jetjok

jetjok

Well Known Member
Saw this report on the FAA Preliminary Report for today. Looks like the damage was only to the aircraft

********************************************************************************
** Report created 3/8/2010 Record 6 **
********************************************************************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 164LT Make/Model: EXP Description: RV6A
Date: 03/05/2010 Time: 2215

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: ONALASKA State: AK Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, FLIPPED OVER, 4 MILES FROM ONALASKA, AK

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: SEATTLE, WA (NM01) Entry date: 03/08/2010
 
Not to flog the expired equine, but yesterday's incident had a crew of one (1), fatality's zero (0) if I am reading the report correctly. Unfortunately, if I interpreted the NTSB report linked below, that accident occured in November, 2008.

NTSB Identification: WPR09CA080
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, November 24, 2008 in Onalaska, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/15/2009
Aircraft: TARANTOLA RV6A, registration: N164LT
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.

DCat22 said:
No.. "Injuries: 1 Uninjured" from http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20090113X55612



Formatting makes it a bit odd. (Along with the blank after "Unk: ")

EDIT: What Ryan said. :)
Click to expand...
 
As I read it....

jetjok said:
Not to flog the expired equine, but yesterday's incident had a crew of one (1), fatality's zero (0) if I am reading the report correctly. Unfortunately, if I interpreted the NTSB report linked below, that accident occured in November, 2008.

NTSB Identification: WPR09CA080
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, November 24, 2008 in Onalaska, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/15/2009
Aircraft: TARANTOLA RV6A, registration: N164LT
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
Click to expand...

...I think the NTSB report is a previous accident with the same plane at the same airport....:(

Especially since the one in post #1 was in the current Preliminary Accident Report section.
 
One incident

It is just one event, the incident occurred on 11/24/08 and the NTSB published the probable cause, the final report, on 4/15/09. All the reports have the same reference number.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09CA080&rpt=fi

The best line in the report:

"He said that he landed on runway 27 with a 20-knot tailwind and was unable to stop before the end of the 1,100-foot runway." :eek:

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
But why...

...the incident occurred on 11/24/08 and the NTSB published the probable cause, the final report, on 4/15/09...

...did it appear in a current Preliminary Report almost a year after the final report that determined a cause?

Is there something we don't know about these Preliminary Reports?

Note that the Preliminary report first quoted (post #1) does not have a NTSB number.

Still sounds to me like a second event to the same plane....
 
incident

Two separate accidents with same airplane/same airport. Nov 28,2008 report shows damage to right wing. Yesterdays post of accident which took place Mar 5, 2010, the airplane flipped over.
 
John Clark said:
It is just one event, the incident occurred on 11/24/08 and the NTSB published the probable cause, the final report, on 4/15/09. All the reports have the same reference number.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09CA080&rpt=fi

The best line in the report:

"He said that he landed on runway 27 with a 20-knot tailwind and was unable to stop before the end of the 1,100-foot runway." :eek:

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

Or this, as part of the probable cause:

"Contributing to the accident was the tailwind."
 
I stand corrected

It is two separate incidents, same airplane. The recent one appears to be an off-airport landing, "AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, FLIPPED OVER, 4 MILES FROM ONALASKA, WA."

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
I'm not sure you can even say that...

:)
John Clark said:
It is two separate incidents, same airplane. The recent one appears to be an off-airport landing, "AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, FLIPPED OVER, 4 MILES FROM ONALASKA, WA."

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

The first report says "private airstrip", and there does not appear to be one in Onalaska, WA.

However, there is Ethel Airstrip shown on Google maps about 4 miles SE of Onalaska, a short grass strip with a 27 runway, the later report just got a bit more accurate in distances.

I still say two incidents, same airplane, probably same location...
 
Last edited:
What did I learn from this

My first guess is that an RV should not land on a 1,100' strip with a 20 knot tailwind. While some may pull it off it appears that it is not tolerant of less than perfect short field landing techniques.
 
