What happened Jeremy Monett

[raytoews]

Any body seen the final verdict if available. The initial said they dove into the ground. Probably more to it.
Need to know.

A friend told me if you don't want to die in an airplane, two things.

Don't run out of fuel.
Don't hit the ground.

Too Simple?

Ray

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[rwanttaja]

NTSB Final report:

http://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20150602X70621&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA

Previous discussion of Final Report:

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5964-Sonex-down-at-Osh-Two-dead-R-I-P/page4

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Ron let me be the first to say thank you for up dating all of us on this. What I learned from not only this but just flying Experimental airplanes. Do not treat one as a certified airplane. If you do it can and will bite you.

Also Ron. Great read in this months EAA mag. You do some awesome work. Do you go out to an accident or do you report or write about the cause and effect? Also how did you get involved in writing these reports? I find this very interesting. What you do that is.
Tony

[rwanttaja]

Ron let me be the first to say thank you for up dating all of us on this. What I learned from not only this but just flying Experimental airplanes. Do not treat one as a certified airplane. If you do it can and will bite you.

Also Ron. Great read in this months EAA mag. You do some awesome work. Do you go out to an accident or do you report or write about the cause and effect? Also how did you get involved in writing these reports? I find this very interesting. What you do that is.
Tony
Thanks, Tony, glad you enjoyed the article. I'll answer your questions in a separate thread.

Ron Wanttaja

[cluttonfred]

What I learned from not only this but just flying Experimental airplanes. Do not treat one as a certified airplane. If you do it can and will bite you.

Tony, I have not read Ron's new article but I did read the report and Ron and WacoJoe's comments in the thread linked above. I wonder if you could explain the reasons for your comment above. I did not see anything in terms of lessons learned from those two links that I would interpret any differently for certified vs. experimental aircraft.

[1600vw]

Tony, I have not read Ron's new article but I did read the report and Ron and WacoJoe's comments in the thread linked above. I wonder if you could explain the reasons for your comment above. I did not see anything in terms of lessons learned from those two links that I would interpret any differently for certified vs. experimental aircraft.

You may want to re-read that. For they do talk about it. They say that the runway left behind them was not a good call. In an experimental I would never leave runway behind me, were in a Certified CA style airplane I may do a mid field takeoff. Anything can fail as we all know. But why push your luck. All I am saying. Now if you don't like this way of thinking. That is fine, but some have been bit by not thinking this way..

Fly Smart and Safety will follow......

Tony

[cluttonfred]

They say that the runway left behind them was not a good call. In an experimental I would never leave runway behind me, were in a Certified CA style airplane I may do a mid field takeoff.

I guess that's where we differ in our reading. I did my flying this past summer in a 40-year-old C172 and a 70-year-old J-3 plus one flight in a 73-year-old Stearman. I don't see how issues based on poor judgement or overconfidence, like the intersection takeoff, apply more or less to experiemental vs. certified aircraft. Like you said, anything can fail at any time.

[1600vw]

I guess that's where we differ in our reading. I did my flying this past summer in a 40-year-old C172 and a 70-year-old J-3 plus one flight in a 73-year-old Stearman. I don't see how issues based on poor judgement or overconfidence, like the intersection takeoff, apply more or less to experiemental vs. certified aircraft. Like you said, anything can fail at any time.

You are comparing GA aircraft to Experimental. But right in the article they state, had they used the 4000' of runway behind them we would not be talking about this today. Go ahead and do an intersection take off in an Experimental. It's not my butt on the line. But if I am in the airplane and you try to do this, well if I am in the airplane this will not happen with me aboard. Why? I would not allow it.

Tony

[cluttonfred]

Actually, you said "What I learned from not only this but just flying Experimental airplanes. Do not treat one as a certified airplane. If you do it can and will bite you," and later, "In an experimental I would never leave runway behind me, were in a Certified CA style airplane I may do a mid field takeoff." I agree that the intersection takeoff was a bad practice, I disagree that experimental vs. certified has anything to do with it.

[1600vw]

Actually, you said "What I learned from not only this but just flying Experimental airplanes. Do not treat one as a certified airplane. If you do it can and will bite you," and later, "In an experimental I would never leave runway behind me, were in a Certified CA style airplane I may do a mid field takeoff." I agree that the intersection takeoff was a bad practice, I disagree that experimental vs. certified has anything to do with it.



Those who fly Experimental and only experimental understand this. Nothing on my airplane is airworthy. A GA style or certified airplane is full of airworthy parts. But to each his own.

