What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Final Report - N230BW - F1 Tail Damage

PHOTO01

Active Member
Lots of speculation on the last thread, but for those wishing for concrete data here it is:


http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/12/team-rocket-f1-n230bw-accident-occurred.html

Team Rocket F1, N230BW: Accident occurred December 24, 2019 at Hampton Roads Executive Airport (KPVG), Norfolk, Virginia

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Richmond, Virginia

Mike Scott Aviation LLC

https://registry.faa.gov/N230BW

Location: Suffolk, VA
Accident Number: ERA20LA080
Date & Time: December 24, 2019, 14:15 Local
Registration: N230BW
Aircraft: TEAM ROCKET F-1 F-1
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal

On December 24, 2019, about 1415 eastern standard time, an experimental, amateur-built F-1 Rocket, N230BW, was substantially damaged while maneuvering near Suffolk, Virginia. The airline transport pilot (ATP) and a private pilot were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the ATP pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations as a Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local flight that departed Suffolk Executive Airport (SFQ) Suffolk, Virginia about 1345.

The ATP pilot was operating the airplane from the front seat; he reported that after they performed several touch and go landings at SFQ, they flew southeast of the airport for light, "gentleman's aerobatics." They conducted several aileron rolls, barrel rolls, and wing overs at airspeeds between 150 and 180 knots, and no more than 3 G's which was below the airplane limit of 6 G's. Additionally, he stated that momentary speeds of 225 knots were witnessed during two nose-high pulls into wing overs. At the conclusion of the sequence, the private pilot in the rear seat executed two aileron rolls, followed by a barrel roll. The maneuver was entered about 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl) at 165 knots and the airplane climbed to about 4,000 ft msl. The rear seated pilot initiated a 25° nose down pitch and as the airspeed increased above 180 knots, he pulled back on the stick to recover from the descent. During the recovery, a loud noise was heard, and a buffet was felt. All engine parameters appeared normal, but a "flutter" was felt in the airframe. About 5 seconds later, the airplane experienced a negative G nose over and both pilots hit their heads on the canopy.

The front seat pilot took control of the airplane, reduced engine power to idle, and recovered. Pitch authority was difficult to maintain during the flight to Virginia Hampton Roads Executive Airport (PVG), Norfolk, Virginia. During the first landing attempt, the airplane bounced several times. The pilot initiated a go-around and attempted another landing which was successful.

The airplane was equipped with a Dynon Avionics (D-180) multi-function display unit, which was recovered and downloaded. Review of preliminary flight data revealed that during the maneuver which preceded the structural failure, the airplane was flying about 3,000 ft msl at a negative 25° pitch that progressed to a negative 38° pitch at 1,800 ft msl while descending about 11,000 feet per minute (fpm). The airspeed increased from 230 to 244 knots, exceeding Vne (never exceed speed) of 240 knots. The recorded G range during this period was -2.31 to +3.68. The pilot recovered at 455 ft msl and initiated a positive rate of climb. About 5 seconds after initiation of the climb, there was a momentary pitch down and subsequent negative G indication of -0.125, before the climb was reestablished.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the right horizontal stabilizer separated from the airplane and the right elevator remained attached but was bent downward. The left horizontal stabilizer and elevator remained attached, but were bent downward. There were buckles near the elevator spar connections and several tears in the spar.

The front seat pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land and multi-engine land instrument airplane. In addition, he held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, airplane multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He was issued an FAA first class-class medical certificate on March 19, 2019. He reported 2,738 hours total flight time, of which 4 hours were in the accident airplane make and model.

The rear seat pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land. He was operating under Basic Med and reported 45 hours total flight time.

According to FAA records, the airplane was issued an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate on December 12, 2009. It was a tandem, two-place, internally braced low-wing airplane, that was equipped with tailwheel landing gear, and a Lycoming IO-540, 250-horsepower engine driving a three-blade MT constant speed propeller. The airplane and engine had accumulated 407 hours total time and 6 hours since its most recent annual inspection on November 2, 2019.