Ron Lee said:
My first guess is that an RV should not land on a 1,100' strip with a 20 knot tailwind. While some may pull it off it appears that it is not tolerant of less than perfect short field landing techniques.
Click to expand...

And it would be a whopping difference between a fixed pitch & constant speed.

L.Adamson --- RV6A Hartzell C/S
 
L.Adamson said:
And it would be a whopping difference between a fixed pitch & constant speed.

L.Adamson --- RV6A Hartzell C/S
Click to expand...

Larry,
If you are ever in the Portland area, lets do a comparison and see how much difference their is between a 180 hp RV-6A with a fixed pitch prop, and a RV-6a with a constant speed prop.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Larry,
If you are ever in the Portland area, lets do a comparison and see how much difference their is between a 180 hp RV-6A with a fixed pitch prop, and a RV-6a with a constant speed prop.
Click to expand...

Scott,
I've talked about getting up there sometime. My "whopping" refers to landing distances. I've flown f/p 6A's myself, and compared to a 7 f/p also. Unless the 6A f/p is a pure climb prop..............I'm going to win for the superior braking ability on the decent! :)

Of course, with you working at Van's and everything...........you probably are short on test vehicles, for such comparisons.. :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
What does the descent have to do with landing distance? You're either on speed or you're not. The last few feet to drop over a fence isn't going to change.
 
Flyfalcons said:
What does the descent have to do with landing distance? You're either on speed or you're not. The last few feet to drop over a fence isn't going to change.
Click to expand...

If we come over the fence at the same speed, the C/S will decelerate faster. In fact, it's something you have to watch, because airspeed decays "very" quickly. If you don't stay on top of it, the plane will fall right through the flare.

Therefor, you either do a power off, and flare at the right time; or carry a bit of power.

But............if we can fly over that fence with just a few feet to spare....consistently, and with the perfect airspeed, then I suppose you're correct.
 
Yep....

John Clark said:
...lists two airports near Onalaska, WA. One paved, 3 miles South, and one turf, 4 miles east, but neither shows a runway 27. This will all sort out when the factual report appears in a few days.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/WN74

http://www.airnav.com/airport/WN59

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

....but as a FAA Safety Team member you must know about strips not on airnav.

I mentioned Ethel Intl. about 4 miles SE of Onalaska....

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...01,-122.686665&spn=0.010319,0.015707&t=h&z=16

It does seem to have a grass/turf runway 27, and it's real short....:)
 
L.Adamson said:
If we come over the fence at the same speed, the C/S will decelerate faster. In fact, it's something you have to watch, because airspeed decays "very" quickly. If you don't stay on top of it, the plane will fall right through the flare.

Therefor, you either do a power off, and flare at the right time; or carry a bit of power.

But............if we can fly over that fence with just a few feet to spare....consistently, and with the perfect airspeed, then I suppose you're correct.
Click to expand...

"over that fence with just a few feet to spare....consistently, and with the perfect airspeed,"

I thought that was how every high-performance landing was supposed to be flown.....regardless of aircraft......
 
Sam Buchanan said:
"over that fence with just a few feet to spare....consistently, and with the perfect airspeed,"

I thought that was how every high-performance landing was supposed to be flown.....regardless of aircraft......
Click to expand...

To be truthful, I was envisioning both planes slamming into the ground without a flare. Otherwise, I'll still settle to the ground faster.. :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Yes Larry, We all know by now that an RV will not fly or land without a constant Speed prop.

I must be some kind of Super pilot. I don't have a problem landing my RV-6 consistently on my 1500' strip with a 3-blade Catto. It must be my manual flaps and trim.

BTW, you can talk about deceleration all you want to but a C/S prop does not make an airplane fly slower. Yes, if you don't know how to otherwise slow the airplane down, the C/S prop does help.
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
BTW, you can talk about deceleration all you want to but a C/S prop does not make an airplane fly slower. Yes, if you don't know how to otherwise slow the airplane down, the C/S prop does help.
Click to expand...

