Status
Not open for further replies.

ronschreck

Well Known Member
NTSB Identification: WPR12FA059
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, December 10, 2011 in Surprise, AZ
Aircraft: Donohoe Vans RV-7A, registration: N724WD
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
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.

On December 10, 2011, about 1258 mountain standard time, an experimental amateur-built Donohoe Vans RV-7A, N724WD, collided with terrain near Surprise, Arizona, shortly after the pilot reported a controllability problem in flight. The airplane was substantially damaged and the private pilot, who was also the builder and owner of the airplane, was fatally injured. The personal flight was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight.

The pilot based the airplane at Glendale Municipal Airport (GEU), Glendale, Arizona, in a hangar that he shared with two other RV owners. According to information provided by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel, the airplane departed GEU about 1226, and 4 minutes later, the GEU air traffic control tower controller instructed the pilot to contact Luke approach control, and the pilot complied. Luke Air Force Base (LUF), Glendale, was situated about 5 miles west of GEU, and Luke Approach was responsible for the airspace above and around LUF. Review of ground tracking radar data from LUF revealed that the entire flight was captured. The LUF radar first acquired the airplane at 1227:27, as it was climbing through an altitude of 1,300 feet above mean sea level (msl), and broadcasting a beacon code of 1200 on its transponder. The airplane flew about 25 miles to the northwest of GEU, maneuvered for a short time, and then began tracking back towards GEU. The flight altitude varied irregularly between about 2,700 and 3,300 feet msl.

About 1256:25, when the airplane was about 9 miles northwest of GEU at an altitude of 2,500 feet, the first 7700 beacon code return was received. The pilot transmitted a "mayday" call to Luke approach about 25 seconds later, and stated that he was unable to control the airplane. The final radar return was received at 1257:21. The wreckage was located about 800 feet north of the final radar return, on flat terrain, at an elevation of 1,330 feet. Examination of the wreckage revealed ground scars and damage consistent with a left spin. All aerodynamic surfaces and flight controls were located in the wreckage. Fuel spillage from the right wing tank was observed, but there was no fire. A handheld Garmin GPSMap 296 unit was recovered from the wreckage, and retained for data download.

FAA records indicated that the airplane was built in 2006. It was equipped with an Eggenfellner conversion of a Subaru automobile engine, a Quinti-Avio propeller hub, and a Warp Drive propeller. The hour meter in the airplane registered 340.5 hours.

According to FAA records, the pilot held a private pilot certificate with a single-engine land rating. His flight logbook indicated a total flight experience of about 683 hours, including 270 hours in the accident airplane make and model. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued in July 2010, and his most recent flight review was completed in January 2011.

The GEU 1247 automated weather observation included wind from 080 degrees at 5 knots; visibility 20 miles; broken cloud layer at 20,000 feet; temperature 19 degrees C; dew point -7 degrees C; and an altimeter setting of 30.10 inches of mercury.
 
The initial NTSB report noted that he relayed a distress call which seems rare in GA accidents.

It is interesting that he had time to input 7700 into the transponder.

Not noted is whether the entire prop was at the accident site.
 
This is one of the accidents I find troublesome because of the distress call and the out of control aspect. I hope more information comes out soon to try and determine the cause. I wonder if a major failure in the PSU could cause severe enough vibration to lead to control problems.

George
 
This is one of the accidents I find troublesome because of the distress call and the out of control aspect. I hope more information comes out soon to try and determine the cause. I wonder if a major failure in the PSU could cause severe enough vibration to lead to control problems.

George

Agreed, this is specially due to the fact that he has had time to put the code 7700, although it is possible that he had meant 7600 if he had lost communication.

Nor whether the engine was developing power at time of impact...

I wonder if they can easily determine that, since subies use a composite prop and unlike metal prop does not bend forward or backward when it hits the ground.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess it is time for me to make the standard request that folks refrain from speculating about the accident.

Seems every time there is an alternative powerplant involved, folks just assume it is the cause of the accident.

It could be, or it might not be, we dont know at this time, no need to say stuff that turns out to be totally wrong-----you could just end up with "Egg" on your face.

The pilot reported loss of control, not loss of power, remember.

Thanks, your friendly local moderator watching this thread;)
 
Information

Mike, I don't think any of this falls into speculation. I for one think that speculation can be a good thing in that it brings awareness. From that awareness we all learn. There has been no finger pointing or blame. The Moderators have a hair trigger that stifles learning in too many cases.

There was no post crash fire. Is it speculation to say that he may have been able to shut the engine and engine electrical system off prior to the crash? Who knows. But it something to think about. We know we can greatly reduce the chances of a fire by cutting electrical sources. We now have this in our mental check list because of this sad event.
 
Seems every time there is an alternative powerplant involved, folks just assume it is the cause of the accident.
Have you deleted any posts? I don't think anybody has suggested that. My comment would have been pertinent whether it was Subaru, Mazda, Lycoming, or Turbine powered... I was just curious whether it was running when it crashed, and thought that it was odd that they didn't mention it in the report.

Bavafa said:
I wonder if they can easily determine that, since subies use a composite prop and unlike metal prop does not bend forward or backward when it hits the ground.
If the prop is developing power, windmilling, or simply stopped at impact, the failure patterns should be different in all three cases. I don't think it matters whether it's composite or metal, they fail differently but there will still be differences in the parts left over that should let you determine what was happening. Might be harder for a composite prop, I suppose.

Maybe as an automotive conversion it would have an engine computer, and that might log performance info? Or maybe an EFIS/EMS that would have logged it.
 
Sorry Darwin Gotta Go With Mike On This One

Mike, I don't think any of this falls into speculation. I for one think that speculation can be a good thing in that it brings awareness. From that awareness we all learn. There has been no finger pointing or blame. The Moderators have a hair trigger that stifles learning in too many cases.

There was no post crash fire. Is it speculation to say that he may have been able to shut the engine and engine electrical system off prior to the crash? Who knows. But it something to think about. We know we can greatly reduce the chances of a fire by cutting electrical sources. We now have this in our mental check list because of this sad event.

First sentence says it's a preliminary report. Doesn't say prop departed, spar failed, control linkage separated, aircraft was overstressed, engine mounts failed or there was any type of power or propulsion failure. Also didn't say switches were on or off or fuel valve was in off position. The report gives no cause nor does it list any action on the part of the pilot, other than his words. Beyond that, everything else would seem to be entirely speculative.
Obviously, the pilot did some very "right" things under pressure. There's value in that for everyone. Hopefully, a full report will reveal what he wasn't able to overcome, and we can continue to learn.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.