The reported weather conditions at PVG, about 10-miles north of the accident location, at 1356 included wind from 060° at 10 knots, gusting to 18 knots, visibility 10 statute miles and clear, temperature 11° C, dew point 03° C, and an altimeter setting of 30.04 inches of mercury.

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: TEAM ROCKET F-1
Registration: N230BW
Model/Series: F-1
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built: Yes
Operator: On file
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: VMC
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: PVG,28 ft msl
Observation Time: 13:56 Local
Distance from Accident Site: 10 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 11°C /3°C
Lowest Cloud Condition:
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 10 knots / 18 knots, 60°
Lowest Ceiling:
Visibility: 10 miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.04 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: Suffolk, VA (SFQ)
Destination: Norfolk, VA (PVG)

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 2 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries:
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 36.649723,-76.512496
 
Are there any post flight pictures of the horizontal tail and elevator? I am interested in seeing how damaged they were and still able to fly home and land with a go around. Amazing the elevator did not jam with right side not attached and bent down.
Do Team Rocket F-1 use stock RV tails or are they different?
 
Last edited:
He reported 2,738 hours total flight time, of which 4 hours were in the accident airplane make and model.

The rear seat pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land. He was operating under Basic Med and reported 45 hours total flight time.
Yikes. The blind leading the blind…
 
What’s concerning here is that a 4 kt overspeed led to this flutter….that’s nowhere near the margin I’d hope for.
 
If you read the NTSB report, it mentions missing rivets in the horizontal stabilizer as a possible contributing factor.

I won't dox the aircraft owner, but I believe he is a poster here - perhaps he has some information to share that would be of benefit to the general RV population.
 
What’s concerning here is that a 4 kt overspeed led to this flutter….that’s nowhere near the margin I’d hope for.

How did you determine it was flutter?

The NTSB did not.... "Although flutter was reported by both pilots and could not be ruled out, the damage to the
horizontal stabilizer was consistent with its failure due to aerodynamic overload during
aerobatic maneuvers near the airplane’s Vne. "
 
Critical data points here for thought.

From a 2019 VAF posting - "Team Rocket supports John Harmon's statement, as mentioned by Danny Melnik in the post above, that aerobatic weight should not exceed 1550 Lbs. At this weight, we recommend +5/-3 G. The lower weight is not only for wing spar considerations, but is also to minimize inertial loads on the tail and fuselage, and to have a more consistent pitch response."

Full thread reference here - https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=171695

From the pilots statement in the NTSB report - "The pilot stated that he believed he was flying well within the aerobatic specifications of the
aircraft, which he believed were +6/-3g at 2,000 lbs. "

Possible contributor to the above statement is that the pilot had only 4 hours in make/model.
 
Last edited:
From the final report, the first pic shows the closeup of the remaining horizontal stabilizer on the airplane. This is the part that is identical to the RV7.

Also in the report, there are rivet holes that were missing in the construction. Also the rib cap was missing but not sure from the report if the cap flew off with the stabilizer or it wasn't installed during construction. No speculation. The open inboard rivet holes don't have rivets in them. The outboard rivets holes have the remaining of the rivets that were sheared off during the failure.

The 2nd pic shows the rib cap and the location of the missing rivet holes as seen in the RV8 drawing. I think this as the similar design to the RV7, but not exactly the same
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    50.1 KB · Views: 499
  • Capture2.JPG
    Capture2.JPG
    91.6 KB · Views: 309
New call signs - LUCKY 1 and LUCKY 2?

It looks just like the 7 with the SB H00001 to be added. The photo is the 7.

Is this correct per the NTSB report?: The HS 710 and 714 each had two rivets missing AND the HS-00001 was not installed at all.

Screen Shot 2022-10-25 at 2.40.27 PM.png
 
Last edited:
I sure hope those guys go on to live amazing lives - they were probably some of the luckiest people on the planet that day. Wow.