Mel,

I know that your flaps and trim are manual, but are those trap doors to stick your feet out for decleration...........manual or electric? :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
L.Adamson said:
Mel,

I know that your flaps and trim are manual, but are those trap doors to stick your feet out for decleration...........manual or electric? :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

Actually, if we are going to start adding other configuration differences into the mix... I think manual flaps have an advantage over electric flaps. Full flaps on an RV significantly enhance ground effect. Dumping the flaps immediately after the mains touch down has three benefits.
It reduces the pitching moment of the wing and reduces the airflow blanking of the horizontal tail and elevators. Both of these give the elevators more authority to keep weight off of the nose during heavy breaking. The third benefit is to reduce ground effect lift which adds additional weight to the main gear which in turn allows for heavier breaking (I believe the additional breaking easily offsets the loss of aerodynamic breaking when raising the flaps). I do not have any carefully measured data to support this, it is simply my opinion after about 1400 hrs of RV time.

Now you may say that an RV pilot has no business adjusting the flaps right at touchdown. I say "If he has no business doing that, then he has no business landing on a runway short enough that the technique is of value".
Just like many other skills we use to fly our RV's, it needs to be practiced (I practice it regularly).

As for the difference it aerodynamic breaking of a constant speed prop versus a fixed pitch? In theory there is some advantage with the constant speed, but it practice I think it is much smaller than Larry thinks. If the idle speed is set properly on the fixed pitch airplane, I think the drag difference starts to diminish greatly after the airspeed has decade below 50 mph after touch down. With careful analysis could it be measured? Maybe. Is it a whopping difference? Know where near, in my opinion. We can all agree that at approach speeds (80 to 90 mph) their is a significant drag difference between a fixed pitch and a constant speed prop, but that difference mostly disappears after touchdown.

Bottom line...
When flown properly, there is not a significant difference in the short landing capabilities of a fixed pitch versus a constant speed prop RV.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Now you may say that an RV pilot has no business adjusting the flaps right at touchdown. I say "If he has no business doing that, then he has no business landing on a runway short enough that the technique is of value".
Just like many other skills we use to fly our RV's, it needs to be practiced (I practice it regularly).
Click to expand...

I'd certainly agree!

Bottom line...
When flown properly, there is not a significant difference in the short landing capabilities of a fixed pitch versus a constant speed prop RV.
Click to expand...



What this really means -------If one uses superior skills to arrive at the runway with proper airspeeds while dealing with a fixed pitch prop...

Then he/she has already began to slow many miles before I have too. That's just "simple physics". And that's okay...

BTW--- I hate the term -simple physics- :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A / Lyc 180/ Hartzell CS/ elec. flaps, trim /slider
 
L.Adamson said:
Then he/she has already began to slow many miles before I have too. That's just "simple physics". And that's okay...
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. I have no problem at all slowing my RV down without using "many miles"!
 
L.Adamson said:
What this really means -------If one uses superior skills to arrive at the runway with proper airspeeds while dealing with a fixed pitch prop...
Click to expand...

You may interpret it that way but that is not the way it was meant. And surely you don't mean that you can fly your airplane using improper airspeeds and still land shorter than a properly flown RV that has a fixed pitch prop.:eek:
 
Mel said:
That's simply not true. I have no problem at all slowing my RV down without using "many miles"!
Click to expand...

Okay................but

See if you can fly downwind at 120 kias, and hit 70 kias on a tight pattern.
Or how about descending 2000 fpm down a mountain canyon & enter a pattern close by at 90 kias. We do it to duck under KSLC's Class B. It's quite routine. You go up one out of two canyons, and fly down the third....for traffic consideration :)

In all seriousness, we do have lot's of RV's in this area. More C/S's due to our mountain altitudes, but still plenty of fixed pitch to compare with. None of these planes have been able to slow............anywhere close to what we can in the same distance. I've flown two fixed pitch 6A's myself, and there is a lot of noticeable difference.

