even one MM.
2. I made one aluminum pin guide from aluminum instead of delrin placed it on the pilots forward jamb. I wanted to see a comparison.
3. I placed a pull handle on the rear one third of the door at a diagonal to allow passenger and pilot to pull the rear of the door in tight before engaging the latch.

After 100 hours, the 3 delrin guides are torn and ragged, and the jambs have paint chipped away where hapless trys at latching forced the pins outside of the guides. Since there are 3 of us who fly this plane I wasnt there to see how this happened but suspect it was by closing the latch with the doors ajar which is my opinion of how all these accidents began.

The aluminum block isnt damaged.

I will now replace the other 3 delrin guide blocks with aluminum and add one more modification. I am going to file a slight slope to the hole in the guide on the outside edge to facilitate capture of the locking pin which has also a sharp slope.

It seems important that the slope of the latch pins be aligned properly facing outward to help grab the edge of the block and force the pins into the hole. I reccomennd for all to check this item to be sure you have the optimum set up.

The problem I have noticed is the door is flexible and wants to twist if you only pull in from the front handle. The rear handle gives far better control on the latching process and the pilot can reach across and pull the pass door in and visually see that it has seated hard in the jambs. This to me is an item you dont want to rush like when your in a big hurry and slam the car door and hit the gas. We also pay close attention that the locking dog has engaged in the slot at the handle. I didnt install any aux center latch.

Good luck on your projects.

latch

I don't think Vans has one part made of Delrin that comes in the kit unless you added Delrin later Most of the plastic is UHMW, a very soft and crappy material for this job. Delrin is very strong and works great as a bearing surface. I doubt you could puncture and cut it with the pushrod ends. On the other hand the UHMW pieces will cut really easy. Maybe you installed after market Delrin blocks but I can't imagine they are getting ruined unless the pins are too sharp.

I wish all builders had a chance to close my doors and see how easy they are to shut. You don't have to pull hard anywhere and you can shut it with one finger. It is impossible to get one pin in and not the other. The cam will not allow this to happen unless it is installed very poorly or wrong. I too have magnetic proximity switches installed.

Correct me if I'm wrong Ted, but if you had Vans S.B. while your plane was on fire, you would have to physically stop flying the plane and reach over with both hands to eject your door.

Sean, I did not try Van's SB latch (hook) so I have no idea how to operate it. Your cam based latch pulls the door in easily and keeps the door secured. To open the door just press the tab on the handle and make a 180 degree turn (I had the 180 degree kit). I do highly recommend this kit.

By the way my departing door did not hit any part of the airframe.

my mistake

You are correct, the guide blocks are not delrin, they are soft and easy to cut.

thanks

Thanks, I didn't want builders thinking I sell the soft stuff that Vans supplies.
I am considering changing out the flap bearings that are made from UHMW in the fuselage with Nylon pieces. I noticed some of the slop in the flap is due to the ovalling of these pieces. Nylon is a lot harder and is very impact resistant.

rleffler said:

He reported that a serial number [was] found on the door of the aircraft. From it, the origin of the plane will be investigated.

Click to expand...

Unless you builders are now stamping the serial numbers on the door like Piper or GM might do, I have a feeling this is not a -10.

I have the iflyrv10 door pins (steel) and receiving blocks (billet aluminum). I also close the doors from the outside as part of my walkaround.

Doug.

As another sample point, my doors do not require pulling on the rear. I can pull the lock handle with a gentle pull, and it will latch fine using the Al pins and guide blocks and mcmastercarr seals.

If i don't pull a bit, then the rear pin will hit the flat part of the guide block and not allow engagement of either pin. The only time I had the rear pin out and forward pin in, was when I had a power cord running through the door in the back, and THAT did cause the rear pin to latch outside of the fuse.

However, what I don't know is:

1. With the engine started and at idle, can i still close the front door properly? I don't know what will happen to the door.

2. What happens to the door in an up position at idle and taxi speeds?

Easy swap of pin blocks

FYI: If this has convinced anyone to ditch their plastic plates and you want a quick and easy solution for swapping only the blocks, AirCrafters sells a set of four plates made of 2024.

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/products.htm

The iflyRV10 kit looks nice too. I guess it depends on how much one wants to alter.

Couple of comments....

I am pretty sure that the guide blocks supplied in RV-10 finish kits are now made of Delrin (and I believe they have been for a couple of years).

I will not enter an argument of whether the RV-10 should have a different door design or not, but will suggest that at some point a pilot needs to take responsibility for his/her actions while flying an airplane.

Check lists are for helping us overcome our nature of not being perfect.

If we should redesign the door system on an RV-10 because of the high likelihood that there will always be pilots that will take-off without a door being properly latched...

Then we should also redesign the fuel system for all RV models (except the fuselage tank RV-3's) so that it is not possible for a pilot to take-off with an empty (or nearly so) tank selected or with the selector in the off position...

And, we should redesign the trim systems so that you can't start the engine without properly setting the pitch trim for take-off...

And, we should.... well, you get the idea.

I am not at all saying that improvements should not be made if safety of flight issues are discovered (which has been done countless times with different RV models over the years), but there is a practical limit to that.

At some point, the pilot has to get serious about his/her level of responsibility for completing a safe flight, when flying an airplane.

rvbuilder2002 said:

I am pretty sure that the guide blocks supplied in RV-10 finish kits are now made of Delrin (and I believe they have been for a couple of years).

I will not enter an argument of whether the RV-10 should have a different door design or not, but will suggest that at some point a pilot needs to take responsibility for his/her actions while flying an airplane.

Check lists are for helping us overcome our nature of not being perfect.

If we should redesign the door system on an RV-10 because of the high likelihood that there will always be pilots that will take-off without a door being properly latched...

Then we should also redesign the fuel system for all RV models (except the fuselage tank RV-3's) so that it is not possible for a pilot to take-off with an empty (or nearly so) tank selected or with the selector in the off position...

And, we should redesign the trim systems so that you can't start the engine without properly setting the pitch trim for take-off...

And, we should.... well, you get the idea.

I am not at all saying that improvements should not be made if safety of flight issues are discovered (which has been done countless times with different RV models over the years), but there is a practical limit to that.

At some point, the pilot has to get serious about his/her level of responsibility for completing a safe flight, when flying an airplane.

Click to expand...

Then why did Vans try to fix it? That goes against Vans making a Service Bulletin that "fixes" the problem. Then when they do, they make a two handed operation.

Strasnuts said:

Then why did Vans try to fix it? That goes against Vans making a Service Bulletin that "fixes" the problem. Then when they do, they make a two handed operation.

Click to expand...

Re-read the last two lines of my post

Van's made a contribution towards trying to make RV-10 pilots safer (which they had already done by supplying an indicator system), it was never considered a fix for the problem. No one can force pilots to use a checklist, any more than they can stop them from running out of fuel.
You can argue this issue all you want but it comes down to a very simple fact. If RV-10 pilots install the door indicator system and adjust it as specified, and (with the memory aid of a check list) check the indicator system before they take-off, doors would not be departing from RV-10's.

RV-10 pilots should make their contribution, and be responsible pilots regarding check list use and verification of items on the check list.

If a builder has chosen to install the door unsafe indicators at a location that is difficult to see (No excuse,the builder is the panel designer, the plans don't specify specifically where to locate them), then install a different indicator that is easy for you to see.

(I have seen no evidence that making the passive safety latch a two handed operation is a bad thing)

improvements

I like the magnetic proximity sensors and have them installed. This was a great Service Letter and it was practical.