TomVal

TomVal

Well Known Member
Just to give everyone an update on the Rocket fire yesterday. I just got off the phone with the owner, Dick Johnson. The preliminary cause was the result of a fuel leak at the mechanical fuel pump.

Dick departed Gillespie as part of a two-ship formation. Shortly after takeoff he noted a significant drop in fuel pressure. He asked lead to drop down and check for evidence of a leak. A serious leak was visually confirmed. Dick immediately turned back to the airport. As he slowed the aircraft for landing the fuel ignited. The fire burned up through the forward underbelly of the aircraft. The cockpit completely filled with smoke. Dick said that he had just one quick peek at the runway before his vision became completely impaired. His touchdown was hard and he bounced. He brought the stick full aft, the aircraft bounced again followed by the nose contacting the runway, and then when stopped, he was able to egress from the aircraft.

His preliminary damage assessmemt areas are: forward fuselage sheetmetal, essentially everything firewall forward, and possible damage to wiring and instruments in his avionics bay.

Considering Dick lost ALL visibility prior to touchdown, he did one fine job of getting his aircraft back on the ground and safely egressing.
 
Last edited:
I think all of us

would be interested in the cause of the fire---a broken fitting, a bad hose, etc.
Dick--if youre out there, there are several of us at Ridgeland (3J1) that can help--Lee Logan's F1 is based there.
Tom
 
TS Flightlines said:
would be interested in the cause of the fire---a broken fitting, a bad hose, etc.
Dick--if youre out there, there are several of us at Ridgeland (3J1) that can help--Lee Logan's F1 is based there.
Tom
Click to expand...

Tom,

Dick is not a reader of this forum. I'm about to leave town for a week. I'll give him a call when I return and I will report his findings.

Regards,
 
That is apparently a busy airport. It would be interesting to hear his first-hand account of what happened once he determined he had to get on the ground immediately.
 
Not trying to be an armchair quarterback, but I'd be interested to know if he shut off fuel at any point. In flight fire is one of my biggest fears.
 
That's a darn shame.

First time I saw a pic of that rocket, I put orange paint on my list as possible candidates for my -7. It was stunning!
 
link

Sorry I don't have a link. Kathryn report is very frustrating to use, but they have information that I don't find elsewhere.
 
Update...

TS Flightlines said:
would be interested in the cause of the fire---a broken fitting, a bad hose, etc.
Dick--if youre out there, there are several of us at Ridgeland (3J1) that can help--Lee Logan's F1 is based there.
Tom
Click to expand...

Update on cause of fire:

The aircraft had just come out of a condition inspection. The fire was due to a loose fitting on the output side of the mechanical fuel pump.
 
Even Happens to the Best of the Best

Danny7 said:
...now, the most prominent (in my mind) is the orange (tangerine) rocket that was recently in kitplanes (and i believe tragically burned recently: maybe it would have been good to have some paid help looking over the fuel connections?) and was an award winner (09 copperstate flyin) and probably would have done well at oshkosh, if it wasn't tragically burned.

whats the point? Mr Johnson took 8 years and 6500 hours, along with his build partner. they are both first time builders, not repeat offenders...
Click to expand...

(Dang…I could have sworn that I had started this thread under “Safety”)

I took the liberty to have swiped an excerpt from Danny7 on another post. I wanted to make an additional comment about the F-1 Accident. There is no need to read my entire post below. The moral to this story is that disaster strikes even the best of the best.

First of all, Dick is not a reader of this forum. Dick and his build partner, Leroy, I would say both bring forward exceptional background skills to have undertaken the F-1 Rocket project. Over the years, Dick has rebuilt many racing boats and automobiles. He presently owns two Ferrari’s, one early model Corvette, one Harley, and one golf cart, all rebuilt by him and painted in his signature colors of tangelo orange and black.

Leroy is employed in the aerospace industry. His specialty is metal fabrication and critical welding. As a matter of fact, Leroy has done a significant amount of work for NASA, most notably on the space shuttle engine.

The point to be made here is that disaster struck to the best of the best. It is just a reminder to all of us that what we do as builders and owners of these experimental aircraft, that we are all susceptible to making that single, life threatening, critical mistake.

Let us all pause and reflect on our building and maintenance practices. We all are involved in a very unforgiving avocation.

We here at Gillespie Field are thankful that Dick survived the accident with no serious injury. As our friend, Phil Yoon, from his hangar heard the crash and bang of compressing metal on the runway, Phil was first on the scene with a hand held fire extinguisher. As he ran towards the plane, he was yelling, “Come on Dick, Get Out! Get Out!”

Dick, a three time RF-4, DFC recipient, including one low level ejection, a retired airline captain, and a father of three, is now going through a period of serious reflection. We don’t know what his rebuild intentions are, however, we are thankful that he is still with us today.

