Now What ?? FAA/ NTSB

[Steve McGowan]

After the services and meeting Bill and Terry's families, I need to say thankyou for wanting me to be there.

Now that all is done about the crash that we have been allowed to do,, (which is nothing)

It seems that someone would have been allowed to inspect the wreckage and try to eliminate what " Did NOT " cause the accident that took Bill and Terry from us.

I am personally wondering WHY it was considered a "Crime Scene".

Why a person that knows the aircraft wasn't allowed to view it before it being removed from the area.

Before anyone starts gossip,, DON'T.. if you are really a gyro person and want to find out what happened,, Then call the Tampa FSDO and request an answer to why this accident was handled as it was.

Jim Mayfield is the only person I will believe in the answer as to "Why or What" could have caused this crash..and I do believe he could find out.

If it had happened to me, well all that woulda been said is,,

"Dumb-Ass Steve" pushed it too far..

Terry and Bills hearts were in the right place, I don't believe Pilot Error was the reason..

"Dammitt" I / WE need to know what happened..

and I'm not gonna rest till I know..


Steve

[pwendell]

Steve,

I feel the same way. I really hope that Groen can work with the NTSB/FAA and get to the bottom of this. We NEED to know what happened, if possible. I can't help wishing that Jim was still involved with AAI during these difficult times.

[mark treidel]

Steve, I am painfully aware of the frustration you have for not being able to have access to the site (yet alone the investigation) of the tragic loss of Terry & Bill. I will make a feeble attempt to answer the WHY question you posed above. I am not privy to several facts as you already know them but one thing stands out in my mind at this time. Most of the locale we operate in is rural. There are only a handfull of law enforcement officers assigned to huge geographic 'pricincts' covering hundreds of square miles for each officer. To the best of my recollection, the lower 48 states are reciprocal in a mandate requiring specific initial action(s) taken by the responding officer who, by law, is in immediate charge of the scene upon arrival. His primary duty is victim assistance & first aid if applicable. Secondarily, it is to protect the 'scene' & surrounding affected areas. Herein, lies the definition of your question - WHY? The reciprocal law above mandates the scene as a 'crime scene' for the sole purpose of giving the officer authority to keep out what he deems (and I detest these words) 'unnecessary elements' before the proper people can be notified to respond. Once again, by law, the 'unnecessary elements' are determined at the officers discression. At this point in time, and given the scenario of our accident, the first thing that the officer had to do (after ascessing the situation) would be to determine if it was an 'N' numbered aircraft if possible. This is where the law makes the differenciation. If 'N' numbered, the NTSB must be notified for that is their jurisdiction (usually they are anyway as a courtesy to see if they desire to respond). If it is not an 'N' numbered craft such as an ultralight, then it is handled by the local authority. That is the NTSB's mandate. The tragic part of this is that more oft than not, theresponding officer has absolutely no applicable flight knowledge. The words 'crime scene' may be a poor choice of verbage under these circumstances but it is the 'intent' of the 'umbrella of authority' which these words dictate that gives the responding officer the power over the scene. Personally, knowing first hand how the NTSB operates, I feel that there is a definate lack of the usage (by the NTSB) of the invaluable knowledge base from such people as in our forum. Unfortunately, it's up to them to make that call & they choose not to. About the only 'power' we have there is to simply volunteer our assistance should they choose to accept it. Certainly our loss. In my heart, I know its not what you want to hear, nor does it give us any consolation. I am in full agreement with your suggestion to put this demanding question in the lap of the local FSDO or NTSB (as I said, I wasn't privy to all the info) and dont stop inquiring until we are given an 'acceptable' explanation of the handling, even if it doesn't determine the cause. At the same time, may I suggest that we give them an alternative; afford them the names of our most knowledgable people as a 'informational resourse list' to draw from as they deem necessary and request that they supply this list to all local FSDO & NTSB offices across the country. If even a single investigator avails himself of this offer, we, as a community, will have profitted by this simple effort. It might very well afford a survivor some closure in the future.

[Mayfield]

I also share your frustration Steve. I remember the first letter I wrote to the forum about why I wanted to do the RAF stability augmentation kit.

My intent was to increase safety by increasing longitudinal and yaw stability.

As you and I (and Chuck Beaty) have discussed I believe there are "possibilities" that should be examined.

I suspect I will post my ideas here. It will be so important to realize that they are only "possibilities." I believe the probability is high enough that I should share my thoughts on this tragedy.

With my best regards Steve,

Jim

[Udi]

I find it hard to believe the NTSB/FAA have not contacted the kit manufacturer. Is there anyone on this forum who knows the status of the investigation and whether GBA is getting involved?

What worries me most is not that we will not be able to confirm any of the probable scenarios, but that we are not yet considering the real one. Hopefully, the NTSB and whoever is assisting them in the investigation will take this task seriously because the implications are serious.

Udi

[Olbod]

Excuse me.
I to would like to know what caused this tragety.
My question is :
When the Authoirities have finished their examination and released their findings,
WHO owns the wreckage ?
The family ? Insurance company ?
The way it looks at present, without assisted expert examination, the cause
may not be known but at the end of the day our own examination of the
wreck may bring a closure for the families and friends involved and for the
rest of us that do or want to fly Gyro's.
Both Betty and I again offer our condolences.

[automan1223]

I spoke with Tom Gross in charge of the investigation out of the Tampa FSDO. I was told by another person at my local FSDO that the NTSB does not generally investigate non FAA certificated aircraft. Experimental and ultralights are off of their radar. In fact I was told that unless at least 3 people are killed the NTSB will not get their hands into it. Due to budget cuts the FAA has had to pick up the role of the NTSB.

TOM called me back a day after I left a message for him. I have both his email and his direct phone number I will post tomorrow as info is at the office.

I too do not like how things got handled, or are handled.

The last crash that involved an older air command was removed from the woods, cut up and thrown in a dumpster. Opinions were one thing but a real INVESTIGATION is the only answer in my book when someone gets killed half assed opinion eye witness statements should not be the starting and ending points of any investigation.

We pay these peoples salary. I think we deserve the same professional courtesy that larger aircraft get when something goes wrong. The same lab work, the same professional intelligent regard for our life.

I do not like the hands off attitude, well you homebuilt nut jobs are the only ones to go fly that contraption so you get what you deserve attitude. I burns my butt !

crime scene... You know it does not take me much to start seeing a conspiracy, because most of the time there is one. Heck if I was discussing my concerns privately with others and they said a few years ago some sabotage occured at bensen days and lots of nuts were found loose on a bunch of machines. Since I do not have first hand knowledge of that I will leave it to more informed souls.

People like to touch and twist anything they see and regardless of signage it is always prudent to grab a wrench and go over something if you have no one guarding it. This accident give me a whole new respect for performing a through pre-flight.

I would hope that GBA has an investigator to assist Mr Gross.

