X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 13:20:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from COL004-OMC3S7.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 7098961 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:58:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.145; envelope-from=peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Received: from COL129-W86 ([65.55.34.135]) by COL004-OMC3S7.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22701); Fri, 15 Aug 2014 19:58:24 -0700 X-TMN: [EImIt/Q1ILZtkm5/p2qfpDDiH8yWJuBw] X-Originating-Email: [peterpawaviation@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_1f76e953-8b1b-4c5e-b373-aeea51741550_" From: PETER WILLIAMS X-Original-To: "lml@lancaironline.net" Subject: TRAIN OR DIE here it is again, again X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:58:24 -0400 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2014 02:58:24.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1FD9C00:01CFB8FD] --_1f76e953-8b1b-4c5e-b373-aeea51741550_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi there NTSB REPORT ON A 2012 FATAL ACCIDENT IN A 4P TURBINE =0A= A factual report=0A= on the Feb. 3=2C 2012=2C crash that killed Micron Technology CEO Steve =0A= Appleton released Aug. 12 by the NTSB sheds new light on the =0A= circumstances=2C though a determination of probable cause may still be =0A= months away.=0A= Investigators found no evidence of a =0A= mechanical failure that would have precluded normal operation=2C though =0A= there was significant corrosion in the fuel control unit=3B NTSB =0A= investigators note that Appleton=2C who purchased the aircraft from a =0A= previous owner less than two months before the crash=2C was relatively =0A= unfamiliar with the complex systems of an aircraft that Appleton himself=0A= described as "squirrely." While insurers required Lancair-specific =0A= training at the time=2C there is no evidence cited in the report that =0A= Appleton had sought such training. =0A= Appleton=92s Lancair IV-TP appears to have =0A= suffered a power loss shortly after a takeoff attempted minutes after a =0A= rejected takeoff=3B witnesses saw it pitch steeply and crash seconds after= =0A= liftoff. =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= AN ATP WILL NOT KEEP YOU SAFE IN A LANCAIR - if you have not had proper tra= ining =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Appleton held an airline transport =0A= pilot certificate with category ratings for multiengine land=2C =0A= multiengine sea=2C and single-engine land airplanes=2C along with various = =0A= type ratings=2C and had private pilot priviliges for single-engine =0A= seaplanes. He had logged more than 3=2C600 hours by the time he prepared = =0A= for his final flight=2C though the NTSB report notes that flight data =0A= recovered from the aircraft indicates Appleton had logged less than 14 =0A= hours in the aircraft he bought from the previous owner in December =0A= 2011.=0A= Data recovered from the electronic flight =0A= information system=2C recording in detail the accident flight as well as = =0A= previous flights=2C correlates to witness accounts and other evidence. =0A= Following a rejected takeoff=2C Appleton requested a departure clearance = =0A= at Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field=0A= in Boise=2C Idaho=2C shortly before 9 a.m.=2C the report states. The EFIS = =0A= data recorded a sharp drop in engine torque soon after liftoff=2C =0A= corresponding to the time Appleton notified the tower of his intention =0A= to turn back to the airport. During the last 16 seconds of the flight=2C = =0A= which reached a maximum altitude of 325 feet above ground level=2C engine = =0A= torque decreased to 14 percent=97well below the normal operating range. A = =0A= post-crash examination uncovered corrosion within the fuel control unit=2C= =20 WOULD YOU TURN BACK TO THE RUNWAY AT 300 FEET ABOVE THE AIRPORT? -IN A LANC= AIR 4/4P/4PT though the report notes that while =93numerous parts could not be =0A= examined due to the condition of the unit (corroded) precluding their =0A= removal=2C=94 there was =93no evidence of pre impact mechanical malfunction= or=0A= failure that would have precluded normal operation.=94 =0A= Investigators interviewed experts =0A= including an engineer formerly employed by Lancair=2C who said the =0A= aircraft (modified to accommodate a turboprop engine) had a dramatically=0A= higher wing loading than the original piston model=2C in the range of 40 = =0A= to 45 pounds per square foot. The turboprop modifications exacerbated =0A= the aircraft=92s =93already-existing aggressive stall characteristics=2C=94= =0A= making the Lancair IV-TP a =93challenging airplane to fly=2C which without = =0A= adequate training=2C makes it a dangerous airplane because it was not =0A= designed for such a high-horsepower engine.=94 =0A= A company pilot who had flown with =0A= Appleton in the accident aircraft told NTSB investigators that Appleton =0A= was =93unfamiliar with the panel=2C which made the airplane even more =0A= challenging.=94=20 UNFAMILIAR WITH THE PANEL?=20 =0A= The former Lancair engineer told =0A= investigators that a pilot has very little time to react to a power =0A= reduction during or immediately after takeoff: Without an abrupt pitch =0A= correction (to reduce the angle of attack)=2C the airplane would become =0A= =93unrecoverable=94 within 5 seconds after a power loss during the initial = =0A= climb. The engineer opined that the aircraft would stall at more than 80=0A= knots indicated=2C with a tendency to drop a wing=2C and told investigator= s=0A= that he advises pilots to use a decision altitude of 1=2C500 feet agl=2C = =0A= landing straight-ahead in case of any power loss below that altitude. =0A= The data=2C along with witness accounts and radio transcripts=2C shows Appl= eton attempted to turn back. =0A= Appleton=92s death drew significant media attention=2C=0A= and some questioned whether key corporate employees should fly general =0A= aviation aircraft. AOPA Foundation President Bruce Landsberg noted=2C days= =0A= after the accident=2C that the Lancair has a heavily loaded wing=2C and = =0A= higher stall speed than comparable certificated aircraft.=0A= =93Does this make Lancairs bad aircraft? Not=0A= in my view. But before flying one pilots must understand the nature of =0A= the animal they=92re dealing with=2C=94 Landsberg wrote.=20 hi there=2C again you know=2C the MU2 had a high rate of accidents attributed to the high win= g loading and different flight attributes. did not make it a bad airplane= =3B just a plane that needed a properly trained pilot. Likewise the Lancair= 4 series. (the MU2 autopilot problem is another story=3B another time) a sad loss of a good person and a good airplane peter =0A= =20 = --_1f76e953-8b1b-4c5e-b373-aeea51741550_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi there