If you want to accidentally do something that's not kind on the engine or yourself, just push the blue knob all the way forward when the engine/prop isn't ready. It will slam you forward in the seat belt. It's actually uncomfortable, has the prop turning the engine (not healthy on an engine)...............but demonstrates the braking ability of a C/S.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I hope someone moves this to the never ending forum..

Before it takes too long for a new reader to get to the story about the RV-6 incident......:) ps. I don't ever recall landing anywhere with a 20 mph tailwind. Turning it into a 20 mph headwind might have allowed a steeper descent angle for the other direction, but I'm sure there were other factors at play with this incident...
 
Sam Buchanan said:
If entering a close pattern at 120 kts..........I try to be at 65 kts over the fence.......

(RV-6, O-320, fixed-pitch prop, LRI indicator)
Click to expand...

Me too. The Piper Archer 90,80,70 & 65 over the fence works well for me.
At 60 kias (as by my airspeed indicator)............I had better be close to the ground, as airspeed bleeds off extremely fast. I feel no ground effect.

Of course, in the Archer, you'd be lucky to get to 90 knots while in the pattern................if doing T&G's. :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
RWY 27, winds 270 at 20kts

Am I looking at this wrong?...

Pilot says he landed on rwy 27 with a 20kt tailwind. The report says wind was 270 at 20kts, which would make it a 20kt headwind (not tailwind) if he was landing on rwy 27.

report link: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09CA080&rpt=fi

Was he landing on 09 then? Was the reported wind direction incorrect? ... or am I just having one of those days?
 
Last edited:
Lycosaurus said:
Am I looking at this wrong?...

Pilot says he landed on rwy 27 with a 20kt tailwind. The report says wind was 270 at 20kts, which would make it a 20kt headwind (not tailwind) if he was landing on rwy 27.

report link: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09CA080&rpt=fi

Was he landing on 09 then? Was the reported wind direction incorrect? ... or am I just having one of those days?
Click to expand...

Call or tune in your local ATIS. You will find your answer there.
 
gasman said:
Call or tune in your local ATIS. You will find your answer there.
Click to expand...

I called my local ATIS and found out it's raining with some clouds today. Didn't really help me figure out why you'd have a tailwind landing on runway 27 when the winds are 270 at 20.

Could just be an error in the document. If you look at the original post, the accident location was stated as Onalaska, AK, not WA.
 
scared again

I'm going to stop reading these posts....

The "experts" are scaring me again.....

My 150HP fixed pitch -9A will probably be incapable of flight and, if a miracle should occur, and I manage to get it airbourne, I won't be able to slow it down to land unless I start throttling back in Texas to land in New Mexico:eek:

I should just quit now....

Dave
-9A FWF finished (painting to begin!)
N514R
 
Yeah, he had a good headwind according to the report. I suppose as the end of the runway approached it felt like a tailwind.
 
Daver said:
I'm going to stop reading these posts....

The "experts" are scaring me again.....

My 150HP fixed pitch -9A will probably be incapable of flight and, if a miracle should occur, and I manage to get it airbourne, I won't be able to slow it down to land unless I start throttling back in Texas to land in New Mexico:eek:

I should just quit now....

Dave
-9A FWF finished (painting to begin!)
N514R
Click to expand...

Now don't worry too much....:) I know of a 6A with 150 horses and a fixed pitch prop that could even make it over the mountains we have here. With that high tech Ronzi (or whatever it's called) airfoil that the 9 has, lift should be no problem. At least that's what the experts say. ;)

But...........up here at these above sea-level altitudes, that same 6A did take all those extra miles to slow down...:D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Flyfalcons said:
I called my local ATIS and found out it's raining with some clouds today. Didn't really help me figure out why you'd have a tailwind landing on runway 27 when the winds are 270 at 20.

