Accidents and Safetly Equiptment

[Bill Greenwood]

A recent lift accident jogged my memory of two aircraft accidents. Chairlifts often have a safety bar, and the best also have a foot rest. Its easy to use, just reach overhead and swing it down in front. Falling is rare so people dont always use the bar, some areas and instructors dont emphasize use, every time.Clothes can be slippery on the seat or the chair lurch when stopping. Unfortunately a lady and daughters fell, with hers being fatal, likely the bar was not used, sadly.
What does this have to do with flying and EAA in particular? Its really the same type of thing, a rare accident which may have been avoided using safety equiptment.

A skilled aerobatic pilot was in the habit of flying cross country with just the chest strap of his parachute buckled and the legs straps left off. After all, he competed in contests with all the stresses and risks of that and didnt expect to have trouble on a simple VMC cross country. But a problem forced him to bail out and although the chute opened in time, it pulled off his shoulders without the leg straps to hold it.Many of you would know his name if I gave it. Most of us dont wear a chute in normal airplanes, but the same thing applies to shoulder harness. Sometimes people wear seat belts but not bother with the shoulder harness. They dont expect to need them.

There was another case of parachute use, this time with best results. Two fighters, Skyraider and 51 were doing a pass at historic Duxford, Eng when the leads wing cut into the fuselage of the 51, completly severing the control cables that went from stick back to elevator. The pilot pulled the stick back but had no response,and the nose was dropping fast. This was low at pattern altitude., and he was not a young man, but he pulled the canopy jettison lever, released his seat belt, bailed out ,opened the chute and landed safely in the space of about a minute. Even when we wear chutes in fighters we dont expect to need them especially not that low.
Again the common item in these three events are a danger that happens so rarely one doesn't expect it, and safety equiptment that can be critical when used.
Ill write some more on this later, might help someone.

[martymayes]

An skilled aerobatic pilot was in the habit of flying cross country without the leg straps of his parachute buckled, just the chest strap. After all, he competed in contests with all the stresses and risks of that and didnt expect to have trouble on a simple VMC cross country. But a blown engine forced him to bail out and although the chute opened in time, it pulled off his shoulders without the leg straps to hold it.

I'm curious where the information about a "blown engine" came from? That's the first I have heard of it, even the NTSB final does not mention a "blown engine" all it says is:

DURING A DAYLIGHT FLIGHT OVER AN AIRPORT, THE AIRPLANE WAS OBSERVED TO
DESCEND OUT OF CONTROL TO GROUND IMPACT. THE PILOT EXITED THE AIRPLANE
IN AN ATTEMPT TO PARACHUTE TO SAFETY; HOWEVER, THE PARACHUTE WAS NOT
ATTACHED TO THE PILOT AND THE PILOT FELL TO THE GROUND.

and

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
THE LOSS OF CONTROL FOR UNKNOWN REASONS,

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty, I have changed my wording of the problem to fit your point. My info was from memory and discussion back then, that the engine may not have been running. dont want to emphasize that now. Its not clear if the plane had control as long as the pilot was flying it.Do you have your own opinion/info of why the pilot bailed out?
Whatever caused the bail out, the final problem was the chute coming off or as the accident report says in the last line:
"Procedures for emergency equipment not followed"
And that is the point that I am trying to make in my other 23 sentences.

[martymayes]

oh, ok. I thought there was some subsequent development. For sure safety gear is of not much value if not used or not used properly.

[WLIU]

The Frasca accident was many years ago. The aerobatic community emphasizes wearing the parachute gear properly but periodically our bad friends remind us of the consequences. Much more recently a Yak pilot in a waivered aerobatic box was run down by a civilian while in the vertical and used his parachute. Because he was wearing his harness too loosely, as the opening shock pushed him down in the harness, the chest strap met this throat and broke his wind pipe in a couple of places. Spent a month in the hospital and had maybe 3 surgeries. Was concerned he would not talk again. Great surgeon and he is now recovered. Moral of story - wear your rig to tighten the straps to place the chest strap as low as practical or wear a rig with the Strong/Softie style "aerobatic" harness.

Wes
N78PS
Parachute Rigger and Pitts Driver

[Mike M]

"...run down by a civilian..." ?? Was the Yak pilot in designated, dedicated military training airspace?

[WLIU]

The YAK pilot was in an FAA authorized, NOTAM-ed, and ATC coordinated aerobatic box next to an airport. The non-participant came out of the haze and sun at something like 190kts and drove right through the airspace, clipping off the tail of the Yak, losing his right wing and impacting just off the airport. All happened fast enough that the ground observers watching for non-participating traffic did not have time to call the YAK pilot on the radio. And the non-surviving pilot did not make any radio calls about his arrival at the airport.

