Accident details from AZ

[BEN S]

Were all friends here and this subjec hits close to home for each one of us in different ways.
the expert looks back and thinks of all the names of pilots lost he known, The novice womders if he is going to end up that way and those who don't fly can't understand why we do it.
I have my reasons as do each of you. There isn't EVER going tobe a change in a persons motivations based on what others want so we must remember to try and accept their motivations as relevent to them as ours is to ours.
imagine you were trying to convince a liberal to be a conservitive or vice versa......on a forum! Never going to happen.
Have a safe.flying day!

 

[GyroDoug]

Placarded or Not your Experimental as it is - The construction & Design Standards for Type Certificated Air Craft do NOT apply. And yes It's untested junk.
As nice as Vances gyro is. It is untested to FAA design standards. Its not Car 3, pt 25, 29 or any other part. The Lawn chairs with rotors? You guys are flying on the cheap-
It is what it is, Get over yourselves. Fly safe.

Don,

You are totally correct when you say that experimental aircraft are not tested to FAA certification standards. If they were, and could pass those standards they would certify them. Unfortunately that is so expensive that no one (in recent history) has been able to pull that off yet. However, that does not mean that they aren't tested at all and it certainly doesn't mean that they are categorically a piece of junk.

The attitude you seem to be displaying, "that any aircraft that isn't certified to FAA standards, is obviously inferior to any certified machine, is simply inaccurate, and comes across like you are full of yourself because you fly certified aircraft. You may want to consider taking your own advise given above.

Certainly there are experimental machines out there that aren't properly designed or tested and are dangerous to fly. However to lump them all together with the kind of statement you made above simply shows your lack of understanding and is a unhelpful in a forum where new people are trying to learn about what options they have to get into rotary flight. Let's try to place nice and remember that old saying we were all taught as children, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothin at all."

 

[Doug Riley]

"Untested to FAA standards" is a misleading way to put it.

Some gyro designers do not know any engineering science and believe that science is for sissies. They eyeball-design, or copy from others. They do no testing beyond flying the machine. Others are very diligent, building elaborate test machinery and developing numerical data.

I think that some homebuilt gyro designs would, in fact, pass the FAA certfication tests with little or no modification -- if the manufacturers cared to spend the millions of dollars necessary to document everything.

"Experimental" as the FAA uses the term does not mean "junk." It means "buyer, watch your back; it MAY be junk or it may be pure gold. The FAA has no information to help you determine which. You figure it out."

 

[Alan_Cheatham]

If all homebuilt experimentals were junk the FAA would not allow them in the first place. Even tested and certified aircraft can develop problems, just look at the number of ADs issued.

.

 

[Master Roda]

The machine has been built by someone else from a kit, crashed, and then rebuilt again by someone else.

I was wrong about this. I thought it had been rolled. The machine was apparently upgraded after an incident with the SkyWheels Hub Bar. I'm going back and deleting this section from my original post.

Wasn't this gyro Tina's old gyro? Seems I remember she had a bad case of blade flap and needed to replace the blades at one point.

I don't know if it was flap or what, but Dave posted a thread about her old blades. Here:http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20760

I apologize for any confusion I have caused.

 

[Doug Riley]

The only POSSIBLE mechanical failure that has been disclosed in this thread is the upper control crossbar -- it was broken in the middle. There's no indication whether the break occurred before impact; it could be crash damage.

Fatigue failure leaves telltale signs that the NTSB should notice. Compare the Kruza crash -- definitely attributable to a failed crossbar -- early last year.

 

[Steve_UK]

The ATSB ( Australian Transport Safety Bureau ) published a report into hub bar failures following a fatal accident in October 2004.


worth a read,


http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24504/aair200405511_001.pdf




Steve

 

[BEN S]

The hub bar was bent downwards slightly, not cracked or broken that I could visually see. And both blades were still attached.

 

[cburg]

Have we learned more about this. Any similarities to two of the three recent fatalities?

 

[BEN S]

No, nothing more. Those of us close to him still feel that it was related to some kind of a medical problem.

 

[Tina]

Here is Doug's NTSB accident report. It was finalized yesterday looks like it came out today.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20121223X31656&key=1.

 

[Abid]

Seems like he just didn't flare at all looking at the report. I am sure they looked at the teeter/pitch stops and found everything normal. Its a shame. RIP

 

[BEN S]

Um, no Fara, why don't you reread what occured. You'll find it convenient ly located on page one of this thread.
He didn't "just not flare" 50 yards from two different runways from an altitude of 500 feet.
The real shame is we will never have a definitive answer as to what happened.
This report doesn't shed any light on what I had already posted.
If you want to comment on what happened no one will stop you, but the family does read these posts and they don't need to read that kind of idle speculation which is baseless.

