Menty, like you I am shocked. We all knew this pilot and his ability and he is a huge loss over here. However, he was not god (although sometimes given god like status despite his humble nature). Many, many exceptional aerobatic / airshow pilots here and overseas have made mistakes and paid the price. Lots with way more experience and ability than our friend. At this stage, pilot error should not ever be ruled out just because the pilot was well known and considered god like. Likewise, mechanical failure should not be ruled out either. I have concerns, and always have about RAAus investigators who usually have two days training in investigation. I hope we find out the real cause, however, if it turns out to be pilot error, some will never accept it. Either way, we will all miss him.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-12 accident Australia 3-23-2013
- Thread starter kymjon
- Start date
- Status
Fisher Accident
People, I am leaving this forum now and I thank you all for your imput.
The bottom line is: Any pilot, builder or aircraft can come unstuck. At this point in time there is no definitive answer to this accident, although much data has been collected and as we awaite the verdict (if there is one) from the Coroner. I would simply say to you all, to avoid falling into complacency at the word of soothsayers who would seem to know all and to coach all new RV12 builders to be succint in their construction and inspection of their new toys and a great future will be had by all.
SAFE FLYING and continue to enjoy the world fof RV.
People, I am leaving this forum now and I thank you all for your imput.
The bottom line is: Any pilot, builder or aircraft can come unstuck. At this point in time there is no definitive answer to this accident, although much data has been collected and as we awaite the verdict (if there is one) from the Coroner. I would simply say to you all, to avoid falling into complacency at the word of soothsayers who would seem to know all and to coach all new RV12 builders to be succint in their construction and inspection of their new toys and a great future will be had by all.
SAFE FLYING and continue to enjoy the world fof RV.
RFSchaller
Well Known Member
Wow! I need a bottle of what you're drinking, Menty! 
ATSB
Our ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) is now involved in this accident investigation:
Investigation Number AE-2013-069:
On 24 March 2013, a Vans RV-12 amateur-built aircraft collided with terrain shortly after takeoff from Lismore aerodrome, NSW. The pilot and sole occupant was fatally injured.
The NSW police service is investigating this accident on behalf of the state Coroner. On 10 April 2013, investigating officers contacted the ATSB and requested assistance with the recovery of data from the aircraft's 'Dynon Avionics Skyview' electronic flight information system - components of which were recovered from the aircraft wreckage.
In order to protect the data recovered and sensitive information received from the NSW police, an external investigation was initiated under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.
The investigation is continuing.
The report is expected to be completed in September.
Our ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) is now involved in this accident investigation:
Investigation Number AE-2013-069:
On 24 March 2013, a Vans RV-12 amateur-built aircraft collided with terrain shortly after takeoff from Lismore aerodrome, NSW. The pilot and sole occupant was fatally injured.
The NSW police service is investigating this accident on behalf of the state Coroner. On 10 April 2013, investigating officers contacted the ATSB and requested assistance with the recovery of data from the aircraft's 'Dynon Avionics Skyview' electronic flight information system - components of which were recovered from the aircraft wreckage.
In order to protect the data recovered and sensitive information received from the NSW police, an external investigation was initiated under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.
The investigation is continuing.
The report is expected to be completed in September.
Last edited:
Don, I don't have any more information other than what I posted in #42 and this morning. The ATSB does not usually get involved in aircraft accident investigations that do not involve either RPT or GA aircraft. This RV-12 was registered with RAAus, an organisation that administers `ultralights' on behalf of CASA. Those accident investigations are generally left to the police and coroner. In this case, I suspect that the ATSB was asked to get involved because of their expertise in recovering electronic data. Consequently, they have opened a case file.
txaviator
Well Known Member
Any more news?