Tony

[raytoews]

Wow.
This got interesting quick.
What an attitude.
There is nothing on either my certified Grumman or my Zenair that is not airworthy anytime I go flying.
To suggest otherwise is dangerous and irresponsible.
Any intersection takeoff is just that, irresponsible.
Two things most useless to a pilot,,,,,,,,fuel not in the tank and runway behind you.
That's what i always say sometimes.

[1600vw]

Wow.This got interesting quick.What an attitude. There is nothing on either my certified Grumman or my Zenair that is not airworthy anytime I go flying.To suggest otherwise is dangerous and irresponsible. Any intersection takeoff is just that, irresponsible. Two things most useless to a pilot,,,,,,,,fuel not in the tank and runway behind you. That's what i always say sometimes. HomeBuilt or Experimental hold no type certificate. They are not and never will be in a condition for safe flight. They will be in a condition for safe operation but that is it. If you do not believe this look at your operating limitations. This will be spelled out there. Now have a nice day. Tony

[1600vw]

Wow.This got interesting quick.What an attitude. There is nothing on either my certified Grumman or my Zenair that is not airworthy anytime I go flying.To suggest otherwise is dangerous and irresponsible. Any intersection takeoff is just that, irresponsible. Two things most useless to a pilot,,,,,,,,fuel not in the tank and runway behind you. That's what i always say sometimes. What is irresponsible is posting you fly a two seat and did not know this. For there should be a placard in your airplane warning the passengers that this airplane meets no type certificate or is not a certified airplane. You should see this every time you fly. Unless you fly single seat. Now have a nice day. Tony

[1600vw]

I also believe that anyone flying a passenger and that passenger has no knowledge of experimental or EAB airplanes. That not only should one do a preflight with this passenger explaining all the ins and outs of the airplane. That it is this pilots responsibility to explain to this passenger that the airplane they plan on getting into hold no type certificate and what this means. I would then let them make up their own mind if they want to fly in such an airplane. Not everyone will. I wonder how many do this? In the case this thread is about, everyone knew what they stepped into before they ever stepped into it. Tony

[martymayes]

HomeBuilt or Experimental hold no type certificate.

Plenty of examples where an "experimental" holds a "type certificate" It's only an absolute for amateur-built, so the above statement should read:

"HomeBuilt or Experimental, Amateur-Built hold no type certificate"

[martymayes]

That it is this pilots responsibility to explain to this passenger that the airplane they plan on getting into

91.319 only requires that the person operating the aircraft [not necessarily the pilot]
"(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft" which can be done in one short sentence - essentially parroting what's on the passenger warning placard.

[1600vw]

Plenty of examples where an "experimental" holds a "type certificate" It's only an absolute for amateur-built, so the above statement should read: "HomeBuilt or Experimental, Amateur-Built hold no type certificate" Thank you for clarifying this. To be sure, check your operating limitations.... Tony

[1600vw]

91.319 only requires that the person operating the aircraft [not necessarily the pilot] "(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft" which can be done in one short sentence - essentially parroting what's on the passenger warning placard. One should point this placard out and explain it...IMHO.. But to each their own. Tony

[martymayes]

One should point this placard out and explain it...IMHO.. But to each their own. Tony

Certainly nothing wrong with doing more than the regs require but at the same time, the minimum required by the regs is satisfactory.

[Kyle Boatright]

Those who fly Experimental and only experimental understand this. Nothing on my airplane is airworthy. A GA style or certified airplane is full of airworthy parts. But to each his own.

Tony

Semantics.

[raytoews]

Double wow.
Legal and airworthy are two very different categories.
An airplane, certified or otherwise may be legal but it sure as hell may not be airworthy.
I may not be able quote air regs chapter and verse like ya'll but over the last 40 yrs I have developed a keen sense of airworthy and placards or not any time any airplane with me in it leaves the ground,,,,,,
It is airworthy.
Paperwork doesn't create lift.
Flame on.

Ray

[Bill Greenwood]

Its not certain what caused this accident, seems to have been an engine problem leading to the stall, most likley, but not conclusive from what could be determined.
I dont know much about this engine but seems its a turbo VW I think, and is not likely to be as trouble free or reliable as a standard Cont of Lycoming like a Cub or Cessna. No engine is going to run with the mixture at cutoff, as it was found. Is that just a simple mistake that could have shut off the engine? Could the passenger have inadvertently moved the mixuture control? Or is it the venier type that doesnt move easily? Could they have taken off with the mixture in lean? The turbo probably calls for full rich on takeoff.
In that case, it is double sad that runway 18 with 8000 or so and a 1/2 mile overrun to the south or even full lenght on 9 of about 6000 ft was not used.They might well have had an engine problem with room to return to the runway and land and roll out safely if the pilot got the nose down to avoid a stall when the problem occured.
I dont know what the take off performance of this plane would be, Was 2500 ft normal or did the pilot attempt to lift off too soon on a warm day?
I was just talking to a friend about multi engine flying. He flies a Baron at Steamboat, abut 4400 ft runway at 6800 feet. He had a actual engine failure on takeoff and got safely back on the runway.

