Just Aircraft-anyone else notice the trend?

[Infidel]

Anyone that does some online searching can see the trend. Citing water in the fuel is complete BS and with an engine failure, there would still be remnants of the propeller attached to the hub/gearbox. Stalled into the trees under full power? You betcha. Video recorded moments before the crash is just an example of what transpired leading to crash. There's been several of crashes involving Just Aircraft, with this being the second "company demo" crash within the past six months. If the company survives this....I'll start going to church.

What gets my goat is; the manner of flight clearly seen in the video which is a violation of the FAR's and a bad reflection on general aviation.


Just Aircraft Founders Survive Two Crashes in Four Months | Atlantic ... (http://www.atlanticflyer.net/just-aircraft-founders-survive-two-crashes-in-four-months/)

www.atlanticflyer.net/just-aircraft-founders-survive-two-crashes-in-four-m...
4 days ago - On August 2nd Troy Woodland, Co-founder of Just Aircraft, made a crashlanding in a vacant subdivision in Walhalla, SC. The incident comes ...

[Low Pass]

Ok, I'll bite. What all FARs were violated? Didn't look congested. Could likely have been 500 ft from those boats. Maybe have been close to 30° on one climb. Didn't see more than 60 on the bank.

Seems to me he made two mistakes. He ended up in the trees, and he stuck around one place too long. One pass, haul a$$

[martymayes]

Ok, I'll bite. What all FARs were violated? Didn't look congested. Could likely have been 500 ft from those boats.

"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing....." sort of excludes the specific requirements; once the engine sputters any reg in the way of a safe outcome can be excused.

I do like how, even in a crash they are still concerned with selling airplanes as evidenced by a sales pitch in the released statement:

"Their only injury was soreness from the shoulder straps, a testimony to the ruggedness of the steel tube cage surrounding the occupants." ha, ha.

[Bob Dingley]

Ok, I'll bite. What all FARs were violated? Didn't look congested. Could likely have been 500 ft from those boats. Maybe have been close to 30° on one climb. Didn't see more than 60 on the bank.

Seems to me he made two mistakes. He ended up in the trees, and he stuck around one place too long. One pass, haul a$$
The FAA does not function like traffic cops. This is the 21st century and its the insurance companies that are the big dogs. I'm not talking about the Avemco policy on a particular airframe. I'm guessing that plane was under the same policy that covers the company and now the stakes are a lot higher.

One thing that the FAA can do is withhold award of the FAA Master Pilot Award later on. If he is still alive.

Bob

[Bob Dingley]

Maybe a "Darwin Award" is appropriate.

[Low Pass]

Maybe a "Darwin Award" is appropriate.Although on it's way out the door, in America it is still permissible to pursue happiness doing things that are tagged as stupid by some. This is a big component of what makes this country so special, in my opinion. If everyone exposed themselves to personal risk in a manner that suited the most conservative person in the country, no one would ever get out of bed in the morning.

[67jwbruce]

How's the old saying go? 'There are old pilots and there are bold pilots and there are pilots that I'm not ever getting in the airplane with'

no, that's not it... Let me see if I can find an old, bold pilot to see if they know how the old saying goes.

[Mayhemxpc]

"the airplane began to climb and flew over a 2-story building located about 100 ft east of the runway, along its extended centerline." Surely that is not an accurate statement. If that is not, what else about the report is in error?

The last paragraph of the article is correct, anyway.

[67jwbruce]

The link shows the area to be hilly, it also shows a 2 story house with a 3rd level dormer. Which appears to be only half as tall as the trees behind it. So, it looks possible.

[jedi]

Reference to crash number two: Landing with decreasing tail wind leads to balloon and go around. Climbing into increasing tail wind leads to controlled flight into trees. All makes sense to me. This is JUST the cost of extreme flying. Neat pun though.

Reference crash one: Engine can run with water in the fuel. Just doesn't run well enough to maintain flight. Did the statement say the engine quit? Too busy to go back and check.

[Infidel]

Reference to crash number two: Landing with decreasing tail wind leads to balloon and go around. Climbing into increasing tail wind leads to controlled flight into trees. All makes sense to me. This is JUST the cost of extreme flying. Neat pun though.

Reference crash one: Engine can run with water in the fuel. Just doesn't run well enough to maintain flight. Did the statement say the engine quit? Too busy to go back and check.

The pilot originally quoted engine failure. But with the fuel system engineered in the Super STOL, stating water in the fuel, is very unlikely. He'd had to have put in roughly 1/4 gallon of water to have any impact. But as mentioned earlier, the Rotax was spinning hard when the prop left the hub.

[Frank Giger]

Um, I'm not the most experienced pilot in the world, but I seem to remember something about landing into the wind.

[rwanttaja]

Um, I'm not the most experienced pilot in the world, but I seem to remember something about landing into the wind.
Well, that's the difference between homebuilt pilots and spamcan pilots. Homebuilt pilots break ground and fly into the wind. Spamcan pilots do just the opposite. :-)

Ron Wanttaja