Not that I've heard. I'm not sure that the ATSB would release their results ahead of the police enquiry/coronial inquest anyway. In this case, they were asked to provide technical assistance to the police investigation, so they may hold their report until the coronial enquiry is done. If/when they do, here's a link to the ATSB site:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ae-2013-069.aspx
E. D. Eliot
Well Known Member
Update please
Please update us - this is important - would appreciate anything that isn't confidential. Thanks.
Please update us - this is important - would appreciate anything that isn't confidential. Thanks.
We are all waiting for the findings of the coronial inquest to be released, but the wheels of officialdom turn slowly and in this case the ATSB, police and coroner are all involved. I don't know whether the ATSB will release their own report as they were only asked to assist the police inquiry by extracting electronic data from the Dynon. Their investigation has been flagged as almost complete for quite some time now, so they are probably waiting for the coroner to wrap up the case as well. My own unofficial view is that the crash was not the result of a problem with the aircraft.
I don't know exactly what happened but based on the information I have concerning this accident and those involved in it, it seems highly unlikely to me that a problem with the design, the preparation of the plane, weather or pilot error caused the crash. That doesn't leave too many other possibilities. You may also want to go back and read post #22. When the investigation results are eventually published, we will all know the details.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Post #22 http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=761926&postcount=22
And here I my comments based on the data available from the ATSB report done for the NSW Police.
http://atsb.gov.au/media/4469487/AE-2013-069_Final.pdf
I have a few comments to make here; My opinion based on the data.
Take off roll starts at 50:23 approx
Gets going at 50:28
Takeoff speed starts around 50:33
IAS peaks at about 80 Knots @ 50:42
Pitch is steady through the roll until 50:42
PA is steady from 33-42s as well, with a short dip, typical of a positive pitch up (static port sinking)
Trim is repeatedly pitched down during the acceleration and then pitched up prior to the rapid climb, then trimmed back down again
Full power applied in the time up to 50:28
Distance travelled approx 380m in the 50:25 > 50:42 sec range.
I have flown Dick VanGrunsven's own personal RV12, and even with two of us, (he is very tall & I am errr..more solid) the takeoff distance is half that.
I have made my comments known on this before. There is nothing to suggest this is anything other than the result of deliberate and foolish acts by the pilot.
I might be proven wrong when the NSW police evidence is presented to the coroner. But it looks unlikely.
Make your own mind up after studying that.
And here I my comments based on the data available from the ATSB report done for the NSW Police.
http://atsb.gov.au/media/4469487/AE-2013-069_Final.pdf
I have a few comments to make here; My opinion based on the data.
Take off roll starts at 50:23 approx
Gets going at 50:28
Takeoff speed starts around 50:33
IAS peaks at about 80 Knots @ 50:42
Pitch is steady through the roll until 50:42
PA is steady from 33-42s as well, with a short dip, typical of a positive pitch up (static port sinking)
Trim is repeatedly pitched down during the acceleration and then pitched up prior to the rapid climb, then trimmed back down again
Full power applied in the time up to 50:28
Distance travelled approx 380m in the 50:25 > 50:42 sec range.
I have flown Dick VanGrunsven's own personal RV12, and even with two of us, (he is very tall & I am errr..more solid) the takeoff distance is half that.
I have made my comments known on this before. There is nothing to suggest this is anything other than the result of deliberate and foolish acts by the pilot.
I might be proven wrong when the NSW police evidence is presented to the coroner. But it looks unlikely.
Make your own mind up after studying that.
I must be missing something. All I see is data showing a aircraft taxi out, make a return back to the hangar and then go back out takeoff and pitch up to a very high deck angle where it appears to depart controlled flight. There are so many things that could cause that I could write for hours listing them.
David provides a lot of great information on the forum but has a strange habit of talking in riddles at times. What is he trying to say and what is the apparent cause?
George
David provides a lot of great information on the forum but has a strange habit of talking in riddles at times. What is he trying to say and what is the apparent cause?
George
cactusman
Well Known Member
I think that blaming a dead pilot not able to defend themselves is inappropriate.