The pilot took control of the airplane, reduced engine power to idle, and recovered. The pilot reported that he had difficulty with pitch control during the flight to Virginia Hampton Roads Executive Airport (PVG) Norfolk, Virginia. During the first landing attempt, the airplane porpoised several times, so the pilot initiated a go-around, then made a successful landing during his second attempt.
 
Where did the 240 knots Vne come from?

From the Harmon Rocket FAQ page: "The Vne for a properly constructed F1 is 275mph(240kph) and the F4 should abide by Van's Vne numbers for the relevant wing/tail combination."

275mph converts to 239 knots, even though the page references it as 240kph. I don't want to cross the speculation line, but the report doesn't mention bank angle at all except for mentioning they started this in a barrel roll. Unless they were perfectly level during the dive and recovery, I would think that asymmetric loading was also a contributing factor.

Someone in the industry please help me with this though, how can you be an airline pilot and not have a flight review since 2019? What am I missing there?
 
Last edited:
Flight Review

There are several alternatives to Flight Review. Part 121 or 135 check rides "in lieu of" are among the options.
 
??

No mention of parachutes and no mention of aerobatics below 1500' Approximately 400' AGL is really scary part. I wonder if there has been certificate action against the PIC??
 
No mention of parachutes and no mention of aerobatics below 1500' Approximately 400' AGL is really scary part. I wonder if there has been certificate action against the PIC??

They weren’t doing aerobatics below 1500’. The maneuver was initiated at 3000’.
There were parachutes on board.
 
Last edited:
I sure hope those guys go on to live amazing lives - they were probably some of the luckiest people on the planet that day. Wow.

The fact that they executed a successful go-around after a bouncy landing is just a cherry on top.
 
From the Harmon Rocket FAQ page: "The Vne for a properly constructed F1 is 275mph(240kph) and the F4 should abide by Van's Vne numbers for the relevant wing/tail combination."

275mph converts to 239 knots, even though the page references it as 240kph. I don't want to cross the speculation line, but the report doesn't mention bank angle at all except for mentioning they started this in a barrel roll. Unless they were perfectly level during the dive and recovery, I would think that asymmetric loading was also a contributing factor.

Someone in the industry please help me with this though, how can you be an airline pilot and not have a flight review since 2019? What am I missing there?

Thanks - I was under the impression that the tail components were the same as a -7, which I thought would earn it the same Vne as a -7. Perhaps the tail surfaces are not the driving factor in the -7's Vne.
 
Critical data points here for thought.

From a 2019 VAF posting - "Team Rocket supports John Harmon's statement, as mentioned by Danny Melnik in the post above, that aerobatic weight should not exceed 1550 Lbs. At this weight, we recommend +5/-3 G. The lower weight is not only for wing spar considerations, but is also to minimize inertial loads on the tail and fuselage, and to have a more consistent pitch response."

Full thread reference here - https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=171695

From the pilots statement in the NTSB report - "The pilot stated that he believed he was flying well within the aerobatic specifications of the
aircraft, which he believed were +6/-3g at 2,000 lbs. "

Possible contributor to the above statement is that the pilot had only 4 hours in make/model.

Interesting. I didn’t realize the aerobatic limits were not +6/-3 either. Granted, I fly an RV-8, so mine ARE +6/-3 at 1550lbs….right?

Goes to show that it’s not necessarily the wing spar that is the limiting structure. Thanks for the correction!
 
Lessons I will take away from the report:
- think even more before relinquishing the controls to a young and very inexperienced pilot
- the altitude above oneself is as useless as the fuel left in the bowser at the field
- the requirement of an aerobatic qualification, as required in some countries, must be beneficial
 
Granted, I fly an RV-8, so mine ARE +6/-3 at 1550lbs….right?

The aerobatic gross weight is 1550 pounds for RV-8s with the non-Dash One wing, and 1600 pounds for RV-8s with the Dash One wing. +6g/-3g is correct for the aerobatic GW limits.
 