Again, this is a time for all of us to learn from the mistakes of others and a time to reflect.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Wow

Glad he got out safely. Easy to buy or repair airplanes..they are just things. (yes, i know very nice things) but..if I have an inflight fire...to heck with the plane...I just want me and passengers out in one piece. Glad to hear the outcome was positive.
 
Toobuilder said:
Back to my earlier question: Was the fuel ever shut off, and if so, when?
Click to expand...

Michael,

I don't know if the fuel selector valve was shutoff. The fire didn't start until he started to slow on final. He did shutdown the engine on final because he had sufficient speed and altitude to make the runway.

If you are leaning towards the assumption that he should have shut off the fuel immediately after recognizing the problem, the area surrounding Gillespie has serious terrain issues and is heavily built up. Obviously he made the decision that the safest alternative was to head back to the airport. An off airport landing could have had serious consequences for persons and property on the ground.

What would you do? You have a fuel leak, the engine is continuing to run, you are over a highly populated area...do you shut down the engine and fuel at that time, or do you make an attempt to reach the airport??? These are the type of decisions that are worthy of reflection, but are difficult to second guess.
 
Last edited:
DAGO said:
If you are leaning towards the assumption that he should have shut off the fuel immediately after recognizing the problem, the area surrounding Gillespie has serious terrain issues and is heavily built up. Obviously he made the decision that the safest alternative was to head back to the airport. An off airport landing could have had serious consequences for persons and property on the ground.

What would you do? You have a fuel leak, the engine is continuing to run, you are over a highly populated area...do you shut down the engine and fuel at that time, or do you make an attempt to reach the airport??? These are the type of decisions that are difficult to second guess.
Click to expand...

He was asking an honest, factual question -- not second-guessing the actions of the pilot. I thought he stated that quite clearly in his first post.
 
Jamie said:
He was asking an honest, factual question -- not second-guessing the actions of the pilot. I thought he stated that quite clearly in his first post.
Click to expand...

Jamie,

My factual response was that "I did not know if the fuel was shut off!"
 
Jamie said:
He was asking an honest, factual question -- not second-guessing the actions of the pilot. I thought he stated that quite clearly in his first post.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the statement that he asked a clear question. However, without the first hand report from the actual pilot in command I am not sure any of us reading this forum will get the answer.

The OP clearly is close to the pilot in this situation so is going to lean toward defending a com padre. Why would we expect anything different? Given that this forum is notorious for having individuals second guessing the actions of others it is understandable DAGO is questioning the motivation for the question. Perhaps DAGO will be able to ascertain the answer to this question in time and afterwards post that answer here but we should also be aware that the question may just as easily never get answered.
 
Rockets come down like a ton of bricks with the power off, as do most high-performance airplanes.

That said for a rocket pilot down low with a fire going over a populated area the choice is pretty straighforward, keep the prop turning even if it requires fuel being on.

Unfortunately as Mike Busch pointed out in the last Sport Aviation routine maintenance mistakes are the #1 cause of mechanical failure accidents.

I have an AFFF fire system on the shelf I was given by a friend of mine a few years ago and this one seals the deal, its going into my Rocket.
 
Last edited:
I'm NOT second guessing - and I have no idea what I would do in that exact situation - but I sure as **** am interested in knowing if relationship between the fire and the fuel shutoff.

Look, there is not much ahead of the firewall that will support combustion in the early stages of a fire event EXCEPT fuel, so I'm kind of mentally spring loaded to removing that source as soon as possible in such an event. I'd like to know if that assumption is wrong, thats all. For example, if our accident pilot secured fuel at the moment a major fuel leak was observed and it still burned, then I'm going to go back and take a hard look at my mental E/P's. Conversely, if the pilot jumped out of the airplane and ran for his life with the fuel still "ON" (understandable), then I'd like to know that as well.

Every accident is an opportunity to learn... This one should not be any different just because he's someones buddy.
 
Last edited:
Two recent accidents where apparently a fuel fitting was not properly torqued. This is one area addressed with the RVFlightSafety.org website.

As a community we can prevent these events if we start developing more rigorous maintenance and safety practices.

We don't need any more events like this to learn from, we need fewer incidents.
 
As a result of this discussion, I wondered if my fuel selector off position actually worked. I know it sounds dumb. But is off off? Is my off maybe a both operation? I never checked it.
I thought maybe off might not be off at all, or off might be off mostly. Maybe the fuel pumps might be able to suck a little fuel by the seals? I dunno. So I tested it.

Took ~3 seconds while airborn after going to off, before the engine began to die, another 2 seconds to completely stop producing power. It never gave a hint through prop stopping, or during high dive fast windmill, that it was ever getting any fuel. I have the el cheapo Vans supplied valve.

Just a data point.
Is your 'off' off?
 