NTSB REPORT O= N A 2012 FATAL ACCIDENT IN A 4P TURBINE


=0A=

A =3Bfactual report=0A= on the Feb. 3=2C 2012=2C crash that killed Micron Technology CEO Steve =0A= Appleton released Aug. 12 by the NTSB sheds new light on the =0A= circumstances=2C though a determination of probable cause may still be =0A= months away.

=0A=

Investigators found no evidence of a =0A= mechanical failure that would have precluded normal operation=2C though =0A= there was significant corrosion in the fuel control unit=3B NTSB =0A= investigators =3Bnote that Appleton=2C who purchased the aircraft from = a =0A= previous owner less than two months before the crash=2C was relatively =0A= unfamiliar with the complex systems of an aircraft that Appleton himself=0A= described as "squirrely." While insurers required Lancair-specific =0A= training at the time=2C there is no evidence cited in the report that =0A= Appleton had sought such training.

=0A=

Appleton=92s Lancair IV-TP appears to hav= e =0A= suffered a power loss shortly after a takeoff =3Battempted minutes afte= r a =0A= rejected takeoff=3B witnesses saw it pitch steeply and crash seconds after= =0A= liftoff.

=0A=
=0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
AN ATP WILL NOT KEEP YOU SAFE IN A LANCAIR - if you have not had pro= per training

=0A=
=0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A=
=0A=

Appleton held an airline transport= =0A= pilot certificate with category ratings for multiengine land=2C =0A= multiengine sea=2C and single-engine land airplanes=2C along with various = =0A= type ratings=2C and had private pilot priviliges for single-engine =0A= seaplanes. He had logged more than 3=2C600 hours by the time he prepared = =0A= for his final flight=2C though the NTSB report notes that flight data =0A= recovered from the aircraft indicates Appleton had logged less than 14 = =0A= hours in the aircraft he bought from the previous owner in December =0A= 2011.