The RV-12 does not have manual trim, and is rather dependent on a trim motor with wire connections.
The data does not show the position of the trim switch or the actions of the pilot or if the trim was running away. The final report will improve instructive, but as someone who is quite familiar with the political nature of accident investigations carefully structured under the guise of safety, I can tell you that I intend to be pretty darn careful with the trim settings as runaway/improperly set trim has caused a lot of accident and incidents in aviation in general, and the numerous problems and posts on here have proven very instructive to later builders to learn from the problems others have faced in this regard.
I agree that the data doesn't show specific trim position but it does show changes in the pitch trim control and changes were made in both directions so (to me anyway) it appears highly unlikely there was any type of pitch trim runaway.
I am not going to allow anyone to accuse me of playing the blame game, but I will point out a couple things that may not be obvious to everyone looking at the data of this report.
I understand and respect Doug's policy regarding waiting for a final accident report... my understanding is this will be the only report ever published for public consumption. The ATSB got involved with the investigation to help assist with data acquisition only. The local authorities were leading the investigation, and it is my understanding that their report will never be made public (though I may be wrong).
The data indicates that the airplane lifted off after about an 8 second long take-off run (about what would be expected).
It then leveled off at 20 ft (because of instrument errors of some type, it started out indicating a Neg. 50 ft altitude for some reason but it doesn't matter, we can still see a delta increase of 20 ft)
It flew level at 20 ft (with a pretty high level of precision, that for me doesn't indicate that it was severely out of trim in pitch... you decide for your self) for about 13 seconds.
During the level flight at 20 ft it accelerated pretty much linearly to about 89 MPH (converted from Meters/Second).
During this time the pitch trim was being constantly adjusted. Fully expected since the pitch trim would be changing the entire time the airplane was accelerating. NOTE: The actual calibrated trim range is noted to be from 1 to -1 so the amount of pitch trim change indicated in the chart is a small percentage of the entire range.
At the end of the 13 seconds level at 20 altitude, the airplane made an abrupt pitch up. The stall indicator activated at the beginning of the pitch up, probably as a result of it not yet being calibrated properly.
Airplane decelerates during the steep climb until it appears to stall at about 125 ft AGL, where during the stall it both yaws and rolls abruptly to the right
Last edited:
From the report:
The trim motor *indication* changes just a hair over 1.5% of its full range during the trace. There's no assurance that the trim tab itself moved at all as a result, and there's no calibration or even a sign convention to tell what that means in any meaningful sense. I wouldn't read anything into such a small variation. Others might.
Brantel
Well Known Member
Looks like the results of aerodynamic loading of the trim tab to me. The actual movement is such a small percentage of the calibrated span that this could just be the result of slop in the servo vs the sensor. Looks like the resolution of the A/D converter and or the potentiometer in the sensor could also be coming into play.
Before people run off on a tangent, can an RV12 pilot answer the following question:
What are the pitch forces like if the trim is at one extreme or the other? It's such a light airplane that I would guess - just a guess - that the average person can still exert enough stick force to maintain control. It's not a DC-8.
What are the pitch forces like if the trim is at one extreme or the other? It's such a light airplane that I would guess - just a guess - that the average person can still exert enough stick force to maintain control. It's not a DC-8.
Mike, I think it is a result of the data acquisition freq. vs the rate of change on the servo position sensor.
As Brian pointed out there is aero forces on the anti servo tab also involved. That is why the change rate is faster when the trim direction was reversed. The servo will have a higher load in one direction, and almost no load in the other (moving in a direction that reduces aero loads)
I don't think it is an indication of 50+ back and forth changes, though I have never analyzed the data from Skyview for the trim indications so I can't say for certain.
Yes it has been tested and is fully manageable (particularly at these speeds) using one hand.