There are lots of NOTAM-ed airspaces out there that should be approached with caution, not just MOA's. And there are other cautionary aspects of the accident narrative. Too many pilots don't use their radio when approaching an airport traffic area. And some of the pilots that do make "blind" calls and do not listen for responses from the unicom or other aircraft in the traffic area. If the non-surviving pilot had done anything to understand the current activity at the airport, or approached with less speed, etc., the collision would not have occurred. The YAK pilot was operating entirely within the specifications of the FAA authorization for the activity at that location. Not much you can do at near the top of a hammer, with almost zero airspeed, when someone who did not do their homework comes barging through.

Y'all be careful out there,

Wes
N78PS

[Mike M]

The YAK pilot was in an FAA authorized, NOTAM-ed, and ATC coordinated aerobatic box next to an airport. The non-participant came out of the haze and sun at something like 190kts and drove right through the airspace, clipping off the tail of the Yak, losing his right wing and impacting just off the airport. All happened fast enough that the ground observers watching for non-participating traffic did not have time to call the YAK pilot on the radio. And the non-surviving pilot did not make any radio calls about his arrival at the airport.

There are lots of NOTAM-ed airspaces out there that should be approached with caution, not just MOA's. And there are other cautionary aspects of the accident narrative. Too many pilots don't use their radio when approaching an airport traffic area. And some of the pilots that do make "blind" calls and do not listen for responses from the unicom or other aircraft in the traffic area. If the non-surviving pilot had done anything to understand the current activity at the airport, or approached with less speed, etc., the collision would not have occurred. The YAK pilot was operating entirely within the specifications of the FAA authorization for the activity at that location. Not much you can do at near the top of a hammer, with almost zero airspeed, when someone who did not do their homework comes barging through.

Y'all be careful out there,

Wes
N78PS

So, it wasn't at a military airfield, in military airspace, or with a military pilot?

[Bill Greenwood]

Parachute use or acro, aren't most pilots type of normal flying. But acro is potentially risky and the need to bail out is not beyond the odds. Chutes have saved many pilots.
One big safety factor in acro flight or any practice stall/spin type of flight is plenty of altitude to recover. perhaps 5000' min for a light plane, ie 172 or even 10.000 or more for a heavier higher performance one. The P-51 pilot manual says dont spin below 10,000 feet, talking AGL of course. A friend made a video of 51 spins and he went to 17,500 to start. I flew another plane in which I had a good idea of spin properties but not sure since it had some mods, so I went to 15,500.

Sqadly, witness today confirms that the safety bar was not down in place when the chair swung in the lift accident, and swung into a tower.
Only Vermont has a law requiring use of the bar, falls are so rare that its often not on peoples mind as vital.

[Mayhemxpc]

So, it wasn't at a military airfield, in military airspace, or with a military pilot?

Wes, I think that Mike's point here was that you described the non-participating pilot as a "civilian". I imagine that the YAK pilot was also a civilian, although I could be mistaken about that.

[Jim Hardin]

I fail to understand the anal mentality of some of the responses...

The Topic is 'safety equipment' not what caused their use/miss-use.

If the bailout was caused by a bird strike, what possible difference does it make if the offending bird was a buzzard or a goldfinch?

Stick to the subject and stop sniping at the poster :(

[CDS]

A recent lift accident jogged my memory of two aircraft accidents. Chairlifts often have a safety bar, and the best also have a foot rest. Its easy to use, just reach overhead and swing it down in front. Falling is rare so people dont always use the bar, some areas and instructors dont emphasize use, every time.Clothes can be slippery on the seat or the chair lurch when stopping. Unfortunately a lady and daughters fell, with hers being fatal, likely the bar was not used, sadly.
What does this have to do with flying and EAA in particular? Its really the same type of thing, a rare accident which may have been avoided using safety equipment...

Thanks for bringing this up, Bill. It's right at the heart of something I've been wondering about as just a few months ago, a young couple lost their lives in a simple car accident; neither were wearing seat belts. Their 2 year old daughter was properly strapped into a car seat and survived with very minor injuries. Today, the deceased mother's parents are raising their grand daughter.

When the late mother was a just an infant, I'd held her for much of one evening - it made an impression on me that I'll always remember.

And in even more recent weeks, I've seen reports of auto accidents with more fatalities in which the drivers or riders weren't wearing their seat belts. How does such a thing happen in this day and age?