 

[bryancobb]

Accident Report "Buzz-Phrases"

Accident Report "Buzz-Phrases"

I will not comment on this particular accident because I know nothing about it. I will only comment on THE REPORT, as an unbiased hypothetical juror who had only the report and no other info.

As an accident investigator who was trained and wrote 1000+ automobile accident reports, I can comment generally on official accident reports and this report specifically.

Lead investigators are taught to not include speculation or opinion in the reports. They try to do their best to only include facts, realizing that some facts can agitate people and hurt friends and family, if not carefully worded.

First, I'll comment on the PURPOSE of the NTSB Aviation reports, in order of priority. Lots of taxpayer dollars are spent getting these reports.
* The MAIN reason this money is spent is public safety. Aircraft can be harmful to unaware passengers and folks and things on the ground.
* Second is they are used by the insurance industry to assign blame and pay claims.
* Third - they are used to protect pilots from unsafe aircraft by identifying trends and pressuring the manufacturer to fix issues or go out of business
* Fourth - Investigators are aware the reports will be closely analyzed in front of judges and juries and are educated on how to word reports so that facts are less likely to be misinterpreted in court
* The last and least important purpose of the reports is to give friends and family closure and nail-down the true cause of the accident. A single 'smoking gun" is rarely ever found. Most accidents have several "contributing factors."

"Buzz-Words" or "Buzz-Phrases" are included as facts to fulfill the first four purposes while avoiding stirring up controversy. Some examples from this report are:
* maneuvering at a low altitude - has connotations less benign than "landing," "on approach," "while turning," "while landing," etc.
*one witness saw...another stated... - showing a stark contrast between two witness accounts of the same thing tells a jury or insurance claims agent to put ZERO consideration on either witness accounts.
*no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded NORMAL operation - wording implies that if the aircraft had been operated normally, the accident would have been less likely
*pilot’s failure to... - when this phrase is included as the only explanation in the Probable Cause line, juries and insurance companies zero in on this with theirs LASER's. This alone will usually eliminate any liability being placed on aircraft, prop, or engine manufacturer, kit builder, or any others.

 

[Abid]

Um, no Fara, why don't you reread what occured. You'll find it convenient ly located on page one of this thread.
He didn't "just not flare" 50 yards from two different runways from an altitude of 500 feet.
The real shame is we will never have a definitive answer as to what happened.
This report doesn't shed any light on what I had already posted.
If you want to comment on what happened no one will stop you, but the family does read these posts and they don't need to read that kind of idle speculation which is baseless.

Hi Ben:
Sorry. I went and re-read your post on page one. The following remarks from you stood out.

" It didn't appear that ANY corrective action was taken by Doug to stop or alter the trajectory and he had already proven from a lesser height he could do that. The throttle being in the halfway mark seems to me to indicate again, no change made to flight attitude. "

I apologize if I missed something. Please feel free to correct me or add to it.

 

[Kevin_Richey]

The link posted in post #227 is not working. This is:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20121223X31656&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

 

[All_In]

The link posted in post #227 is not working. This is:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...=HTML&IType=FA

Bro this post is from 2014. Many of the people posting aren't here anymore and the linked page may have been moved or deleted by now?

 

[Kevin_Richey]

John: I well remember the prior link, which doesn't work now. The current link I posted has so many details (witness statements and more details of the investigation) available that wasn't four years back, including two close up photos of the wreckage before it was removed.

Folks interested in the older Sport Copter kits, or owners of such, might see what parts survived, and why.

I attended and flew my machine there @ the Arizona Chapter 15 fly-in they held there on that airstrip out of Wellton, about a month after this accident occurred. Having the meeting there was already planned months ahead.

While there, and without asking Ben S. for details, he brought up the whole experience the next day after I had arrived, and showed me the accident site. His anguish over discovering Doug passed away, (even though Ben knew CPR and has extensive medical knowledge from his years as a Navy diver and demolition work), and his frustration over the questions he was asked by the NTSB & local sheriff's dept. that questioned his friendship status with Doug, a close friend despite their age differences.

I knew Doug from when he attended the KBBFI in September prior. Those of us present saw a careful pilot flying his SC while nearby Ben S. was aviating in his SC.

Many of us were, and still are, disturbed about this accident. He had gotten trained the right way, through a CFI. He flew what is considered a stable gyroplane. He was already a pilot of airplanes and gliders, so flying in the three dimensions wasn't something new for him.

All the talk about waiting for the NTSB investigation results came to naught, for no reason was given other than pilot failed to maintain control of the aircraft. It still seems the logical explanation is that a health issue was the answer, to those who knew him. Sound familiar to other crashes?

I find learning what transpired in an aviation accident helps me to avoid what has occurred before to other pilots. Hope is that I won't repeat those same actions. The uneasy feelings I have after reading accident reports of people I knew that aren't with us now doesn't sit well for some time afterwards, including the urge to not fly anymore...

 

[All_In]

Hi Bro. Oh OK. I remember when it happened.