If pitch trim were out severely enough to cause the pilot a problem, I don't believe he would have been able to fly so precisely level at 20 ft AGL, right after take-off, for 13 seconds. Just my opinion.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Aha, makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
Don't be mislead by a blown-up scale on the trim plot. I just don't see a trim issue here. The report says the trim position indications were calibrated to +/-1 units for full travel. The change in indication from min (~ -0.028 units) to max (-0.005 units) is 0.033 units, or 1.65% of the travel range, and it makes that change over ~2-3 sec. That's *tiny*. That doesn't look like a runaway or even like someone working hard to trim a severe out of trim condition. If the scale were blown up to show the full range of motion it wouldn't look like much of anything at all.
Last edited:
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
cactuspilot, appreciate your sentiment, but you can be sure this is not the only information I have at hand. But this is the only publicly available so far.
The incident is well recorded on digital media, and that could be part of the problem, and the flight profile was exactly as per his standard, albeit in a completely different aircraft type.
If I start painting the rest of the picture, you guys will paste me for speaking ill of the dead. Just a pity lots of folk did not do the same long before he killed himself, but worse, some of his students. There is far too much history here??and it will be in the coronial. In fact some of it has been presented in the colonials of others previously.
All I am prepared to say for now, no further questions.
RVbuilder and Brian are on the money!
so far.The incident is well recorded on digital media, and that could be part of the problem, and the flight profile was exactly as per his standard, albeit in a completely different aircraft type.
If I start painting the rest of the picture, you guys will paste me for speaking ill of the dead. Just a pity lots of folk did not do the same long before he killed himself, but worse, some of his students. There is far too much history here??and it will be in the coronial. In fact some of it has been presented in the colonials of others previously.
All I am prepared to say for now, no further questions.
RVbuilder and Brian are on the money!
So it let's see if this is right.
After studying the traces and reading the comments the data indicate:
Took off at minimum speed and accelerated in ground effect. With good stable altitude control.
At approximately 80 knots (40 meters per second), abruptly pulled up (lowering the static port) and immediately began a roll with heading shift.
Then stalled out.
Pitch trim changes were minimal and could be solely do to changing aerodymic loads (pull up and roll to inverted).
Stall indicator abrupt change could also de due to rolling inverted.
Thus, the aircraft was well controlled immediately after lift off.
If the above is wrong please correct. Just trying to understand.
-Dave
After studying the traces and reading the comments the data indicate:
Took off at minimum speed and accelerated in ground effect. With good stable altitude control.
At approximately 80 knots (40 meters per second), abruptly pulled up (lowering the static port) and immediately began a roll with heading shift.
Then stalled out.
Pitch trim changes were minimal and could be solely do to changing aerodymic loads (pull up and roll to inverted).
Stall indicator abrupt change could also de due to rolling inverted.
Thus, the aircraft was well controlled immediately after lift off.
If the above is wrong please correct. Just trying to understand.
-Dave
Have another look at when the roll (and heading shift) begins. It's not immediately at the pull up.
Agreed, everything happens very quickly. Pitch change starts at :42.0~ altitude only increases from :43.5 (lag due to inertia?), roll starts at :43.5 (result of accelerated stall perhaps?), roll angle reaches 140 deg at peak recorded pressure altitude. I could be misinterpreting the graphs so I won't comment any further, except to say that this accident appears to have been preventable.
Geico266
Well Known Member
To confirm what Scott said. After an accident here where the 12 was improperly trimmed I set mine full trim and took off and flew the pattern with one hand. I then landed trimmed the opposite and did it again. It is "easily" flown with full trim in either direction.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
He was known as LEGENDARY.
I know a bunch of stuff that I am not willing to part with just now. I have had my say already, but the coronial report will have lots of answers to this question. You can bank on it.
In the interim, read between the lines. What you see is plain english and not hard to decipher.
Driftdown
Well Known Member
That can be interpreted in many different ways.
When all the facts come in, we shall see, eh?
I thought twice about posting this, however, because the question was asked, I'm going to reply.