[rwanttaja]

The potential for engine failure should be uppermost in any pilot's mind, but especially when operating a homebuilt. About 32% of all homebuilt accidents begin with a loss of engine power, due to mechanical, transient, or pilot issues. That's more than twice as often as, for instance, Cessna 172s. As this particular Sonex mounted an engine still under development, the likelihood was greater.

In about 9% of all homebuilt accidents, the cause of the loss of power was not able to be determined (what I phrase as "undetermined engine failure"). In comparison, only 3.2% of Cessna 172 accidents are due to undetermined engine failure. This is probably due to greater investigative attention being paid to crashes of production aircraft. Nearly 90% of RVs in accidents have traditional engines, but the Undetermined Engine Failure rate is 9.5%.

The "Runway Behind You" aspect of this case is unfortunate, but I personally don't strongly fault the pilot. This accident could have easily happened at any number of nearby airports where the total runway length was equal to that provided by the intersection takeoff. Yes, using the full length of the runway probably would avoided the deaths, possibly even damage to the aircraft. But had the engine failed 15 seconds earlier, or even 15 seconds later, the outcome would probably have been better, as well. Earnest Gann put it best: Fate is the Hunter. Pilots' lives hang on coincidences.

The act of flying an aircraft is the epitome of real-world risk management. Our lives do rest on our decisions. Ideally, we'd be left-brained automatons with ice flowing through our veins, assessing the risks against the potential rewards. Unfortunately, we're all too human. Our risk-analysis processing is affected by the need to get the task completed more quickly, or to save a few more dollars, even by the strains on our bladders.

Unfortunately, pulling OFF a risky move tends to reset risk aversion. We risk a shortcut through a bad neighborhood while driving home...and if we get away with it, we're more likely to use that shortcut again. Not supposed to stand on the top step of the stepladder...but geeze, it worked putting that one picture up. Flying nonstop from A to B may be a bit tight on gas...but heck, once you prove it can be done, why not do it again?

And that intersection takeoff saves 5-10 minutes, and keeps the engine from overheating on the ground. What's the chance the engine will fail at *exactly* the wrong moment?

Rationalization is a powerful force, and none of us are immune to it. Most of us, if we're honest, can probably find we're doing shortcuts that could bite us. We jack the plane up to work on it and don't bother with a safety block. We don't bother to put on the seatbelts when taxiing to the gas pumps. We don't ensure we've got up-to-date charts (or their electronic equivalent) onboard.

But we've got away with it, so far. The jack isn't going to fail, we're not getting in a taxi accident, we're not going to have to divert to an unfamiliar location.

Until it does, and until we do.

To close, let me make one plea: Don't think you're immune. I see too many people insisting I WOULDN'T DO THAT. The point is, at some given time, with some given conditions, with some given incentive, you might. You need to get away of the mindset telling yourself, "I always operate safely," because too often folks think that armors one against bad decisions.

Been there, done that. In the past, I was incredulous when pilots ran out of fuel. "How could they DO that???!!!" I'd fume.

Until the time I put 14 gallons into a 16 gallon Fly Baby tank. The circumstances were strange of course, but one aspect was my self-image as someone who would never run out of fuel. So of COURSE there was enough gas to get home.

There was, fortunately. But it certainly shocked me, realizing the risk I'd taken. And hopefully has made me just a little more safe.

As the saying goes: Be careful out there.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

Engine failure at 100 feet with no warning is hard to fly out of. The natural reaction is a hesitation or pull up.
I did a practice takeoff engine failure in my Cherokee at 500 feet at the end of the runway. The plane instantly just fell and I instantly went to full power but barely recovered before hitting the trees. Don't try that. It wasn't like the glider I trained in.

[1600vw]

Bill in a Cherokee this happened. Imagine being in a draggy HB like most of them are. What happens they end up slamming into the ground almost flat. I know a Mini-max this happened to. The pilot lost engine at around 100'. He landed wings level. The airplane was not hurt that bad from the pics, wings still attached and not broke into. But he was killed. He slammed her into the ground.
One day this man and I were shooting e-mails back and fourth and the next day I am told this happened. He was telling me his rotax was giving him issues and wanted to see my mounts for a vw setup. The next day I learn of this. It's been a few years since this happened.