So, I'm compelled to ask, how many readers of this blog do NOT wear seat belts in their cars? Is there anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt in an aircraft?

[Frank Giger]

I always wear a seat belt in an automobile, and when I designed my restraint system for my Nieuport, I spent a long while thinking it through.

It's overbuilt, which is okay IMHO. When I inverted the aircraft the restraints did their job very well. Indeed, when I came to rest I was hanging from the shoulder straps in the seat thinking "now what?" And yes, I did bonk my head on the grass when I hit the quick release!

[martymayes]

I would venture most pilots wear a seatbelt when they drive but what is sad is the number of airplanes that still do not have a shoulder harness. We could certainly do better......

[DaleB]

I started wearing a seat belt in cars when the seatbelt warnings got too annoying to ignore and took too m work to bypass (late 1990s). After a few years it just became automatic; I wear it every time I get in the vehicle now unless I'm just moving the vehicle a few feet or something. I've been on a bike without a helmet twice in 10 years, briefly... although once i get the Vespa running again that may change.

When I was young and invincible and could not be killed, I ignored safety equipment often. Now that I'm old and feeble and every stupid moron on the road with a cell phone and tablet seems like they are actively TRYING to kill me, it's different. And I always wear whatever restraints are available in an airplane, I've seen me fly.

:)

[Floatsflyer]

I would venture most pilots wear a seatbelt when they drive but what is sad is the number of airplanes that still do not have a shoulder harness. We could certainly do better......

That's a big +1.

A lap belt without the shoulder harness is as useless as you know what in a bowl. All kinds of avionics have been mandated and made mandatory by the regulator within certain conditions and circumstances so why not do the same with shoulder harnesses. Seems a cheap and necessary requirement for safety and life and limb saving. I'm all for it.

It took way too long for the legacy aircraft makers to adopt car technology in the cockpit. It's only been in the last 15-20 years or so that they began to integrate combination lap/shoulder inertia reel systems in new aircraft. I also have an Amsafe airbag built into the lap belt in my C182. Nice to know it's there, hope I never see it discharged.

[WLIU]

Only recently has the FAA made it easier to install safety equipment like shoulder harnesses in older airplanes. Most Cessna's have provisions for shoulder harnesses but that is not true of other brands. So the 337 process has to be followed. Take a look at AC43-13.2A Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Alterations, Chapter 9 Shoulder Harness Installations. Not simple and easy in some aircraft. A shoulder harness anchored in tissue paper does you no good.

Of course, the best rule is "don't crash".

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS - which came from the factory with shoulder harnesses

[martymayes]

Only recently has the FAA made it easier to install safety equipment like shoulder harnesses in older airplanes.

Recently has been 20 yrs now. In 1997 the FAA published a policy letter that allows shoulder harness installation - in aircraft that typically would not have a shoulder harness - with acceptable vs approved data. Can be done as a minor alteration which is a logbook entry only. Be rare to have a plane where a suitable installation solution is not readily available. It just boggles my mind when someone hops in a plane, clicks the seatbelt - no shoulder harness installed - dons his $1000 Bose headset and flies off into the blue.

[1600vw]

Just a shoulder belt is not enough IMHO. I had a friend fly in and we went for a trip in his Zenith. It has one shoulder belt like a car. I myself like a 4 or 5 point harness myself. But what most miss is the angle at which they sit. I saw one set up were the operator was kinda laid back. In the right conditions one could slide out under the belt. Why I like a 4 or 5 point harness. It's harder to slide out under one of those.

Speaking of seat belts. When I built my Pro Street hot rod, the seat belts had to be replaced every other year. How many replace the seat belts in their airplane after a few years? The ones in my airplane are going on 13 years old. I myself believe these should be replaced every so many years. Like the NHRA requires. The NHRA would never allow a car on the track with outdated safety harness.

[DaleB]

Speaking of seat belts. When I built my Pro Street hot rod, the seat belts had to be replaced every other year. How many replace the seat belts in their airplane after a few years? The ones in my airplane are going on 13 years old. I myself believe these should be replaced every so many years. Like the NHRA requires. The NHRA would never allow a car on the track with outdated safety harness.
So why have you not replaced the seat belts in your plane for 13 years?

[FlyingRon]

Drag racer belts take a lot more abuse than aircraft seat belts. Aircraft belts are evaluated based on condition. It's SFI's recommendation that the webbing be only used for two years. The NTSB has actually looked into it. They've not actually found the webbing to be as much of an issue as other problems in the belt system. These should be caught at annual.