Wayne was a thoroughly decent guy. He was humble and quiet. I always thought of him as a little eccentric. I was not in his circle of friends but shared a dinner table with him once and did a human factors course with him on one occasion. I came across him on many other occasions but he was not one to openly chat. He operated a company building and selling Drifter ultralight aircraft and was probably the subject matter expert on this type of aircraft in this country.
Now, Wayne had a propensity towards low level aerobatics in these Drifter ultralight aircraft and could be seen at some fly-ins looping, rolling and spinning to very low levels. I'm not sure if he was just enjoying flying or showing off, but I suspect the latter. As he was the only one doing these kinds of aerobatics in Drifter ultralights, he was given LEGENDARY status among many in the ultralight community. In fact, he was almost god like among ultralight pilots. So much so that one of his former students who was a risk taker killed himself and a passenger while trying to replicate Wayne's apparent skill level.
The fact remains that due to his LEGENDARY status, there are those in the ultralight community who will NEVER accept that this could be pilot error and will look toward some other cause, irrespective of investigative results. We all know of some exceptional airshow pilots who are no longer with us due to low level aerobatic pilot error, most with skills way above those of this pilot.
So, was this crash as a result of pilot error/stupidity? Don't know, the investigation will tell.
Was this consistent with his flying style or propensity to show off? Yes! But in any case, he was a very nice and decent human being and we need to remember that.
Here is a tribute video someone put up on Youtube http://youtu.be/GLCqy4T0wtI
Wayne was a thoroughly decent guy. He was humble and quiet. I always thought of him as a little eccentric. I was not in his circle of friends but shared a dinner table with him once and did a human factors course with him on one occasion. I came across him on many other occasions but he was not one to openly chat. He operated a company building and selling Drifter ultralight aircraft and was probably the subject matter expert on this type of aircraft in this country.
Now, Wayne had a propensity towards low level aerobatics in these Drifter ultralight aircraft and could be seen at some fly-ins looping, rolling and spinning to very low levels. I'm not sure if he was just enjoying flying or showing off, but I suspect the latter. As he was the only one doing these kinds of aerobatics in Drifter ultralights, he was given LEGENDARY status among many in the ultralight community. In fact, he was almost god like among ultralight pilots. So much so that one of his former students who was a risk taker killed himself and a passenger while trying to replicate Wayne's apparent skill level.
The fact remains that due to his LEGENDARY status, there are those in the ultralight community who will NEVER accept that this could be pilot error and will look toward some other cause, irrespective of investigative results. We all know of some exceptional airshow pilots who are no longer with us due to low level aerobatic pilot error, most with skills way above those of this pilot.
So, was this crash as a result of pilot error/stupidity? Don't know, the investigation will tell.
Was this consistent with his flying style or propensity to show off? Yes! But in any case, he was a very nice and decent human being and we need to remember that.
Here is a tribute video someone put up on Youtube http://youtu.be/GLCqy4T0wtI
Last edited:
LOL...a bunch of guys who have 1) likely never done aerobatics, 2) probably don't have a clue what real aerobatic skill and judgment is, and 3) have likely had little to no formal flight training themselves. And they give "legendary" status to some guy who's willing to flip around at low levels in an ultralight, and that's grounds for eliminating the stupid pilot trick factor? But I get the impression you may see the fallacy here.
I am still at a loss as to what the secret is about this accident. Aircraft have been known to pitch up for a variety of reasons many of them mechanical. If the answer is in the data I can't see it. The aircraft pitched up and stalled. That is not in dispute. The question is why. Is the final report out? Why is everyone playing I have a secret?
George
George
Andy Hill
Well Known Member
George
The disappointing aspect is the Australian ATSB either do not, or are not required to, investigate Amateur Build accidents. The police and coroner will hold their forms of investigation, but they are not exactly experts in aircraft accidents.
The police called in the ATSB to extract the Dynon data. They did as requested, and presented exactly that as their final report. In many ways, worse than nothing, since it is left to others to the interpret it - and no doubt interested parties could interpret as they wish.