Jonathan

[Friendly]

Steve
any death which is not a natural death is a homicide. Whether intentional or accidental. So it is indeed a crime scene. But it does not mean any of the persons involved are responsible. The area is secured to prevent any contamination of evidence. But it does seem harsh when we know the people involved.
I agree with you about having someone "gyro knowledgeable" to assist. Maybe best way that can happen is if we (PRA) contact our politicians and request that someone be placed on the investigation committee.
While a kit manufacturer should be contacted, I would hope we have an independent response.
Its good to see you post, I at least feel some who knows the sparrowhawk well enough to comment on it will be looking for the truth of what happened that day. I am not sugguesting it was aircraft or pilot.
Like you, I believe a CLT gyro with a responsible mature CFI went down, now somebody tell us why?
God bless their familys and friends.

[Hognose]

Here are some facts I know.

1. When NTSB investigates an accident, normally experts are named as parties to the investigation.

2. Such Parties are sworn to secrecy. The investigator in charge has sole authority to determine what information is released, and to whom, and under what conditions.

3. NTSB will investigate experimental crashes if leaned on. An example is the crash of a CGS Hawk that killed Wal-Mart heir (and war hero) John Walton.

4. FAA operations inspectors are not trained in accident investigation like NTSB accident investigators. Some of them may have had a course in the service, as the FAA likes to hire military retirees as operations & maintenance inspectors.

5. FAA inspectors do not feel bound to follow most NTSB procedures.

6. Even if FAA investigates, the report will be released by NTSB and bear their name. Determination of cause will be reported after a hearing before the full Board. The hearings are normally a rubber-stamp exercise and the board members are generally uninformed figureheads.

7. The wreckage is not confiscated, it is merely impounded for the purposes of the investigation. When the IIC determines that it is no longer necessary to retain the wreckage, it is released to the representatives of the owner or insurance company.

8. To apply pressure to the NTSB is possible (think Walton and JFK Jr whose investigations get special attention). Possible avenues:

a. the insurance company (if any).
b. the press (but it has limits to its power)
c. Congress (power almost unlimited, but hard to get involved).

I cannot over stress the need to always, in contact with any of these investigators or other government contacts, be respectful, polite, and LISTEN. This is not because I think free men should bow down before government, but because the government is made up of people like us -- mostly good people trying to do an honest job.

Most of the people at the aviation agencies love flying as much as any of us, and take their responsibilities seriously. Most of them don't even get paid very well So at this stage, there is nothing to gain and much to lose by getting aggressive with them.

A good tack to take may be to tell the investigator that there are scores of identical, and hundreds of similar, gyroplanes flying today. The nearer we come to finding the probable cause of this mishap, the less likely we are to be trying to find another soon. In the long run, more effort now leads to less work for NTSB/FAA in the future. Not to mention lives saved.

If there is some deficiency in the aircraft, the investigator that uncovers it may save the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people.

As far as conspiracies, I don't believe in 'em -- the CIA can't even keep its secrets off the front pages. Your gossipy aunt can keep a secret better than any agency of government.

cheers

-=K=-

[Timchick]

Maybe PRA could lobby the FAA to be allowed to assist in accident investigations involving gyros. We have numerous qualified people in different areas of the country that could assist them. It's unfortunate that most of the investigators know little about the gyros they're investigating.

[Steve McGowan]

The Black felt real good today flying.. For the first time in a long time I felt like my ole self, No I wasn't completely naked,, How bout close..

I can appreciate all the info this thread has been to me,, and I'm gettin a real loss of sleep look,, but as to my first posting,

Until I get an answer,, I won't rest and my Sparrow Hawk stays in the barn with it's feathers in the box.

Guess I'm just a stuborn bastard huh....

[PW_Plack]

Hognose said...

3. NTSB will investigate experimental crashes if leaned on. An example is the crash of a CGS Hawk that killed Wal-Mart heir (and war hero) John Walton.

Kevin, wasn't John Walton's craft an ultralight?

The crash at BD may have been an additional aggravation to local authorities because of the size of the fire it started.

The feds seem to want to have their cake and eat it in cases such as this. Off the record, they threaten additional regulation for gyros if the death toll doesn't decline, yet when crashes happen they don't conduct or facilitate a proper investigation, so the causes often go unresolved.

Hindsight is 20/20, but if a crash happens on a Friday, when government offices are open, perhaps someone needs to get on the phone right away with the FSDO and/or NTSB. This was Bensen Days! There were a number of experts who could have been on the scene within minutes to investigate, including representatives of the kitmaker. If a fed could have called the local cops and at least asked, perhaps someone who knew what they were doing could have been allowed to cross the yellow tape and look, before the local Sanitation Department was called in with a front-end loader.

At this point, if that rear stop bolt backed out, how will we know whether it happened pre-crash, or during the dump truck ride to the public works garage?

[Ga6riel]

wouldnt the scene at least have been photographed
I would think that is the very least that could be done before removal

[route66]

Steve,
Glad to here Black is back making you happy. I also concur there is a problem, can’t conceive it was pilot error and we all want to know the answer. Not knowing all that a Governmental investigation entails and the lack of qualified persons to assist onsite it may be a long time coming to find the answers. I do hope the investigators do share the information and pictures of components with Mr. Mayfield or the Groen Brothers staff to help. They know best as to where their weaknesses and stongpoints are.

I am breaking a promise I made to myself by posting on this tragic event, but I really feel you and your machine might be the best to answer the questions that might not get answered. Terry had a lot of time on his machine and components; he traveled with his gyro on a trailer many miles and induced lots of stresses beyond the average machine. While your machine is much newer, it also has been trailered many miles and is working on some hours and could reveal some answers not calculated in the design. I am not an engineer or have any knowledge of design but the best I can find in my mind for the events to happen as described by the only witness is a failure in the upper tail support at the mast. Since you have grounded your white, it would be a good piece of mind to take the two bolts that hold the tail support to the bracket on the mast and remove the bracket to be tested for any abnormalities. Yours could be a key as it has had similar stresses subjected to it as Terry’s had. There are a couple other possibilities and maybe the best we have is to look at what you or others similar have to analyze and find the answers.

B

[Doug Riley]

The NTSB guy I contacted about the crash here in Vermont last summer was extremely cooperative. He really wanted and used my help.

The recovery of the wreckage in that case, as Jonathan says, was completely botched. Maybe the same happened here... although I'm a bit surprised, given that the Wauchula police chief is also the airport manager.

Those who know Sparrowhawks should make pests of themselves with the NTSB. I know zip about them or I'd do it myself.

The S-Hawk is a (maybe THE) the key candidate for Light Sport Gyro, if it ever comes about. We have to get to the bottom of this accident. Especially since it's a homebuilt aircraft, the kitmaker doesn't "own" the investigation process, and other assisting parties should get a chance to participate.

[automan1223]

813-287-4915
Thomas Gross at Tampa FSDO.

Or 813-287-4900 general operator at tampa.

His email

thomas.gross@faa.gov

Any constructive thoughts, photos prior to the accident or anything intelligent might help.

I do not have a machine here I can go thru so it will be up to sph owners to provide better photos of an actual machine with elec trim or other concerns.

Some of these guys also fly experimentals so they do have some kind of understanding for what we do.

