Nosedraggers... what are you thinking?

[l & d lewis]

I think its the number of them and the time they've been around. More people have had a chance to get their hands on them. Regardless of what airplane you choose to look at you'll find loss of control is the number one cause, rarely is a material failure or design flaw at falt particularly in general aviation airplanes. I think too many people who start flying stop learning. You rarely see people who have their licence out practicing except when they are due for a check ride.......just my thoughts from talking to people involved in accidents.

[Spike]

There also may be a difference in the number of registered yet still unflying aircraft amongst the makes.

-- Spike

[bmurrish]

I think too many people who start flying stop learning. You rarely see people who have their licence out practicing except when they are due for a check ride......

I totally agree with you on this Larry. I see it a lot at my aero club. Spend some time in the pattern doing touch and goes. Better yet, seek advanced ratings. I highly recommend every pilot get at least an instrument rating.

[l & d lewis]

Ya know Spike I'm not sure if they will show up prior to the airworthiness certificate being issued. I'll ask when I talk to one of the FAA folks. Maybe we should take a poll and see how many pilots here actually practice flying on a regular basis. It would probably be interesting..

[captain_john]

I think too many people who start flying stop learning. You rarely see people who have their licence out practicing except when they are due for a check ride.......just my thoughts from talking to people involved in accidents.

Talking to people who have accidents is your job. I talk to stupid kids all day. Does that mean that all kids are stupid? Naw, the good ones need less attention, that's all.

I practice flying everytime I fire the engine!

CJ

[l & d lewis]

This is a relatively new endeavor, 4 years, before that I spent 27 years as a cop talking to really stupid people! Are all people stupid, no, just the 3% we spent most of our time with. The problem I find with a lot of pilots is thinking that driving from point A to point B is enough. I think slow flight, stalls, pattern work, steep turns, and stabilized approaches is what you need to practice, but that's just my opinion. There was a good article last week about airline captains logging 10 hours a leg when half was spent in the bunk, with considerably less then that as sole manipulator of the controls. So who really are the most proficient pilots?? Any takers on this one??.....Larry

[captain_john]

Well, WE are... the men (and women) in the arena, to coin a Teddy speech.

We have logged those hours down low with no auto pilot, earned signoffs and multiple ratings and spent countless unloggable hours ruminating about flight and fantasy.

We build our own planes with an eye to the sky hoping that one day we will take to the wind and put the proof in our pudding!

It is WE! We are the proficient ones!

CJ

[l & d lewis]

Actually I tend to agree, most of the builders I've met have a lot more invested in their planes than payments. They also know what makes a plane tick. I met a gentlemen not too long ago who owned a C172, and he didn't know what kind of engine it had in it. I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. Of course he didn't know what class of airspace he was flying in either...........

[bmurrish]

They also know what makes a plane tick.....

I just spent a good 2 hours working on our plane with my kids. They are getting good at dimpling and countersinking, of course with my watchful eye. I have a small P-41 in my workshop and I make sure I point out the part on it that they are working on and make sure they know exactly what it does. My youngest one wants to be a pilot and I think this building thing is going to be incredibly beneficial to him in the long run.

[l & d lewis]

Sounds good Bill, I hope when the grand kids get a little older (and live a little closer) I can teach a couple of them to fly.........

[captain_john]

First of all, my sypathies to all family and friends of the deceased...



Here is a nosewheeler that seemed to have another problem on a runway made of "other" than asphalt.

This is the preliminary report at the NTSB web site.


NTSB Identification: SEA05LA054
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, March 05, 2005 in Yamhill, OR
Aircraft: Simpkins RV-6A, registration: N664DS
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On March 5, 2005, approximately 1700 Pacific standard time, a Simpkins RV-6A
single-engine airplane, N664DS, sustained substantial damage following a loss
of control during the landing roll at the Flying M Airport near Yamhill,
Oregon. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual. The
certificated private pilot received serious injuries and his sole passenger
sustained fatal injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the
personal flight, which was operated in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91, and a flight
plan was not filed. The flight originated from Sandy, Oregon, at an
unspecified time.

In a statement provided by the Oregon State Police to the NTSB
investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that after landing the plane pulled to the left
hard, but when he attempted to correct he was unable to do so. The airplane
subsequently departed the left side of the runway and went down a 45-degree
embankment before nosing over and coming to rest in an inverted position. The pilot
stated that he had experienced problems in the past with the left brake but
thought the owner had repaired it.

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector from the
Portland, Oregon Flight Standards District Office, traveled to the accident
site. The inspector reported the nose landing gear was bent backwards
approximately 45 degrees, and the left wing and rudder had sustained substantial damage.

The news article can be found at:

http://www.newsregister.com/news/story. ... _no=191085

David George Simpkins, rest in peace.

It sounds like the nosewheel was stuffed into the ground at landing speed. The ground was soft according to the news article (if you can trust the news) and the plane flipped.

CJ

[Spike]

I didnt see anything in that report that mentions the nose gear CJ. It mentions left hand pull and a faulty left brake. Where did we get nose gear out of that?

[captain_john]

RV-6A

CJ

[captain_john]

The inspector reported the nose landing gear was bent backwards

CJ

[hngrflyr]

I've landed at Flying M Ranch several times over the years. It's a one way strip, but plenty long enough and a good packed gravel surface. I wouldn't think the runway surface would be a factor.

[Spike]

I understand that the nose gear was bent backwards, but I dont see that as meaning it was causal. It just as well could have been a casualty of the event. The left wing was heavily damaged, to me that says just as much about the possible cause of the plane being inverted.

[hngrflyr]

Once you're off the runway, It's anyone's guess what may be there to hit.

The lesson we can all take from this and other mishaps is, if there is a known problem with the airplane, fix it! It aint gonna get better by itself. Small problems get big in hurry when things don't go as planned.

[Spike]

I guess I was thinking that if you swerve to the left down a 45 degree slope, I would tend to think that the plane flipped like a big wheel using the left wing and the nose gear as pivot points. That would explain the left wing damage. If thats the case I dont see where the nose gear would be causal. The loss of directional control would be causal.

[l & d lewis]

There really isn't enough information in the preliminary report to make any judgements, and all preliminaries are prefaced with a disclaimer regarding the facts. There are some good places to start looking. The pilot said he "thought the owner fixed it" is one. A discription of the damage really doesn't say much unless you've seen the path the airplane took. NTSB preliminary reports are very preliminary, and a lot of the time based on the observations of others. NTSB generally does not respond to experimental aircraft accidents even if they're fatal. Experimental accidents are generally classified as limited accidents and handled remotely by talking to FAA personnel, and emergency responders, and witnesses. NTSB will look at supect parts if brought to their attention. Hngrflyr is right on with seeing that things are fixed prior to the next flight..............Larry

[captain_john]

I guess I was thinking that if you swerve to the left down a 45 degree slope, I would tend to think that the plane flipped like a big wheel using the left wing and the nose gear as pivot points. That would explain the left wing damage. If thats the case I dont see where the nose gear would be causal. The loss of directional control would be causal.

I am thinking something similar, but instead of the nosegear being the pivot point (as it is collapsed straight aft, towards the tail and not to the right side), it was the lower cowling that it pivoted on along with the left wing.

Mebbe?

CJ