From the Oz posters above, they have discretely alluded to how they see things happened, and also that the coroner's report may well be more forthcoming as to what happened. Certainly in a recent Yak-52 accident, the coroner did not exactly hold back in making clear their views on how things were (not) run - particularly by CASA (Oz FAA) [ Link ].
I may well have got some of the above wrong / incomplete, and more than happy to be corrected. Ultimately to me, whilst it is hinted what probably happened, I feel Oz law / govt is wrong in not requiring the ATSB to investigate such accidents. Certainly our AAIB and the NTSB do.
I think you need to read the whole thread, or even wider.
The disappointing aspect is the Australian ATSB either do not, or are not required to, investigate Amateur Build accidents. The police and coroner will hold their forms of investigation, but they are not exactly experts in aircraft accidents.
The police called in the ATSB to extract the Dynon data. They did as requested, and presented exactly that as their final report. In many ways, worse than nothing, since it is left to others to the interpret it - and no doubt interested parties could interpret as they wish.
From the Oz posters above, they have discretely alluded to how they see things happened, and also that the coroner's report may well be more forthcoming as to what happened. Certainly in a recent Yak-52 accident, the coroner did not exactly hold back in making clear their views on how things were (not) run - particularly by CASA (Oz FAA) [ Link ].
I may well have got some of the above wrong / incomplete, and more than happy to be corrected. Ultimately to me, whilst it is hinted what probably happened, I feel Oz law / govt is wrong in not requiring the ATSB to investigate such accidents. Certainly our AAIB and the NTSB do.
Old Pilots and Bold Pilots
I can read between the lines, decipher the code, and all the other things mentioned by down-under posters with better knowledge of the pilot.
Taking off and then accelerating at low altitude to 90 mph is not "normal" in an RV-12. It IS normal in an aerobatic routine, and is usually followed by a dramatic pitch-up to impress the crowd - such a pitch-up apparently occurred here. I have been eyewitness to two Experimental pilots doing this exact maneuver in small airplanes - one an RV - both crashed and were killed.
Sometimes people are "Legends" in their own mind......
If one accepts that this may have been a case of poor judgement, there are a number of parties who were adversely impacted by this event.
One is the builder, who saw his hard work snuffed out, possibly for all the wrong reasons, and then became unwittingly involved in a search for a cause that might have involved him and his building skills.
Second was Vans Aircraft, who became a party, like it or not, and had the always painful experience of suffering the first fatal accident with a new aircraft type. I have vivid memories of the first three serious accidents on airplanes I was deeply involved in - in fact - like the Kennedy assassination, can remember where I was when I learned of the event. All three - 737, 757, and 777 - were after extended times in service, and all three involved extremely poor piloting that really meant those accidents need not have occurred.
I was a Third party, in a way, to this accident, as I was in my final preps for my First Flight, which I made about one week later. Reading the initial description of the accident made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, and gave me a long pause. It caused me to check and re-check, and even considered an indefinite stand-down until the accident cause became known. I even considered the actual flight, and having my wife there to witness it. Better, I thought, for the Sheriff to come and tell her the bad news, than to see me go into a smoking hole in person.
Unlike many others, I made my First Flight pretty quietly, with only two on-lookers and no cameras. I can tell you this for sure - as I opened the throttle and started down the runway, this accident was very much on my mind. And, I do not appreciate that apprehension if it was precipitated for all the wrong reasons.
So, those are three affected parties, besides the usual friends and family members. I know there were myriad more - including many on this list. Sometimes, airplane "accidents" turn out NOT to be "accidents" at all. Which makes them all the more painful.......
Bob Bogash
N737G
I can read between the lines, decipher the code, and all the other things mentioned by down-under posters with better knowledge of the pilot.