Jonathan

[Gary_in_Orygun]

Much of the SparrowHawk shares similar parts/features with the RAF 2000. The RAF 2000 can be used as a model for those similar areas, such as the headtilt adjustment bolts. Meaning, if an RAF has had problems with those bolts as Ken and Paul mentioned before, then that is an area to check in this situation.

Noting the differences between the RAF and SparrowHawk may turn up areas that were changed in the SparrowHawk that previously worked ok on the RAF? Hopefully, someone sees where I'm going with this.

Jim M. would again be the key person to know these systems in both models. Also, if something isn't right with the SparrowHawk, chances are good that it is not right with the RAF either, which means the number of people affected by a defect that is shared between these models goes up significantly.

This modified RAF driver wants to know just as well as you SparrowHawk drivers what happened in this particular case.

[bartc150]

As for the crime scene, I was there when the police chief said these words. Someone asked him if the scene was secured. He said it was being treated as a crime scene, which means no one can enter till proper authorities arrive. It all has to do with chain of evidence, and it's the most likely term he could use to tell his officers what he wanted done.

[Hognose]

Gary and all,

Duane Hunn told me at BDs that about two years ago RAF changed their head design so that it does not have the bolts, and that they did it specifically because of several incidents of bolts backing out and scaring the living daylights out of pilots. He said the bolts are required more to limit beginners from overcontrolling at low RRPM and having a rotor strike the ground on takeoff. This in best case leads to a flipped and trashed gyro. (Worst case I personally recall, down under, was fatal).

Remember there is NO PROOF or even ANY SOLID EVIDENCE that these bolts contributed to Terry and Bill's crash. It's real important to keep straight what we KNOW, versus speculation or -- as this is -- informed speculation as to possible causes. Looking at the control system with an engineer's eye, there are several single points of potential failure there in this system which has evolved through fairly standard gyro practice. (Ron Herron has taken a redundant approach to control systems, hasn't he?)

I don't know about you all, but all I have to go on is second or third hand information. It may be accurate but there's a reason that courts (which don't always get it right, either) don't let parties bring second hand information before the judge or jury.

Finally, we need to think about the investigational worst case: what happens if, for whatever reason, we can't find a clear and convincing single reason for this accident?

If that comes to pass, I suggest we look at what Boeing did in the case of a Lauda Air 767 crash. In that case, the circumstances of the crash were clear (uncommanded asymmetrical thrust reverser deployment) but the engineers could NEVER reproduce the failure, or determine whether it was a hardware failure, a software failure, or something in the interface of the two. In the end, they redesigned the hardware AND rewrote the software, and retested everything to a fare-thee-well.

It's too early to start doing this -- for all we know, the investigators may be starting to see a picture emerge. Don't expect them to tell us a lot while they are still uncertain, that would be horrible policy. But I'm just warning all y'all that the ultimate decision might be "loss of control for unknown reasons" and then we have a choice to be safe by grounding all SHs (and RAFs from which the SH control system is copied? And others, from which the RAF system is derived itself?) or redesigning several things to be safe.

Or flying with that unknown risk out there. It was only after several Comet jetliners crashed, with tens of thousands of hours on the fleet, that all the resources of DeHavilland and the British government were able to find the problem. There are at least thousands of hours on the Sparrowhawk fleet (and tens of thousands on the RAFs). IF THERE IS A MECHANICAL CAUSE IT MIGHT BE SO RARE AN EVENT CHAIN, THAT WE WILL NOT SEE IT AGAIN FOR THOUSANDS OF MORE HOURS.

(At least we haven't got the software problem -- or have we? What if a rotor tach display began to increase above actual RRPM, for instance?)

To summarize: We all want to see a single coherent explanation emerge, for this mishap that has cost us friends (for some of you, extremely close friends) and roiled our community. That might not happen. If it doesn't happen, we need to have a plan to ameliorate several possible threats, instead of a single probable cause.

That's my opinion, and all I bring to this is logic and a room full of books and a lifetime of reading about accidents and investigations, NOT the piloting expertise of Steve McGowan (who has more than my couple hours in three gyros) or the engineering savvy of Jim Mayfield or Chuck Beaty.

cheers

-=K=-

PS I would be remiss not to mention that Duane expressed shock and sympathy over the deaths of Terry and Bill.

[Doug Riley]

My recent experience with a gyro crash investigation tells me that, unless a gyro-knowledgeable person takes the initiative, the govt. folks will not know what to do AND WON'T ASK. They're busy and "little" homebuilt crashes are a low priority.

I hope some who knows about this type of gyro has contacted NTSB and offered to help.

[Harry_S.]

Kevin;

I'm certain that your post above, is very much appreciated by many here on the forum. Thank you.


Cheers :)

[Mayfield]

Dear Friends,

I continue to think about the cause of the crash that took the lives of Terry Eiland and Bill Finnegan.

In an accident of this type many “possibilities” become apparent. These possibilities always include mechanical failure, pilot incapacitation, or even pilot error.

I believe we want to look at all possibilities; however remote the probability that a particular event or failure is the cause.

I know nothing about the GBA investigation. It could be months before a definitive answer might, just might, be found. Because of the significant impact damage to the aircraft and the post impact fire, it may not be possible to ever positively identify the event or failure that caused this tragedy.

As I think about possibilities, I feel I should advise you and make suggestions that I feel are reasonable and that may preclude a reoccurrence of this tragic event.

When I worked at GBA, my team and I designed the SparrowHawk using all the knowledge and skill available to us. In the end however, the customer manufactures the aircraft from the kit provided. Any changes from the “as designed” SparrowHawk make the customer the designer as well as the builder.

I believe , with help from Chuck Beaty and Steve McGowan, that we have identified “possible” contributors to this accident. I can not assign probabilities to these possibilities. These possibilities also apply to AAI modified RAF aircraft. There are also other possibilities.

However, since your safety is the most important thing in the world to me, I offer the following:

1. Chuck Beaty was kind enough to bring this possibility to my attention. If Chuck believes it is possible; it is. Several SparrowHawks have been modified with an electric trim system. Chuck provided the attached picture.

Some of these installations mount the trim actuators to the tail support tube. This mounting system puts an upward force on the tail support tube. The tail support tube was carefully designed to safely carry all flight and ground loads. It was not designed to be subjected to a constant upward force such as that imposed by the electric trim actuators. This upward force, coupled with the inevitable vibration at this joint, may exceed the design load limits of the tail support tube and the tail support tube mounting bracket.

It is possible that these loads, not designed for, may have caused the tail support tube bracket to fail. If this occurred, I believe, the trim system could pull up on the tail support tube and force the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer down. This would, in effect, apply a nose down force to the aircraft. I do not know if this force would be greater than the force generated by the rotor.

I do not imply that this failure occurred. It is, however, in my opinion, possible! I recommend that you remove/disable this system if you have installed it. If you do not wish to remove the system I recommend that you ground your aircraft until you have a chance to question GBA on its suitability.

If you must retain your electric trim system, a safer location, in my opinion, for the actuators would be on the shoulder harness cross tube or other sturdy location.

2. I have received reports that one, or both, rotorhead stop bolts can loosen and back out.

If this should happen it is possible that you may not be able to achieve adequate aft stick or forward stick to safely fly the aircraft.

