Another crash into trees

[scottf]

Be careful out there folks. Seeing to many of these types of accidents.


************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 8/7/2008 Record 3 **
************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 9338W Make/Model: EXP Description: PC2000 POWERED CHUTE
Date: 08/02/2008 Time: 2224

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: GOODFIELD State: IL Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF, CRASHED INTO TREES, GOODFIELD, IL

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: KPIA 022154Z 03005KT 10SM CLR 29/14 A2993

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Take-off Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: ST. LOUIS, MO (CE03) Entry date: 08/04/2008

Press story here (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/08/05/news/doc4897746e2b551428828805.txt)

[indoruwet]

Be careful out there folks. Seeing to many of these types of accidents.

Pilot error again and again .....

If the pilot would be an SP, and IF he would have had sufficient PROPER instruction, this would likely not have happened.

FWIW:
We fly most of the time, with a large group, and never alone.
During take off and flight, everybody looks out for everybody, because we have been taught to do so, thanks to our very competent Instructor (he often flies with us and constantly rates us on our behaviour ....). You constantly hear somebody say for instance:
Caution .... power lines ahead .... remember approach angle !!
Or, so and so, this is so and so, what is your location ?
After landing, we also rate each other for our approach and landing.
After we pack up, during our *bs*;) sessions, we often get a bit of ground school about safety and whatnot.

Also:
The experimental aircraft is light framed with two seats, a canopy and is powered by a small engine and propeller. FAA records show the aircraft owned by King was built in 2000.

Although it is an experimental aircraft, it does not have an FAA registration number or tail number.

Strange.... the accident report does show a number, but is that the reg number ?

[scottf]

I think the press made a mistake, they meant to say it DOES have an N-number. I read another article on the same incident, which stated that the PPC did indeed have an n-number.

At least they didn't call it a heligyro or flying go-kart!

[AirSportAdventures]

I checked the FAA's web site and the N-number is valid. It is registered to the pilot mentioned in the media report. This will likely be a "pilot error" finding, not nesessarily a training issue (assuming he has a sport pilot certificate). Over the years I've had frank conversations with pilots who had take-off accidents. All knew somethings was wrong during the take-off roll but did not abort. They continued the flight past the point of no return. These accidents include, hitting trees, power lines, a house and a bail of hay etc; I have read about many more with the same theme. When in doubt - abort the take-off.

[tonyray]

I checked the FAA's web site and the N-number is valid. It is registered to the pilot mentioned in the media report. This will likely be a "pilot error" finding, not nesessarily a training issue (assuming he has a sport pilot certificate). Over the years I've had frank conversations with pilots who had take-off accidents. All knew somethings was wrong during the take-off roll but did not abort. They continued the flight past the point of no return. These accidents include, hitting trees, power lines, a house and a bail of hay etc; I have read about many more with the same theme. When in doubt - abort the take-off.
With well over a hundred take off's, I have NEVER had to abort after power-up to begin roll. At the same time, I have never put a scratch on myself or my machine.

I attribute my above statement to the fact that I have always put the safety factor above all else, including my strong desire to "get in the air".
In other words, I am always fully prepared to abort the takeoff if needed.

Let me ditto what Michael has said:

When in doubt, ABORT !

;)

[texas_tl]

In only 25 hrs or so of flying I've aborted once already, but would not hesitate to do it again.

That abortion was due to a line getting around the end of my chute due to wind before take off. It was over the end of my chute on kite up, so I aborted to fix it. I now double check the lines to ensure that has not happened before I start my take off roll. I've watched it happen once while warming my engine.

I plan to learn a new chute layout technique which should eliminate this issue from the equation completely.

[mignazito]

Travis:

Have you tried the modified accordian layout? Very "line over" resistant.

[AirSportAdventures]

<snip> Although it is an experimental aircraft, it does not have an FAA registration number or tail number.