Tony

[rwanttaja]

Engine failure at 100 feet with no warning is hard to fly out of. The natural reaction is a hesitation or pull up.
I did a practice takeoff engine failure in my Cherokee at 500 feet at the end of the runway. The plane instantly just fell and I instantly went to full power but barely recovered before hitting the trees. Don't try that. It wasn't like the glider I trained in.

I occasionally try "The Impossible Turn" at altitude, in my Fly Baby. The first time, I was shocked at how much altitude that 180-degree turn cost me. I'd delayed recovery for one second to cover the YGTBSM factor, and lost something like 700 feet by the time I was wings level in the opposite direction. I practiced a bit and got the loss down to 500 feet or less, but it was enough to convince me it wasn't worth trying in a real engine-failure event.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

The white smoke trail perhaps indicates a gradual loss of power. That can be worse than a dead cold stoppage, I think.
A partial power loss doesn't require an instant switch to glider mode, so the pilot lets the speed get low while figuring options. At least it did to me.
Really, the only option is push forward to keep glide speed and aim for the clearest parking lot.
Even if he had used all 6000 feet and got to 200 feet high at the end of the runway, a straight ahead impact is still best in most cases because turns take energy and then you are landing downwind. And turning downwind fools the pilot into thinking he has good airspeed even while dropping rapidly.

It's too bad there is no safe way to practice. The altimeter isn't accurate and fast enough to show true altitude loss when done at a safe 4000 feet in practice, I think. So a dead stick turn can take more actual altitude than you think.
I tried flying level along side a long flat topped mountain at 3500 feet above the valley for safe recovery in case of spin. I pulled the power to idle and did turns while dropping below the mountain top. That didn't help much either without markers on the mountain.

[Kyle Boatright]

It's too bad there is no safe way to practice. The altimeter isn't accurate and fast enough to show true altitude loss when done at safe 4000 feet in practice, I think. So a dead stick turn can take more actual altitude than you think.

But if you stabilize at <say> 80 knots and 4,000', do the impossible turn, and stabilize afterwards, don't you know your altitude loss? You could even use your GPS for altitude.

[Bill Berson]

But if you stabilize at <say> 80 knots and 4,000', do the impossible turn, and stabilize afterwards, don't you know your altitude loss? You could even use your GPS for altitude.

You could try that. No GPS when I did the mountain thing about 40 years ago.
Not sure how often a GPS recalculates.
Try a full power nose high climb and then chop the power simulating a takeoff failure, wait till stall speed and see how much altitude is lost.
Warning! Don't do this unless you are spin trained and know how to do it safely.

[Kyle Boatright]

You could try that. No GPS when I did the mountain thing about 40 years ago.
Not sure how often a GPS recalculates.
Try a full power nose high climb and then chop the power simulating a takeoff failure, wait till stall speed and see how much altitude is lost.
Warning! Don't do this unless you are spin trained and know how to do it safely.

I'm probably fooling myself, but I have practiced the impossible turn multiple times. With the RV, I typically climb at >100 knots, which is 2x stall speed. That gives me a lot of time to fumble with stuff before the airplane is going to stall. But, what I do when I simulate the engine failure is to count "one potato, two potato, three potato", then begin to drop the nose and make the turn. Without making any overly aggressive (IMO) maneuvers, I can put the RV back on the runway from a relatively low altitude. But I absolutely recognize that >100 knots and 2x stall speed is a benefit of the excellent performance of the RV, and many airplanes (and their pilots) don't have that luxury.

[Bill Berson]

A big windmilling prop is much worse than engine at idle.
Like Ron said: be careful out there.

[rwanttaja]

A big windmilling prop is much worse than engine at idle.

When I bought my Fly Baby, the idle was set to about 750 RPM. I thought that was fine, and flew for a number of years.

Eventually, during a Condition Inspection, the A&P noted it and suggested it be set about 200 RPM lower. It made a surprising difference in the way the plane dropped on final, and I almost had to re-learn how to land.

Full details at: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/idle.html

That change in RPM made a bit difference...probably about the same between idling and windmilling.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

I just read this crash report where a low flying pilot let his groundspeed decay from 105 to 41kts just before impact. (GPS recorded)
Then he asked the first responders "what happened".
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140825X21423&ntsbno=ANC14FA068&akey=1