I hope GBA engineering will design a fix that will ensure rotorhead stop bolt security. These stop bolts are carried forward from the RAF design. They, or an equivalent feature, are necessary because of the RAF mast. Since the RAF can change mast angle, some mechanism is required to properly adjust the rotor head stops. The SparrowHawk has a fixed mast and therefore does not need this feature.

Before the next flight, check the bolts and associated jam nuts for security. Do not fly the aircraft without removing these bolts, degreasing the bolts, applying a coating of Locktite to the bolt threads, and reinstalling the bolts and jam nuts.

A better fix would be to drill the heads of the bolts and safety wire the bolts to some convenient spot. A tabbed washer under the jam nut should work nicely.

I must state again that I view these issues as “possibilities” only. The consequences of these possibilities being the cause of a failure are dire enough that I believe it is warranted to bring them to your attention.

Many modified RAF and SparrowHawk pilots do not visit our forum. I request that you feel free to forward this letter to anyone you feel may benefit from reading it.

I have e-mailed Mr. Gross (FAA) and offered to discuss this accident with him.

Finally, I have talked to GBA and offered to help in any way possible. I am certain that GBA is investigating this event with vigor. I believe they will announce the proximate cause if they find it.

Jim Mayfield

[C. Beaty]

Just for the record, Stan Foster was the photographer and I lifted his photo off the forum.

I have also taken a quick look at some of the loads on the square tube tail strut. The steady torque applied to this tube is in the range of 30 ft-lb, not so great as not to be easily handled by the tube itself but I am unclear as to details of tube to mast attachment which must ultimately absorb the torque.

Superimposed on the steady load is a periodic impulse load from propeller blade passage. A cruciform tail plan and a 4-blade prop represent the worst combination; with a 3-blade prop, the impulses are leveled.

Of all the hypotheses considered, failure of mast to tail strut bracket is the best fit.

I am told Terry believed his trim springs had been stretching and that he was unable to maintain trim. He had purchased new springs at a Wauchula hardware store but it is unclear whether or not he replaced the old springs. Rather than stretching springs, the attachment bracket could have been yielding.

Some speculation has been centered on the use of ¼’ rod end bearings in the portion of the cyclic control mechanism inside the cabin. On paper, they are strong enough.

A control link failure on a stable gyro such as a Sparrowhawk need not be catastrophic. The trim system applies tension directly to the rotorhead rather than to the control system and if control continuity should be lost, the machine is flyable with trim alone. The probability of simultaneous failure of both trim and control systems is remote.

[Doug Riley]

Based on some very general information about the lift that a H-stab can make, it's at least conceivable for the S-Hawk's H-stab to overpower the controls as long as the throttle is up at cruise or better.

The HS would need to go to nearly to its maximum pre-stall angle of attack (usually around 12 degrees) . If the tail is five feet tall, it would have to swing back about a foot to get the HS to 12 degrees AOA. I suppose the trim motor attachment might keep the tail from just falling over if the upper arm broke off. In doing so, it would tug on the back of the torque bar, creating stick-back forces at the same time that the nose was pointing earthward. The increasing drag of the now-canted HS would add to this stick-back tug.

This would confuse the best of pilots for a critical amount of time.

There's something of a precedent for a haywire H-stab overpowering the stick. A pilot of a small Bensen-style gyro had the angle brackets on his H-stab let go and the H-Stab moved to a strange AOA right on takeoff. He crashed but was not hurt. Sorry I don't recall his name. I think the PRA magazine covered the incident, about 10-12 years ago.

[Mayfield]

The SparrowHawk H stab is ~60" span with a 24" chord. The airfoil is a quite good rendition of the NACA 0012.

End plates extending just outside the theoretical boundry layer are installed to improve virtual aspect ratio.

Jim

[Udi]

I am having a difficulty seeing how a failure of the tail support tube/mast bracket can lead to a loss of control. The tail support tube is triangulated, at the top, right above the prop, with two struts. These struts would limit the fore-aft movement of the support tube. Without having a sample SH to measure, it looks to me like the tail support tube can move maybe 2-3" back before the struts pull it down into the prop.

Assuming the tail support tube has moved back 3", and assuming a 60" tall tail, the resulting nose-up angle of the stab would be just less than 3 degrees. A pitch angle of 3 degs will induce a significant nose down pitching moment while the engine is at flight power. However, as soon as the gyro starts pitching down, I would think that the pilot, noticing something was really wrong, would cut the power.

Without the prop wash hitting the tail, a 3 deg on the stab should not be detrimental. While the gyro is flying at high speed, a positive 3 deg stab angle would lower the nose of the gyro by 3 deg, worst case. This means you are taking away 3 deg from the rotor head travel. The remaining travel should be enough to slow down the machine, and at lower airspeed the stab is less effective and a normal flare for landing should be possible.

Udi

[Doug Riley]

My old, crude tests of small HS's yielded 20 lb./sq. ft. lift at maximum AOA at 100 mph airspeed -- with no end plates. Some tests show that plates can boost this by 75% or so. Even if the plates did nothing, you have 10 sq. ft. x 20 lb. -- 200 lb. lift.

On a five-foot tail lever arm, the nose-down moment would therefore be 1000 foot-lb.

If the rotor also has a five-foot lever arm (distance from teeter bolt to CG), then a degree of rotor tilt displaces the rotor thrust line one inch.

If the gyro weighs 1300 lb. and the rotor is making one G of lift, then its total thrust is 1326 lb. To counter the 1000 ft.-lb. HS load, the rotor would have to be swung 3/4 of a foot, or 9 degrees, ahead of its usual position.

I don't know the size of the control head arc of the S-Hawk, but if it's
the usual 10 degrees each side of neutral, then the rotor is right at its control power limit if the HS is at maximimum pre-stall AOA with no end plates. If the end plates boost the HS's power significantly, then the HS could overpower the controls.

Obviously, I've made some assumptions about dimensions here. I don't know enough about the tail structure to know if a 12 degree tip-back is possible, given the point that Udi makes.

[Gyrobound]

Udi, your statement, "I would think that the pilot, noticing something was really wrong, would cut the power".
Not that I woud even pretend to know anything about why this gyro crashed or even come close to the expertise that others have on this subject, but I noticed on the other thread that the eye witness mentioned the rotor was rotating at proper speed but he thought the motor was shut off. Would this indicate that Terry knew something was very wrong.

Scott

[StanFoster]

Chuck Beaty: Please use any picture I post any way you want. I cant tell you how much I appreciate your efforts...Jim Mayfields...Steve McGowans....and many others here to get some very likely scenarios going.

I have by the way re-installed my electric trim down on the cross support arm for the engine. It obviously is so much better there.

I HAVE thoroughly inspected that bracket with dye...and feel secure with it. I WILL inspect it every 25 hours.

I AM going to put something made out of steel in there myself....unless GBA comes out with something much stronger and with the grain correct.

I flew today with my electric trim in very windy conditions and that machine handled it like a dream.

I was able to take off vertically and just sit there over the runway as long as I wanted to.

