Received-SPF: neutral
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.229.95; envelope-from=bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net
From: "Bryan Winberry" <bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-3733989@logan.com>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex aircraft NTSB report
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:56:06 -0400
Message-ID: <48B61466D0CC4E5B8172ABD9FCB9F29F@acer7fbfa7e2f7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-3733989@logan.com>
Thread-Index: Acn2mxM+6v8zAIrQTnWREpA4vzwX5QAA+Y7g

Well, weight and balance, removal of 2 out of 4 props, just the general
attitude towards compliance. Fudging an hour or two to get to OSH is one
thing. If he'd had a lot of high performance time, some shortcuts might not
raise as many questions, but 200 hours in a Cherokee?  I thought the battery
was determined to be the cause of the accident.  I know it's not spelled out
here, perhaps I heard/read about it somewhere else. Didn't John Denver meet
a similar fate?  Something about using vise grips on a fuel selector valve?

This guy overloaded himself, and sometimes "not following procedure" is the
cause of an accident.

BTW, Good decision Chris M. on figuring your engine problem out after the
move to NC. 

BW  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Ernest Christley
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:17 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex aircraft NTSB report

Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 06:50 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I found this link on the rotary engine news group.  It's a thorough 
>> NTSB report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the 
>> builder/pilot was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
>>
>>
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&a
key=1 
>>
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&
akey=1> 
>
>
>   I've had several private links to this posting.
>   Very sad. It's an unfortunate fact of the human
>   condition that rational thought processes and
>   understanding of simple-ideas can be so terribly
>   diminished by hazardous behaviors.
>
Let's not let simple ideas get lost in our sympathy for the pilot in 
this accident.  Most of this report is superfluous fluff with little 
bearing on what could have caused the accident.  In fact, there is no 
statement of what caused the accident that could be blamed on the lack 
of a rational thought processes on the part of the builder.

Most of the report was dedicated to pointing out how the high-end EFIS 
was not calibrated.  At no point was the lack of calibration cited as a 
contributing factor to the accident.  The man was flying day VFR.  The 
instrument was superfluous for the mission.  The fact that the pilot was 
not familiar with the instrument's operation was superfluous to the 
report.  The fact that the instrument was in the plane at all was 
superfluous to the report.  How could anything displayed on an 
uncalibrated EFIS translate into a plane taking a 35 to 60 degree 
nosedive during a day VFR flight?

Most of the remainder of the report was equally superfluous.  The first 
flight occurred on July 12.  The accident occurred on November 2.  The 
fact that clecoes held the cowling on for the first flight was 
superfluous to the accident report.  It might have been germane if an 
accident had occurred with the clecoes still in use, but that was not 
the case. 

The fact that the propeller was under manual control vs some sort of 
electronics is superfluous.  Are there not many examples of airplanes 
flying just fine with manual control?  And I hear that there are a few 
flying with no pitch control at all.  There is some information that the 
pilot was having issues with coordinating the engine power with the 
propeller pitch controls.  But that does not translate to taking a 35 to 
60 degree nose dive into terra firma.  I can't even translate it to a 
situation where the pilot would not be able to maintain altitude.  It 
might translate to an inability to maintain smooth level flight, but 
there is a wide gulf between smooth level flight and a dirt bath.

The report pointed out that the rudder trim was attached with duct 
tape.  The key word is "attached".  How did a *rudder* trim that was 
*attached* contribute to a 60 degree nosedive?  How does an *attached* 
rudder trim even make it difficult to maintain altitude?  An aileron 
trim tab rod had been broken and poorly repaired.  Was the weak 
attachment cause of an accident, or more superfluous data?

The report makes hay of the pilots lack of high performance training.  
He was flying the plane for nearly 4 months before the accident.  I 
would imagine that high performance training would cover issues like 
severe P factors and overspeeding the airplane.  Is "maintaining 
altitude" taught exclusively in high performance trainging now?  If not, 
why is the lack of such training an issue?  The report details the 
pilots rush to get to Oshkosh, and the pilots willingness to falsify 
records in order to meet legal requirements.  How did any of that 
contribute to an accident that occurred months later?

There were some wires not connected.  So?  Did any of them contribute to 
the inability to maintain altitude?  I have several wires in my project 
that are slated for future upgrades.  It's much easier to run them now 
than when everything is closed up.  They are not connected to anything.  
If something really bad happens to me, those wires will have nothing to 
do with it, but will "unconnected cables" be cited in the report anyway?

I suggest reading the report again...but cross out all the superfluous 
lines that obviously have nothing at all to do with the accident.  Cross 
out the parts that point out "He didn't follow the rules.  He was a 
BAAAAD man."  It'll be a much shorter report.  The pilot of N289DT may 
very well be a prime candidate for a Darwin Award, but we can't know 
that from reading this report.  All I can tell is that the investigator 
was much more concerned with pointing out how the pilot was not 
following procedure than about what occurred.

-- 

http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html