Message-ID: <3B585D20.D64902B4@regandesigns.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:32:32 -0700
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hamid@regandesigns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Subject: Re: Recent accidents
References: <000c01c1110a$6a45f7c0$0daab918@me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Ernest Kovacs wrote:

> I was wondering if the two recent IV-P accidents were caused by two very
> experienced and competent pilots worrying too much about saving the airplane
> rather than themselves.

Let me start by saying that with only limited facts available, a lot of what I
am saying about the accidents is conjecture.  I am starting my analysis after
the engine failure and do not want to get into the discussion of why/how the
engine failed.  The engine failure is a given.

In the first accident, it appears that the pilot got killed because he did not
have his shoulder harness on.  People who have witnessed the accident scene have
stated that with a shoulder harness, it was a very survivable accident.  If that
is true, then the pilot did the right things and got the plane to a survivable
controlled crash.  Because of other reasons he did not survive the survivable
accident.

The second accident appears to be a classic "return to the runway after engine
failure on takeoff" scenario.  This is a common killer because pilots generally
grossly underestimate the altitude needed to transition from a climb attitude to
a landing attitude, make a 270 degree turn (a 180 degree turn will put you
parallel to the runway) and land.  When most pilots start that maneuver, the
firmly believe that they can make it based on their experience of doing 180
degree turns routinely.  I have talked to one experienced test pilot who
survived that maneuver (just barely -- he was lucky).  The pilot said that he
firmly believed, based on what he saw out the window, that he could make it back
to the runway.  The plane, fully insured by his maintenance shop's business
insurance, was totaled and the pilot came very close to being totaled himself.

 If you can get anything from that accident, it is to practice that maneuver.
At a safe altitude, put the plane in a takeoff attitude and speed, kill the
engine and see how many feet it takes you to turn 180 degrees.  After that try
the same maneuver over a landmark (like a runway or a road) and see what it
takes to get back to the road.  Then add a couple of hundred feet to account for
the surprise factor and having to perform under stress.  That is how much
altitude it will take for you to return the runway you just departed from.  You
can get away with slightly less altitude if there is a parallel runway or
taxiway or a properly situated crossing runway.

Remember that as you tighten the turn to steeper and steeper angles, the
airplane will stall at higher and higher airspeeds.  At those altitudes recovery
from a stall is not possible.  And a stall at those altitudes is likely to be
100% fatal.

Now for a commercial plug.  Products like Jim's AOA can warn you about impending
stall.  Products like Sierra Flight Systems' EFIS2000 can do the same and give
you a gliding range corrected for airspeed and turns, which will tell you if you
can make it back to the runway.  But neither of them would substitute for
practice and good judgment.

Hamid


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>