The Sparrowhawk is a great machine...but I feel it needs 5/16 rod ends...a new tail support bracket.....and 10/32 turnbuckles on the rudder. I put the heavy turnbuckles on while building my SH . I am anxiously awaiting the 5/16 rod ends upgrade.....and most definately want to see that tail support improved.

I am told they are working on these. The sooner this stuff is done...the safer we will be flying these.

Stan

[Aussie_Paul]

Gary and all,

Duane Hunn told me at BDs that about two years ago RAF changed their head design so that it does not have the bolts, and that they did it specifically because of several incidents of bolts backing out and scaring the living daylights out of pilots. He said the bolts are required more to limit beginners from overcontrolling at low RRPM and having a rotor strike the ground on takeoff. This in best case leads to a flipped and trashed gyro. (Worst case I personally recall, down under, was fatal).
Remember there is NO PROOF or even ANY SOLID EVIDENCE that these bolts contributed to Terry and Bill's crash. It's real important to keep straight what we KNOW, versus speculation or -- as this is -- informed speculation as to possible causes. Looking at the control system with an engineer's eye, there are several single points of potential failure there in this system which has evolved through fairly standard gyro practice. (Ron Herron has taken a redundant approach to control systems, hasn't he?)

I don't know about you all, but all I have to go on is second or third hand information. It may be accurate but there's a reason that courts (which don't always get it right, either) don't let parties bring second hand information before the judge or jury.

Finally, we need to think about the investigational worst case: what happens if, for whatever reason, we can't find a clear and convincing single reason for this accident?

If that comes to pass, I suggest we look at what Boeing did in the case of a Lauda Air 767 crash. In that case, the circumstances of the crash were clear (uncommanded asymmetrical thrust reverser deployment) but the engineers could NEVER reproduce the failure, or determine whether it was a hardware failure, a software failure, or something in the interface of the two. In the end, they redesigned the hardware AND rewrote the software, and retested everything to a fare-thee-well.

It's too early to start doing this -- for all we know, the investigators may be starting to see a picture emerge. Don't expect them to tell us a lot while they are still uncertain, that would be horrible policy. But I'm just warning all y'all that the ultimate decision might be "loss of control for unknown reasons" and then we have a choice to be safe by grounding all SHs (and RAFs from which the SH control system is copied? And others, from which the RAF system is derived itself?) or redesigning several things to be safe.

Or flying with that unknown risk out there. It was only after several Comet jetliners crashed, with tens of thousands of hours on the fleet, that all the resources of DeHavilland and the British government were able to find the problem. There are at least thousands of hours on the Sparrowhawk fleet (and tens of thousands on the RAFs). IF THERE IS A MECHANICAL CAUSE IT MIGHT BE SO RARE AN EVENT CHAIN, THAT WE WILL NOT SEE IT AGAIN FOR THOUSANDS OF MORE HOURS.

(At least we haven't got the software problem -- or have we? What if a rotor tach display began to increase above actual RRPM, for instance?)

To summarize: We all want to see a single coherent explanation emerge, for this mishap that has cost us friends (for some of you, extremely close friends) and roiled our community. That might not happen. If it doesn't happen, we need to have a plan to ameliorate several possible threats, instead of a single probable cause.

That's my opinion, and all I bring to this is logic and a room full of books and a lifetime of reading about accidents and investigations, NOT the piloting expertise of Steve McGowan (who has more than my couple hours in three gyros) or the engineering savvy of Jim Mayfield or Chuck Beaty.

cheers

-=K=-

PS I would be remiss not to mention that Duane expressed shock and sympathy over the deaths of Terry and Bill.

Kevin, those bolts are the control stop mechanism. Duane’s explanation does not make sense at all. They have nothing to do with rotor flap possibility. My brother and I had the rear stop bolt wind down to limit our back stick. Because of the HTL RAF a reduction in power allowed the nose to come back up enough. By holding full back stick which held the culprit bolt against its stop it could not wind out any further and I was able to conduct a fly on landing. A little knee shaking was occurring once on the ground!!!!
Aussie Paul.:)

[Hognose]

Paul and all --

Remember, what I posted here is not "Duane's explanation" but my recollection of Duane's recollection. I do recall him as saying that an experienced pilot would never use full forward or aft stick, and therefore the only way the bolts would make contact (absent the wind-down that happened to the brothers Bruty), would be from a newbie flailing the stick around.

Again, this is my recollection, not Duane's actual words. He did absolutely, positively say that RAF has redesigned the head and the current head lacks these bolts -- I'm stone certain of that bit.

cheers

-=K=-

[Dan_Reagan]

I purchased a new rotor head from RAF about 4 or 5 months ago. The new head does not have the adjuster bolts in question. They have done a good job on the redesign. If the travel limit adjuster fastener bolts loosen up, then the rotor travel allowed now INCREASES not decreases.

Dan Reagan
AAI modified RAF

[carlschneider]

I have had both of the top tail brakets to brake with in three seconds. when the first one broke the tail fluttered side to side and broke the second one. After they both broke the machine handeled normal. I did not know what happened till I landed. The only thing that kept the tail brakets out of the prop was a electric wire that went to the strobe. Lucky???

Carl

[ptope]

carl... are you talking about a sparrowhawk that lost its tail support??

[StanFoster]

Tim: it was 30 plus. I took off real slow....but then just hovered in ground effect...kind of bobbing around a little. I have done this a lot in my RAF..but I hadnt been in what I call real wind until this last flight in my SparrowHawk.

It was right down the runway and it was a lot of fun.

Stan

[barnstorm2]

Of all the hypotheses considered, failure of mast to tail strut bracket is the best fit.
.

Yikes.

I don't want to go off topic in this thread so I will start a new one. Could you guys please check it out and help me plan around this potential with my new SxS?


http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=108202#post108202

[carlschneider]

PTOPE

No,it was on my machine. I was lucky to have that electric wire there.

Carl

[Heather Poe]

I AM going to put something made out of steel in there myself....unless GBA comes out with something much stronger and with the grain correct. Stan
Stan,
Could you educate us on the grain issue? I don't think I would have picked up on that.
thanks,
Heather

[Mayfield]

Hi Heather,

I hope your recovery continues.

As to the grain flow:

The original RAF mod kits and early SparrowHawks used a tail support tube attachment bracket fabricated out of 1/8 extrusion.

We observed cracking in these parts. A new part was fabricated using thicker material; 3/16 I believe.

I talked to Jaap and David Groen last week and Jaap stated that the grain flow on the new part was the same as on the thinner one.

That is; it flows parallel with the mast. Vertical loadings and side to side loadings are parallel with grain flow on the part.

The side to side loading incurred, particularly while trailering (thanks Ernie Boyette) can be substantial.

I hope, and think he probably will, that Jaap redisigns this part from 4000 series steel. It will only add a couple of ounces, and will have much more benign fatique characteristics.

Jim

[Doug Riley]

Can Jim or someone else familiar with the S-Hawk's construction comment on Udi's earlier observation? If that central tail support tube (2x2?) comes unstuck from the mast and the trim motor is pulling up on it, what role do the other two tubes play? If they remain attached, where does the disconnected central tube go? How does the whole tail structure move in response?

