Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net
Message-ID: <F2C13E6E7AFA401DB747AD14F1DA78BD@wills>
From: "Mike Wills" <rv-4mike@cox.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 20:34:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ernest,

 I agree with a number of the points you made, totally disagree with the 
conclusion you draw from the report. While there are a lot of red herrings 
in there, the conclusion I draw from what I read is that of a guy who took a 
lot of short cuts because he was in a hurry to make it to OSH. He pushed 
both the airplane and himself further than either were prepared to go and he 
paid the price. He himself admitted that he was in over his head. He wasnt 
qualified or capable of safely flying the aircraft, he didnt properly test 
it before embarking on multiple cross countries, he gun decked the phase 1 
testing, etc., etc., etc..... It was sheer luck he got as many hours on the 
airplane as he did, though its not at all clear how many hours he actually 
flew it and how many were faked. More sheer luck that he didnt take anyone 
with him. I hate to judge the guy so harshly, but say again, it pays to go 
into phase 1 flight test with a healthy self preservation instinct.

 I didnt mention it yesterday when I read this, but thought it ironic that I 
read Chris Mallory's report on his engine troubles shortly after reading 
this NTSB report. And read how Chris was feeling a lot of pressure to get 
his problem straightened out so he could more easily move the plane to South 
Carolina for his impending move. I applaud Chris for taking this pressure 
out of the equation and focusing on the problem at hand. Had this guy done 
that he may still be around.

Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:16 PM
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&akey=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
>