My "off" is OFF

I tested mine on first engine run, before the airplane made its first flight. It was on my list of test items for first engine run. Boost pump, on, fuel selector, off. Engine stopped.
 
Ron Lee said:
...As a community we can prevent these events if we start developing more rigorous maintenance and safety practices...
Click to expand...

Prevention is a lofty goal, but as an "absolute" (prevention = never), is essentially impossible. Stuff happens. Sometimes its easily preventable like leaving the gas caps off, but sometimes it's a freak one in a million accident like getting hit midair by a chunk of de-orbiting Russian satelite.

There are at least two lessons in this particular accident, and the first seems pretty clear cut: Make sure your stuff is tight.

The second lesson is not as clear (yet), but sure seems relevant to continued flying safety: how do you effectively manage the situation when things go to hell?

There is much evidence to suggest that removing fuel will stop a fire very quickly. This of course stops the engine which may make the overall situation worse, but it would be nice to know what happened in this case.

I understand the urge to "protect" against the firestorm of second guessing that often comes after this type of event, but I'm really only interested in the effectiveness of the shutoff valve in a FWF fire.

Since the accident pilot is not a member of the forum, is the OP willing to find out this bit of info and report back?

...Sure would put a few minds at ease.
 
Toobuilder said:
...Since the accident pilot is not a member of the forum, is the OP willing to find out this bit of info and report back?

...Sure would put a few minds at ease.
Click to expand...

To All,

I just gave Dick a call. He did not become aware of a fire until about 3 miles out. Although he never directly felt the heat of the fire, his first indication of fire was the cockpit rapidly filling with smoke. He tried to get an additional call off to tower but the inhalation of smoke made it difficult to speak. With his forward visibility restricted, his concentration became focused on making the runway (R27R) and not running into buildings or rocks.

Note: The following NOTAM applies to R27R:

RWY 27R CLOSE ALIGNMENT TO CENTERLINE NECESSARY, USE OF LOCALIZER RECOMMENDED DUE TO PROXIMITY OF MOUNTAINRWY 27R CLOSE ALIGNMENT TO CENTERLINE NECESSARY, USE OF LOCALIZER RECOMMENDED DUE TO PROXIMITY OF MOUNTAIN

This mountain (Rattle Snake Mountain) is approximately 1.5 miles east and just to the right of 27R localizer.

The fuel supply was NOT shut off until after landing. He thinks what saved him from direct flame intrusion was afforded by the temporary barrier provided by the floor insulation.

I appreciate Dick’s honesty in openly discussing this matter.

Dick plans to rebuild the Rocket.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Thanks Tom,

Sometimes the decision to shut down your only engine (even with a confirmed fire) can be complicated by equally compelling circumstances (like buildings and rocks). I only hope that if I'm ever faced with a similar situation it ends equally as well for the occupants.

Thanks for the candor.
 
This is a critical situation in which people could have died. That no one did is great. The best thing is to prevent this from happening and to suggest that you can't is a flawed position.

If this event was caused by someone loosening a fuel connection and not catching it...that is 100% preventable. "People make mistakes" is not an acceptable viewpoint.

If the RV community is not going to develop better maintenance/safety practices, then RV pilots will continue to die. In some cases that will involve taking someone they love along with them or innocent people on the ground.
 
Ron Lee said:
"People make mistakes" is not an acceptable viewpoint.

If the RV community is not going to develop better maintenance/safety practices, then RV pilots will continue to die. In some cases that will involve taking someone they love along with them or innocent people on the ground.
Click to expand...

I agree, maintenance is serious stuff and obvously if not done or not done correctly it can kill you.
 
Ron Lee said:
..This is a critical situation in which people could have died. That no one did is great. The best thing is to prevent this from happening and to suggest that you can't is a flawed position...
Click to expand...

While I agree that our collective maintenance can and must improve, there will still be a need to deal with the inevitable "escapes". Just because a situation IS preventable does not mean it WILL be. That's just simple reality. What if the fuel fitting simply broke, vs. came loose? I've been in aircraft maintenance my entire adult life and when I hear things like "safety culture" or "zero defects" from people I always think that it is certainly a goal we must do our best to reach, but it is not THE solution for a safe outcome, and it is certainly not reality.

In this example, I think it has been established that maintenance was the underlying cause (sorry to step on any toes, but let's be honest). OK, point taken - lesson learned. But even perfect maintenance does not guarantee perfect engine operation by any means. The other compelling part of this story is the fuel leak and resulting fire - what can we learn from that? Would different actions by a pilot improve or degrade the outcome, or was this result the best possible? Without second guessing the actions of the pilot, that's what I want to know.

Face it, none of us thinks our aircraft are anything less than perfectly airworthy, but I for one think about in flight fire or engine failure all the time.
I'd like to think that if the time comes, I will act in the most appropriate manner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.