=0A=


Data =3Brecovered from the electronic flight =0A= information system=2C recording in detail the accident flight as well as = =0A= previous flights=2C =3Bcorrelates to =3Bwitness accounts and other = evidence. =0A= Following a rejected takeoff=2C Appleton requested a departure clearance = =0A= at =3BB= oise Air Terminal/Gowen Field=0A= in Boise=2C Idaho=2C shortly before 9 a.m.=2C the report states. The EFIS = =0A= data recorded a sharp drop in engine torque soon after liftoff=2C =0A= corresponding to the time Appleton notified the tower of his intention =0A= to turn back to the airport. During the last 16 seconds of the flight=2C = =0A= which reached a maximum altitude of 325 feet above ground level=2C engine = =0A= torque decreased to 14 percent=97well below the normal operating range. A = =0A= post-crash examination uncovered corrosion within the fuel control unit=2C =

WOULD YOU TURN BACK TO THE RUN= WAY AT 300 FEET ABOVE THE AIRPORT? -IN A LANCAIR 4/4P/4PT

though the report notes that while =93numerous = parts could not be =0A= examined due to the condition of the unit (corroded) precluding their =0A= removal=2C=94 there was =93no evidence of pre impact mechanical malfunction= or=0A= failure that would have precluded normal operation.=94

=0A=

Investigators interviewed experts =0A= including an engineer formerly employed by Lancair=2C who said the =0A= aircraft (modified to accommodate a turboprop engine) had a dramatically=0A= higher wing loading than the original piston model=2C in the range of 40 = =0A= to 45 pounds per square foot. The turboprop =3Bmodifications =3Bexa= cerbated =0A= the aircraft=92s =93already-existing aggressive stall characteristics=2C=94= =0A= making the Lancair IV-TP a =93challenging airplane to fly=2C which wi= thout =0A= adequate training=2C makes it a dangerous airplane because it was not =0A= designed for such a high-horsepower engine.=94

=0A=

A company pilot who had flown with =0A= Appleton in the accident aircraft told NTSB investigators that =3BApple= ton =0A= was =93unfamiliar with the panel=2C which made the airplane even more =0A= challenging.=94

UNFAMILIAR WIT= H THE PANEL?

=0A=

The former Lancair engineer told =0A= investigators that a pilot has very little time to react to a power =0A= reduction during or immediately after takeoff: Without an abrupt pitch =0A= correction (to reduce the angle of attack)=2C the airplane would become =0A= =93unrecoverable=94 within 5 seconds after a power loss during the initial = =0A= climb. The engineer opined that the aircraft would stall at more than 80=0A= knots indicated=2C with a tendency to drop a wing=2C and told investigator= s=0A= that he advises pilots to use a decision altitude of 1=2C500 feet agl=2C = =0A= landing straight-ahead in case of any power loss below that altitude.

= =0A=

The data=2C along with witness accounts a= nd radio transcripts=2C shows Appleton attempted to turn back.

=0A=

Appleton=92s death drew significant media attention=2C=0A= and some questioned whether key corporate employees should fly general =0A= aviation aircraft. AOPA Foundation President Bruce Landsberg noted=2C days= =0A= after the accident=2C that the Lancair has a heavily loaded wing=2C and = =0A= higher stall speed than comparable certificated aircraft.

=0A=

=93= Does this make Lancairs bad aircraft? Not=0A= in my view. But before flying one pilots must understand the nature of =0A= the animal they=92re dealing with=2C=94 Landsberg wrote.
<= /p>


hi there=2C again

you know=2C the MU2 had a high rate of accid= ents attributed to the high wing loading and different flight attributes. d= id not make it a bad airplane=3B just a plane that needed a properly traine= d pilot. Likewise the Lancair 4 series.

(the MU2 autopilot problem = is another story=3B another time)


a sad loss of a good perso= n and a good airplane


= peter

=0A=

= --_1f76e953-8b1b-4c5e-b373-aeea51741550_--