Could just be an error in the document. If you look at the original post, the accident location was stated as Onalaska, AK, not WA.
Click to expand...

Wind........ 270 at 20, is the same as saying the wind is blowing from the west at 20 knots. In this case, you would want to land on runway 9 and have a 20 knot headwind. You would touch down at about 40mph gs and roll about 3 or 400 feet to a stop.:cool:

THIS INFORMATION IS NOT CORRECT!!! That's what I get for posting after midnight..................... Sorry!
 
Last edited:
gasman said:
Wind........ 270 at 20, is the same as saying the wind is blowing from the west at 20 knots. In this case, you would want to land on runway 9 and have a 20 knot headwind. You would touch down at about 40mph gs and roll about 3 or 400 feet to a stop.:cool:
Click to expand...

I haven't been flying for 3 months, but I'm fairly certain this is wrong info.

wind 270@20, I'm landing on RY27 into the wind. YMMV;)
 
gasman said:
Wind........ 270 at 20, is the same as saying the wind is blowing from the west at 20 knots. In this case, you would want to land on runway 9 and have a 20 knot headwind. You would touch down at about 40mph gs and roll about 3 or 400 feet to a stop.:cool:
Click to expand...


Last time I looked if the wind is from the west you land to the west. My compass shows west to be 270 (which will change in a few years when the poles swap ends).

To avoid confusing that is why winds are reported the direction they are from and not the direction they are going. Unfortunatly I have several weather source that allow you to flop how you want winds reported and it really screws me up if I do not notice the setting flipped on me.
 
Last edited:
You don't need a windsock....

...if you pay attention to your surroundings. A 20 knot wind will have the trees and bushes leaning over. The upwind side of ponds will be glass smooth while the other/downwind side is streaked and blown. On either crosswind or base, you should easily see a crab angle with a wind that strong...just pay attention. How 'bout your GPS groundspeed upwind vs. downwind?

Unless it was a one-way strip with tall obstacles on the 27 end, it appears that the pilot should have landed to the west here.

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
...snip.....The upwind side of ponds will be glass smooth while the other/downwind side is streaked and blown....snip
Click to expand...

We have a small pond NE of our field and I must admit I look at it before I look at the windsock <g>

2ahfj9s.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Wind Sock

This old farmer had been flying for years off his grass strip next to his house. The highest place on his property was his chimney, so he attached his wind sock pole to his chimney. One day he was out flying, and to his horror, his wife had started a particularly smoky fire and he couldn't see his wind sock. When he finally got on the ground after a particulaly bad landing, he gave his wife ****, because he couldn't see which the wind was blowing because the sock was covered by smoke. Steve "The Builders Coach"
 
Wind Sock

Sorry to be participating in this thread hijack. I guess I got a case of Stockholm Syndrome!
While I am deprived that I do not live on an airpark, I do have the next best thing and live under the downwind leg for my local airport. Many years ago, I put up a windsock at my house, as I was flying my hot air balloon out of my back yard. (Note: not really much use, because if the sock is blowing it is time to leave the balloon in the garage). Anyway, the local pilots loved it because the ones at our airport had faded to a color suitable for camouflage and mine was a great stand in!
 
For Steve: Did the farmer think to note which way the smoke (that was covering his windsock) was blowing? ;)

For Pierre, a couple confirmation Q's for you: one time going into a small town airport on an air ambulance mission, I used the spray from the nearby crop field's sprinkler...bet you've done that a time or two, eh? I was also told by my first CFI that you can also tell which way the wind is blowing by looking at the cows in a field...they all face downwind so the wind doesn't blow dirt in their faces as they bite the grass and chew it (so you land facing the cows...well not at them, in that direction ;)). Is that fact or myth (my samples over the years have mixed results, and not enough cows in Reno for a good test here. :)

Sorry to add to the hijack, but using natural wind indicators is a good adjunct discussion, and adds to our safety toolbox, right!?

Cheers,
Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.