Last edited:
Lessons I will take away from the report:
- think even more before relinquishing the controls to a young and very inexperienced pilot
- the altitude above oneself is as useless as the fuel left in the bowser at the field
- the requirement of an aerobatic qualification, as required in some countries, must be beneficial
Personally, I don't see age or flight hours as a specific factor in either direction. Well, revising this a bit. I definitely respect the years I have left more now than I did 30, 40 years ago...

Re aerobatic qual, I would say more importantly you need aerobatic plus specific familiarity with the make/model. I once gave a ride to a very seasoned ANG F-16 pilot. When I handed it over to him, he began yanking us around like we were in an F-16. I grabbed the stick and we regrouped a bit... My takeaway - those dialed in on flying an F-XX need a little re-tuning before cutting loose with an RV/RV-ish plane.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind:

The root area of the H Stab was not assembled correct : some very critical rivets were not put on the H Stab spar as they should be. I would guess that the ship was about 50% in that area that let go 1st. Who the heck did the pre-buy - if there was one?

The fellas in that flight came out very lucky - but we all know that.:eek:
 
As a Rocket owner I was a bit concerned about this incident however after getting all the pertinent info I am surprised the aircraft did as well as it did. It was at the placarded max airspeed and snatched from -2 G’s to almost plus 4 G’s with a improperly built stab. Flutter was not a issue in this case. The statement they felt flutter in the airframe was after the failure and the pictures explain why they felt that. It was not flutter in the conventional sense.
 
Who the heck did the pre-buy - if there was one?

This is why I shy away from prebuys anymore; people are under the impression that it would be ensuring the aircraft was built exactly per plans with zero deviations and you're responsible for anything/everything, basically an impossible task. Not to mention that these are built by amateurs, and no two are exactly alike.
Using a borescope in enclosed areas and counting rivets... are you F'n kidding me!
 
Last edited:
This is why I shy away from prebuys !

Walt, I hate to hear you are shying away from prebuys. You’re one of the few people I would trust to do a thorough prebuy. I think as long as you emphasize to the potential buyer that no prebuy can discover all build quality issues and that every new owner will discover something that wasn’t correctly done then hopefully you’ll continue to serve the RV community with your expertise.
 
I was told that the previous owner fluttered the tail in a high speed dive. Was also told that he as an A&P did the prebuy inspection for the new owners. He is no longer with us, but I feel it might have been a contributing factor in the incident in question.
I do know that the previous owner put the plane up for sale pretty quickly after the 'flutter' incident. Contributing factor or not, a REALLY good, inspection might have revealed some things.

NOT pointing fingers, but get a GOOD prebuy from a knowledgeable individual on the type of plane you are looking at. Might just save your life.

Tom
 
Tom, was this the Rocket in Florida that experienced flutter at near 300 knots indicated? If so I think the stab was rebuilt so the incorrect construction might have occurred at that point.
 
I think as long as you emphasize to the potential buyer that no prebuy can discover all build quality issues...

Here's an example. Lower right motor mount weldment for an RV-7. Those rivet holes are not supposed the be countersunk, much less countersunk to a knife edge.

Impossible to find in a prebuy. It is not exposed to view until the structure is drilled apart.
.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20221026_175451448 800w.jpg
    IMG_20221026_175451448 800w.jpg
    90.9 KB · Views: 239
Last edited:
George----I dont know that for sure. The plane was in Ga. when I heard about it. Bothered me alot, since I had considerable back seat time in Lee Logans F1.
But it would not have surprised me, knowing the previous owner. RIP.
Tom
 
Are you kidding me????

I sure hope those guys go on to live amazing lives - they were probably some of the luckiest people on the planet that day. Wow.

OMG!! Unbelievable!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: Time to go buy some lottery tickets! Incredible pictures of the damage that FLEW.....and did a GO-AROUND!!! Says something for the design of these airplanes even when they aren't built to plans! I hope they sent Vans a $1000 donation to their Safety Program!!! (if there is one....something....):eek::eek::eek: Reminded me of some of the post-mission photos from WW II!!! Bet they needed a laundromat after seeing the damage.....!
 
Back
Top