It would take a LOT of HS incidence to overwhelm the controls. Is it mechanically possible?

Could/should a scenario similiar to Rob Dubin's collapsing seat be ruled out?

[Mayfield]

Hi Doug,

Early SH diagonal tail braces are secured at the forward end by horizontally oriented 1/8 inch steel straps welded into slots on the diagonal rods. These straps are bolted to the engine cross brace. I believe it is feasible that pulling up on the tail support tube will rotate the tail support tube aft and down, bending these tabs in the process if the geometry dictates.

The tail itself is mounted top and bottom with spherical bearings.

Jaap Van der Westhuizen, the GBA chief engineer is very, very smart. He is also very practical. I suspect he is spending every waking hour poring over this accident. It would not surprise me to learn that he has already disconnected a tail from a SH mast and determined if the postulated scenario is physically possible. If he has performed this experiment and determined it is impossible, I expect the company will post something to that effect here and to SH owners.

If that is the case we will have one less area of concern. I also suspect that the trim motors will be relocated in the fleet because it is simply not good engineering practice to mount them to this critical part.

Jim

[Aussie_Paul]

Please, I need an explination of this "grain" that has been mentioned. Are we talkinh about the grain of the alloy like the grain of timber?

Aussie Paul.:)

[Mayfield]

Hi Paul,

Not exactly like timber. Metal, unlike glass or plastic, has a granular structure.

When worked (extruded in this case) the grains tend to line up.

Imagine you were to cut one side off a 2 X 2 aluminum tube.

Start bending or tearing a piece along the long axis and another piece along the 2" axis (accross the grain flow). I believe you will find the metal tears easier with the grain flow.

I've attached a link to the extruding process you might find interesting.

http://www.bonlalum.com/Login/SlsMfg/extrusion_process.jsp

I've also attached a photo of a piece of metal showing grain flow. This piece is, unfortunately, a cold extrusion with threads cut, but you can see the grain in the metal. A hot extrusion like the tubes we use would look similar.

Jim

[twistair]

Doug and others,

If this may be helpful:

One of SHs that I assembled is now back in my workshop for some mods so I could imitate some things on it. This particular aircraft was assembled without any mods in it's geometry so all dimensions should be typical. Factual:

In the situation when upper tail support (UTS further) tube structure deploys from mast it would rotate around axis located at the line where side UTS struts are attached to the cross beam.
There is ca. 50 mm vertical clearance between upper tail support tube and prop tips (all numbers here should be considered to be +/- 2 mm tolerance). Side struts are 850 mm length and form a triangle which height from the axis of rotation is 830 mm. 50 mm of arch gives 4...4.5 degrees of possible rotation of this triangle before prop hits the UTS. T-tail in this position is rotated backwards ca. 1.8...2.0 degs only - in this position 72" prop should already hit the UTS. See file *01mid.
Since side struts form a triangle then this triangle doesn't allow the T-tail axis to go sideways.
Other measured numbers can be seen at photos.
Maximum angle which the T-tail may be rotated backwards is 4 degs. At this position UTS front end lays down onto the intake flange (engine EJ-22) and sits firmly: side struts and intake structure keep it in this position. Files *02mid and *03mid show UTS and tail in this position. BTW also exactly in this position vertical stab leading edge hits the UTS by it's upper point.
Sorry for poor pics - it's rainy and I used very old poor camera.

[twistair]

Rob Dubin's collapsing seat

Doug,

Could you remind me what's this about?

[C. Beaty]

I was told that each of the propeller blades was sheared off ~1 foot from the tip end on the Terry Eiland machine.

[Mayfield]

Good morning Alex,

I hope you are well.

In the first picture: Is that galling on the side of the UTS bracket? Is the hole in the UTS enlarged?

Thanks Alex,

Jim

[twistair]

In the first picture: Is that galling on the side of the UTS bracket? Is the hole in the UTS enlarged?

G'day Jim,

Glad to speak to you again :)

Yes, the bracket has slight contact galling traces on it, I'd say - not critical to the moment (200 hrs on this acft). UTS also has wear traces on it's internal surfaces in this place. Respective holes are enlarged in one direction which should conform to up'n'down loads to the tail. I'd tell that these traces would rather tell about some dozens of rough landings (which I know for sure took place) than about multiple cyclic loads.
Some wear traces come from too close tube to bracket fit which was made during assembly.

Regarding subject crash I probably missed something but: were there any witnesses who can tell what they saw?

I understand that this is probably not correct to post this at forum but I'd appreciate any details/comments at my e-mail jjhelicopters@mtu-net.ru

If any non-destructive tests/measurements/experiments should be done I'm ready to use our aircraft for them.


Fly safe,

[Doug Riley]

Alex, I don't know how to post a link to an earlier thread. However, go to the thread entitled "Undiscussed Crashes" under "Accident Discussions." This thread began about January 5 of this year. Rob (Ventana7) explains possible causes of his accident there.

[Rando]

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7086&highlight=Undiscussed+Crashes

[twistair]

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7086&highlight=Undiscussed+Crashes

Got it, thanks. I've read this thread earlier but didn't associate it with "collapsing seat ".

[Chuck Roberg]

I got a call form GBA late yesterday on another subject. Of course the conversation turned to the accident. I was told the tail support bracket from the aircraft was found and was intact with no damage. GBA is now looking into other possible causes of the accident.

GBA will be assisting the FAA in the investigation. The FAA has not started the investigation yet. They (FAA) estimate it will be about two weeks before they start. At that time GBA wil be sending someone down to assist.

[Mayfield]

I was told the tail support bracket from the aircraft was found and was intact with no damage.

"The FAA has not started the investigation yet." They (FAA) estimate it will be about two weeks before they start. At that time GBA wil be sending someone down to assist.

That sounds really good. I was led to believe that the aircraft had not yet been made available for inspection. I guess my info is out of date.

Jim

[KenSandyEggo]

Jim, is Alex's bracket the stock upgraded bracket? It appears different than the one I received and changed out. His appears more substantial and larger. Was there a 3rd version? From his photo, the tube even appears larger. Was it changed from a 2x2 to a 2x4? Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. I thought mine was 2x2 and his looks rectangular. If additional changes were made, I want to make sure Larry, who bought mine, is aware.

[Mayfield]

It is still a 2 X 2 Ken.

It looks like Alex has the thicker bracket.

Jim

[Doug Riley]

Alex, regarding your question about witnesses, another gyro was flying along behind Terry. Its pilot watched Terry's gyro descend to the ground. He has told his story several times.

[twistair]

Yes, this bracket is 1/4" thick and 2x2 - Ken, you're just keeping your eyes too close to monitor, that's not good for both of them.
This bracket is stock and it came in both kits.

[Steve McGowan]

Listen to what I'm saying..

Speculation is ALL that is known about this accident.. The Tampa FSDO/FAA Tom Groce is on Vacation.

Yes I said VACATION... he did not allow anyone to approach the crash site and has not released ANY Information as to the findings..the site was cleared of the damaged aircraft before it could be inspected.

The only ones to even say what didn't cause the accident mechanical or not, was told to leave the area..