Strange.... the accident report does show a number, but is that the reg number ?<snip>

The N-number is commonly referred to as the registation number (N9338W). Below is the link to the FAA's registry where you can see it has a valid registation.

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=9338W&cmndfind.x=16&cmndfind.y=11

[JGatto]

I don't get it: I thought the rigor and expense of SP would prevent these types of accidents, right Michael?

Maybe the BFI system - at least for PPCs - wasn't as flawed as some assert.

Yeah, I'm needling you. Someone has to since Joe Hines won't anymore.

:)

John

[AirSportAdventures]

I don't get it: I thought the rigor and expense of SP would prevent these types of accidents, right Michael?

Maybe the BFI system - at least for PPCs - wasn't as flawed as some assert.

Yeah, I'm needling you. Someone has to since Joe Hines won't anymore.

:)

John

John

I can take a needling as well as the next guy. :) Nevertheless, I respect Joe's point-of-view, although we disagree about the cost vs. benefits. Many pilots agreed with Joe and left the sport or went Part 103. Even though you posed the question to honor Joe's thoughts, I am going to answer it since new people looking into the sport visit this forum and read these posts.

First, the BFI system was flawed and Sport Pilot exposed its weaknesses. I have been training BFI's toward SP for 3 years now and discovered very poor levels of skill and knowledge in so-called Basic Flight Instructors. Because BFI competency (or lack thereof) is not subject to debate - I will address the open question posed:

I thought the rigor and expense of SP would prevent these types of accidents.

Good question, thought provoking...but shallow. How can training by itself prevent accidents? Is it fair to say that each pilot has a responsibility to apply his or her training? The best pilot training in the world is only as good as its application. Commercial airliners with highly experienced Captains crash don't they? How do you explain that? Do airline crashes suggest that the years of intensive flight training pilots undergo is a waste? Sound a little silly, huh?

Did anyone really think Sport Pilot would produce an accident free sport? Did anyone think that passing a Sport Pilot check ride would inoculate the pilot from exercising bad judgment? The notion that less training and accountability is better than more training is not a very flattering opinion to hold is it?

I can't speak for all training, but when I send a student for his/her practical exam, they have been taught the aeronautical skills and knowledge to pass. However, just as important, they have been taught to exercise good judgment and fly within their training, personal skills & limitations and aircraft limitations. That's all an instructor can do. It's still up to each pilot to treat every flight seriously and not fall into the most common trap, complacency.

[mignazito]

NOTHING ever totaly prevents anything. Particularly when people are involved. Better training has however improved (lowered) the probabilities of accident occurances over the decades in aviation. The BFR is a proven life saver since it was implemented in the 70s with lower accident rates in approach and departure stall accidents and lower overal accident rates as well. No one can prove anything about the old BFI program as no good records were kept.

[Boback]

I don't get it: I thought the rigor and expense of SP would prevent these types of accidents, right Michael?

Maybe the BFI system - at least for PPCs - wasn't as flawed as some assert.

Yeah, I'm needling you. Someone has to since Joe Hines won't anymore.

:)

John

Michael did a good job to answer your questions, but let me bring it in from another angle. I have been flying GA aircraft off and on since 1977. With the high level of training required for a private fixed wing license you would think you would have better pilots. Not so. I have seen too many private pilots scud run until an accident happens, fly into IFR conditions, run off the end of the runway because they came in too fast and floated halfway down, and run out of fuel because they couldn't plan a cross country flight. I have know pilots who got lost 50 miles from their home airport, call the pattern on the wrong frequency because they forgot to change the radio after they left a different airport, land downwind into oncoming aircraft and taxi onto an active runway with a plane on final.

Even with Sport Pilot there is a required level of knowledge needed to pass the written, oral and flight exam; but there are plenty of pilots out there that seem to go stupid after getting their license. So the problem isn't only with Sport Pilot, the problem is across the board.

And Michael is right about BFIs, they were not trained to the level they should be. I know, I was one of these BFIs and I didn't feel trained to a level I should be.