Taking off and then accelerating at low altitude to 90 mph is not "normal" in an RV-12. It IS normal in an aerobatic routine, and is usually followed by a dramatic pitch-up to impress the crowd - such a pitch-up apparently occurred here. I have been eyewitness to two Experimental pilots doing this exact maneuver in small airplanes - one an RV - both crashed and were killed.
Sometimes people are "Legends" in their own mind......
If one accepts that this may have been a case of poor judgement, there are a number of parties who were adversely impacted by this event.
One is the builder, who saw his hard work snuffed out, possibly for all the wrong reasons, and then became unwittingly involved in a search for a cause that might have involved him and his building skills.
Second was Vans Aircraft, who became a party, like it or not, and had the always painful experience of suffering the first fatal accident with a new aircraft type. I have vivid memories of the first three serious accidents on airplanes I was deeply involved in - in fact - like the Kennedy assassination, can remember where I was when I learned of the event. All three - 737, 757, and 777 - were after extended times in service, and all three involved extremely poor piloting that really meant those accidents need not have occurred.
I was a Third party, in a way, to this accident, as I was in my final preps for my First Flight, which I made about one week later. Reading the initial description of the accident made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, and gave me a long pause. It caused me to check and re-check, and even considered an indefinite stand-down until the accident cause became known. I even considered the actual flight, and having my wife there to witness it. Better, I thought, for the Sheriff to come and tell her the bad news, than to see me go into a smoking hole in person.
Unlike many others, I made my First Flight pretty quietly, with only two on-lookers and no cameras. I can tell you this for sure - as I opened the throttle and started down the runway, this accident was very much on my mind. And, I do not appreciate that apprehension if it was precipitated for all the wrong reasons.
So, those are three affected parties, besides the usual friends and family members. I know there were myriad more - including many on this list. Sometimes, airplane "accidents" turn out NOT to be "accidents" at all. Which makes them all the more painful.......
Bob Bogash
N737G
I caught the aspects about the pilot that were alluded to in the thread. What I don't fully accept is that a experienced pilot even if one known to push things a little or a lot would make the first take off which is a test flight and fly the aircraft as described. In fact I can't even conceive that any pilot would do that. There is so much involved in the first flight and things that should be checked such a action is so far outside the norm I just don't get it. I have never made a first flight in a aircraft however I have flown many maintenance test flights on aircraft some of which were down for long periods of time. You simply don't do that. Those who knew him seem to think this was not out of character for his flying however sometimes there is a lot more to a accident then meets the eye. Could for example a instrument or screen have slid out of the panel and shoved the stick backwards causing the pitch up among many other possibilities. I once had a friend who liked to pop a fireball into his mouth before night carrier landings to wake himself up at 3am. He was landing aboard the boat one night when he popped one into his mouth and promptly choked on it! He said he was literally passing out when the thought went through his mind "let the accident board figure this one out!" Somehow at that point the fireball popped free. He was still in a fog for a minute of so but kept the aircraft out of the water.
George
George
Dgamble
Well Known Member
I was thinking along the same lines, but then I remembered how often I've seen people do normally inexplicable things simply because they were in front of a crowd and/or a camera, particularly when trying to live up to the title of LEGENDARY.
I'm not saying that is what happened in this instance - just sharing my thoughts as I read through this thread.
...I suspect that's pretty much what it looked like, unfortunate for everybody.
I guess this is what it was supposed to look like:
http://youtu.be/TRt6UnNzR6I
Hope that put's y'all back in a better frame of mind
I guess this is what it was supposed to look like:
http://youtu.be/TRt6UnNzR6I
Hope that put's y'all back in a better frame of mind
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Well, the data has been presented and interpreted, the pilot has been described/diagnosed/debated. Innuendos and hints are overflowing, and the official results are still out on the horizon.
No more to be gained from letting this thread slip slowly yet inevitably down the speculation slope, so time to lock it up.
No more to be gained from letting this thread slip slowly yet inevitably down the speculation slope, so time to lock it up.
- Status