Thats outta the horses mouth..am I frustrated, upset, angry, ticked off

What U think?

NOW.... did you hear that.....NOBODY KNOWS NOTHIN

[KenSandyEggo]

It must be your camera, Alex. ;)

[Aussie_Paul]

Hi Paul,

Not exactly like timber. Metal, unlike glass or plastic, has a granular structure.

When worked (extruded in this case) the grains tend to line up.

Jim

As I thought Jim, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks for the info and link.

Aussie Paul.:)

[Rando]

Some of you know that I work for the FAA. (please don't hold it against me!) I sent the following letter to Mr. Gross from my FAA email account and was wondering why I did not get a "return receipt". I guess now I know, he is on vacation! What a shame! I will let you know if and when he responds to my letter.

Tom,

I understand that you are in charge of investigating the fatal gyroplane crash that occurred on March 31st near Wauchula, FL. I was at Wauchula airport attending Bensen Days and I am also a gyroplane pilot. The entire gyroplane community is in shock because of this accident and of course would like to know the cause of this horrible accident. We have numerous experts in the gyroplane community that could assist in your investigation and I hope that you will seek out these individuals. It is a shame that they were not allowed to inspect the wreckage prior to it being moved. Key critical evidence was probably disrupted.

Gyroplanes are a very unique type of aircraft and require someone with extensive knowledge of their design and flight characteristics to assist the FAA in accident investigation. I am not that type of expert but I will be more than happy to provide you with names, addresses and phone numbers of these experts.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Randy Olson
DTW-5.2
Support Specialist for Quality Assurance
Tel: (734) 955-5017

[Gyro Gerry]

Randy. Thanks for writing the letter to Tom and offering to provide names of people who could assist in the investigation. I have been glued to the internet with hopes of seeing the report on the cause of the crash. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Gerry Loeser

[Rotornut]

Steve said/
Thats outta the horses mouth..am I frustrated, upset, angry, ticked off.

Yes Please lets not guess about this lets wait to hear. I know no one from the gyro community other than Steve got to see the crash (SparrowHawk). As I was informed by the NTSB they will look it over without any expert gyro eyes.

MJ

[Steve McGowan]

People did see something of the wreckage.. Pat McNair being one of the first, Lewis Hartzler, Bill the Chief of Police. and one other person.

Thats about all that got to the site before it was sealed.

I have been testing and flying the SH for the last few days.. Not much to say about it. It does fly straight and level, well when I want it to.

Steve





Steve said/
Thats outta the horses mouth..am I frustrated, upset, angry, ticked off.

Yes Please lets not guess about this lets wait to hear. I know no one from the gyro community other than Steve got to see the crash (SparrowHawk). As I was informed by the NTSB they will look it over without any expert gyro eyes.

MJ

[Hognose]

Things change, don't they.

A while back we were concerned no one would look into this. Now we know that the investigation will get underway soon.

We know that GBA will be involved. I've met Jaap and liked him. My impression was of a serious, professional guy.

We know that Jim Mayfield has offered his help. As has Chuck Beaty.

We know that Randy Olson has reached out through the FAA to offer a friendly hand to Florida.

If the answer is discoverable, then, it will be discovered by one or some or all of these worthy gentlemen.

If it is not discoverable, the investigation will point us at several things that can be improved. Also Chuck's work on the bracket -- even if it turns out that the bracket on Terry's Sparrowhawk did not fail -- sends the very, very important message to all who are modifying an experimental aircraft, to calculate the loads your mod places on the craft.

cheers

-=K=-

[Steve McGowan]

Thanks Kevin,,

The last few weeks have a shall be a drain on all of us.. The families of Bill and Terry the most.

I don't understand how and why the investigation was halted at the scene.. Guess Mr Groce thought he could do the job better than we that know these machines.

I am to say the least trying to cope with this manner of professionalism.. If thats what it's called.. maybe I can walk into his office and conduct his daily work as efficient as he can.. It's about the same thing wouldn't you say.

For me,, I have to conduct myself with the utmost thoughts of the safety and belief in what Terry and Bill would do if it were me.

I have about lost my belief in the system that suppose to assist in watching over us,, Per say.. Goverment..

Fun in gyros came hard to me... Self taught with a few people left keeping me safe by putting "ME" in time outs when I needed it..

Terry taught me too.. and still is..

We have to be self controlling and stay with standards above what is printed on paper..It's owed to Terry, Bill, Leroy Hardee, Bill Parsons and a lott of others that are watching.

I'm not preaching to anyone but myself. Charlie Presnell is comin back in lotts of ways..

We'd better be listenin to him..

[BUD ONEAL]

Amen Steve,

[Rotornut]

Steve said/
Charlie Presnell is comin back in lotts of ways..

We'd better be listenin to him..

What a Great Person, Pilot, Friend, and a Big Loss for All of Sunstate Members. His Words will be Heard Again. One Heck of a AIRBOSS. MJ

[Rotornut]

Randy, I Thank You for helping in anyway. Sometimes I talk to machines more than I do Humans when I call for Info.

Now I just sit and Wait. Been watching lots of the old cd's and vcr's good memories, brings a smile to my face. Please all Pre-Flight Always, and be safe.

MJ

[mceagle]

The Tampa FSDO/FAA Tom Groce is on Vacation.

Yes I said VACATION... he did not allow anyone to approach the crash site and has not released ANY Information as to the findings..the site was cleared of the damaged aircraft before it could be inspected.If this is the case then this person is guilty of gross negligence and derilection of duty. It should be brought the attention of his superiors. Even more so if there was any obvious evidence of failure, whether it be determined as a possible cause or not.
We can only assume that no possible faults have been detected, because nobody holding down such an important position would be that ignorant or stupid.

[Steve McGowan]

And that being said, it'd seem to make a lotta sense wouldn't it.

Seems like the ole sayin,, "Show ME"-- "Don't SNOW ME"

comes to light don't it..

I surely hope it's not a sweep under the rug investigation..

What do I know ??

[Rando]

Mr. Gross must be back from his vacation. I finally received a "return receipt" this morning. Hopefully he will respond to my email.

Return Receipt
Your document: fatal gyroplane crash
was received by: Thomas Gross/ASO/FAA
at: 04/19/2006 06:54:59 AM

[gyroplanes]

If this is the case then this person is guilty of gross negligence and derilection of duty. It should be brought the attention of his superiors. Even more so if there was any obvious evidence of failure, whether it be determined as a possible cause or not.
We can only assume that no possible faults have been detected, because nobody holding down such an important position would be that ignorant or stupid.

Tim, Our FAA does not investigate amateur-built aircraft accidents the way they do standard certificated aircraft. They also don't spend the time and money to investigate AB accidents like their counterparts do in other countries.

I have seen cases of fatal accidents where the FAA or NTSB does not even view the wreckage or just give it a once over in the field and release it to the airport manager for disposal. After an Air Command fatal accident at my home airport, the NTSB (FAA?) released the wreckage to the airport manager and it was placed in a dumpster.

I have seen several cases where the FAA investigator used an outsider's testimony of the cause as the "probable cause".

Si Smith's accident at Mentone in 1997(?) was a classic case of a ridiculous "probable cause" finding by the FAA.

A CFI told the FAA that the accident aircraft (a high thrustline Marchetti Avenger) nosed over, uncontrollably and plunged into a field because "it had a wide chord propeller and when Si reduced the throttle the "drag" from the prop overpowered the rotors, causing the loss of control"

The FAA bought this excuse and it became the probable cause.

Another classic case was the FAA pronouncement that a gyro fatal accident was caused by the loss of the "tail rotor". It could not be found at the accident site.

[Rotornut]

Thanks Randy for any Support I myself Appreciate anything you can do to Help us out. Lots of SH in the Air and Steve you STAY GROUNDED!

MJ

[Doug Riley]

I think that thoughtful people agitating for a decent investigation can have an effect.

In the case, there seems to be plenty of that, so I'm cautiously hopeful.

[Steve McGowan]

I'm flying the Black more than the SH..Havin a ball getting reaquainted with it.

As does everyone involved with the SH.. and gyros . I sure hope Mr Groce ask for some help..

steve

[Rick Whittridge]

I'm flying the Black more than the SH..Havin a ball getting reaquainted with it.

As does everyone involved with the SH.. and gyros . I sure hope Mr Groce ask for some help..

steve
Reaquianted with BLACK , come on brother that Parsons has got to be like your BOOTER`S he`s your Buddy!
I Miss Charlie !:)

[Hognose]

Another classic case was the FAA pronouncement that a gyro fatal accident was caused by the loss of the "tail rotor". It could not be found at the accident site.

Oh JESUS! I strapped my pink body in the Golden Butterfly with Brad at BDs and only now do I realise that I was flying in an aircraft with no TAIL ROTOR whatsoever!

Undoubtedly my bad landing in a mild crosswind today was due to the complete absence of the tail rotor on my aircraft. Indeed, vandals had not only taken the tail rotor from 96X but from every airplane in the line! In fact, they had NO ROTORS AT ALL! The tech rep from Piper says that they are not necessary, but those mechanics blow smoke all the time.

You know, on TWA 800, they never found any trace of the tail rotor. Coincidence? You be the judge; I'll cue the Twilight Zone theme.

Finally, I hope the investigators looking into the tragic loss of Scott Crossfield have accounted for his C210's tail rotor. If not he may have been the victim of the same vandals that pinched mine and all the flight school's.

cheers

-=K=-

[Steve McGowan]

Guess the FAA is still lookin for it at the ONA site where Terry and Bill went in..
"I JUST WANNA PUKE"










Oh JESUS! I strapped my pink body in the Golden Butterfly with Brad at BDs and only now do I realise that I was flying in an aircraft with no TAIL ROTOR whatsoever!

Undoubtedly my bad landing in a mild crosswind today was due to the complete absence of the tail rotor on my aircraft. Indeed, vandals had not only taken the tail rotor from 96X but from every airplane in the line! In fact, they had NO ROTORS AT ALL! The tech rep from Piper says that they are not necessary, but those mechanics blow smoke all the time.

You know, on TWA 800, they never found any trace of the tail rotor. Coincidence? You be the judge; I'll cue the Twilight Zone theme.

Finally, I hope the investigators looking into the tragic loss of Scott Crossfield have accounted for his C210's tail rotor. If not he may have been the victim of the same vandals that pinched mine and all the flight school's.

cheers

-=K=-

[Rotornut]

LOL Steve in Black again aint nothing new to US. Charlie on the other hand is up there Flying above ya Steve watching so no spirl dead stick landings in lol. Love ya take care Steve MJ :)

[rotormatic]

If anyone wants to bring up an issue with the FAA, they have a new Customer Service Initiative where you can contact the FSDO in question, and ask to have your issue addressed.

They have to respond to your request within 10 days. If the local FSDO cannot find a resolution to your issue, it can be elevated all the way up to the folks in Washington.

1. Find the FSDO in question at the link below. Use the locator under the flight standards section

2. Find the name of the office manager. There should be link on the FSDO site to find the list of people working in the office.

3 Write a letter requesting consideration of your issue with the Customer Service Initiative

Here is a link that explains in more details...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/cust_service/

It works.... I have seen the results.

[Rotornut]

Thanks Bill. MJ :)

[twistair]

A month and a half after the crash. It looks unbelieveable - ICAO demands 30 days only to complete crash investigation even for airliners. Did I missed something or we are simply waiting for the next one (crossing fingers)?

[Rotornut]

Alex, This is getting to be the Norm for NTSB!! Sure hope everyone is doing their Pre-Flight checks. MJ :(

[gyroplanes]

Typical accident investigation time for the FAA / NTSB is nearly one year.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

[automan1223]

I called Mr Gross last week and got the company / government line "The investigation is ongoing.."

After hearing that 3 times to various q's I thanked him for his cooperation and hung up. There is no reason a prelim report could not be forthcoming, areas of interest etc. But we are all low on the food chain. The only thing we can do is call and write.....

I know how close to home this is but let me give you all a frame of reference for how many people have to be hurt, killed or maimed until offical action is taken either in the form of a report, recall, or other.

10 years to recall a popular backpack blower. In 1996 my uncle who retired from Sears and Robuck boxed up a new suspect blower that had a defective muffler that would shoot hot exhaust gases onto the plastic fuel tank. Just last month the CPSC issued a recall for this same popular blower that is mfg and sold under many different names. After 10 years Wonder how many fathers days were ruined with pop going to the emergency room strapped into his new blower / bomb ???

3 years that I know of to recall firestone atx's on fraud exploders. The NTSB knows of 700 some cases of tires blowing and vehicles rolling, accidents, fatals, etc. wonder how many soccer moms and kids went to the morgue ?

8 years that I know of that the RAF 2000 has been allowed to sell a dangerous machine to an uneducated public.

Years, hundreds maybe thousands of boats fitted with a "maint free" shaft coupling that cost 2 men their lives right here in oriental this past winter when the shaft seal went away and the boat went under in walking distance from shore. The boat was valued at 250g. Wonder how many boats will go under before they go back to the old wax seal and stop killing people.

I could go on but the best thing we have here is use our common sense. We know what areas of the sph could use improvement, What mechanical areas did not give us a warm and fuzzy. WE KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO.

But we all want a nice neat gov report to tell us x and y to make us feel better and maybe make a suggestion as to what went horribly wrong. We know this is the second machine to have loss of control.

All SPH and RAF owners should repair, upgrade and evaluate their machines in every area they suspect there is a problem and not wait for one to bite them. I have been vocal with every CFI and DPE I have had the pleasure to fly with. I am not an engineer just a master mechanic with some "go kart" experience. I dont need a slide rule or cad program to tell me when something should be done different.

I would not wait for a gov report to tell us things we know.

If there is one thing I would protest is the way the intial scene was handled and the moving of the wreckage before someone who knew what to look for was allowed to view it.

And yes I too want to hurl.


Jonathan

[Rotornut]

Jonathan, Said/ I know how close to home.

This is What Makes This Even Harder For ME!
Terry and Bill will Never be Forgotten, but Answers is What we all Need at this time.

MJ :(