What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Crashes!

A

American_Pride

I'm New Here
I know this is a bad ju ju topic but how many of you have actually seen or walked an actual crash site involving an RV/Rocket? I seen my first one today and I will be ok if I don't ever see another.
 
They're all bad

Over the course of my aircraft crash firefighter career I have been to 10 or so crashes 6 involving fatalities everything from a glider to a boeing 747. they are all pretty sad and hopeless situations. Make sure if what you have seen bothers you that you are not shy about talking to the right people about it . That stuff can get to you after a while.

Paul

RV 8 fuselage
 
Reality

American_Pride said:
I know this is a bad ju ju topic but how many of you have actually seen or walked an actual crash site involving an RV/Rocket? I seen my first one today and I will be ok if I don't ever see another.
Click to expand...

Sure would be nice if everyone would do a signature box at the bottom.

I'm glad you brought this topic up. I don't think it is bad JuJu at all. I believe that every pilot should understand what their family will be dealing with in the event you crash in your plane.

I was in law enforcement of 30 years with an agency that cover 9000+ square miles. Also flew helicopters for the same. I had the opportunity to go to approximately 20 crash scenes. This is something that is terribly disturbing. This is not TV where they cover bodies with tarps. In many cases all you need is a handful of cocktail napkins to cover what is left. Sorry to be brutally honest but I think if every pilot could see this we could reduce the accident rate a few percent per year.

I had a collection of photos from these crashes that we used to train our new officers. These new people were from what I call "a sheltered generation." We introduced them to the 'shock factor' away from the scene so they would be functional when they got to a real scene.

This is great subject. Hopefully others will contribute. We have all lost friends and/or loved ones in crashes. It is important that we don't put our heads in the sand on the subject. I pray the end result is safer pilots in our RV community and in all aspects of aviation.
 
RV Losses

I don't know about you guys, but I am finding the accident rate of these airplanes rather suprising. Not being used commercially, (no rental, instruction or charter) the fleet hours are probably pretty low. Statistically speaking, I'm starting to see some disappointing numbers. Have any of you mathmatically inclined run the numbers on RV loss rates?
 
John,

Fortunately (or unfortunatley for the indviduals involved) most of these accidents are pilot error and therefore have nothing to do with RV's. Counting yesterday's rocket, we've had four RV crashes resulting in 8 fatailties in just over a month. I'd say three of those are clearly pilot error (granted, NTSB hasn't done/finished any of these investigations yet, but to me it's clear)

-Low altitude canyon flight resutling in powerline stike (2 fatal)
-Apparent engine failure (still to be determined) in landing pattern resulting in stall during forced landing (2 fatal)
-Low level flight over ocean with high speed impact (2 fatal)
-Low level aerobatics (2 fatal)

I'd say three of these crashes did not need to happen. The apparent engine failure one may be the only unavoidable of the four above.
 
as always the news never gets it right. No one at the scene saw the plane go down. Some one heard the crash and went driving around to look for something????????? Found the wreckage, called it in. I arrived at about the same time as 15 sheriff cars and two fire engines. They had no idea of where the plane went down so I ended up being the 5th or 6th vehicle on the scene. I was only working 3/4 of a mile away and seen nothing. Two things that I'm thankful for is that the land manager told the news teams to leave as it is private property.(one reporter was told by the sheriff "Either leave in your car or leave in mine") The second thing, is that having known and talked to the pilot at the airport, is that bodies don't look like bodies after a crash. Although I didn't see him, I'm the most thankful for that.
 
I looked at the prop. I don't think that the tips where bent back but I'm not going to say for sure. If that is in fact true then it was dead stick as well.
 
tobinbasford said:
John,

-Low altitude canyon flight resutling in powerline stike (2 fatal)
-Apparent engine failure (still to be determined) in landing pattern resulting in stall during forced landing (2 fatal)
-Low level flight over ocean with high speed impact (2 fatal)
-Low level aerobatics (2 fatal)

I'd say three of these crashes did not need to happen. The apparent engine failure one may be the only unavoidable of the four above.
Click to expand...

This says a lot. The temptation to fly low in RVs seems to be strong for many and if you look at how many RV accidents over the years have involved ground impacts during non- takeoff and landing phases it is pretty high. Many others involve tight turns at low altitude. If you want to play fighter pilot get the proper training. Even then, the margin for error is small at low altitude and in the event of an engine failure or similar problem, you may have only a few seconds to avoid obstacles and effect a forced landing. If you are doing stuff like this over rough terrain, your chances of survival are even lower.

I'm sure it's fun. Please don't add to these statistics.
 
"-Apparent engine failure (still to be determined) in landing pattern resulting in stall during forced landing (2 fatal)"

I'm sorry to disagree, but a stall during a forced landing is pilot error. The actual engine failure may or may not be, but with the possible exception of stalling into unavoidable contact with trees, and probably not then, stalling goes against the three basic rules of forced landings, i.e.: 1. don't stall. 2. don't stall. 3 don't stall.
(Otherwise known as Van's littany)
FAR too many survivable forced landings end in catastrophe due to stalls.

Jeff
 
jhallrv4 said:
1. don't stall. 2. don't stall. 3 don't stall.

FAR too many survivable forced landings end in catastrophe due to stalls.

Jeff
Click to expand...

An advantage to many years of flying R/C, is seeing the results of return to the runway stalls, and accellerated stalls, with the stalls resulting in spins to close to the ground.

It's now visually embedded in my brain......

Don't stall!

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
Don't stall!
Click to expand...
I love stalls! You can stall VERY close to the ground. You can stall high above the ground. It's the gray area in the middle that's iffy.
 
American_Pride said:
as always the news never gets it right. No one at the scene saw the plane go down. Some one heard the crash and went driving around to look for something????????? Found the wreckage, called it in. I arrived at about the same time as 15 sheriff cars and two fire engines. They had no idea of where the plane went down so I ended up being the 5th or 6th vehicle on the scene. I was only working 3/4 of a mile away and seen nothing. Two things that I'm thankful for is that the land manager told the news teams to leave as it is private property.(one reporter was told by the sheriff "Either leave in your car or leave in mine") The second thing, is that having known and talked to the pilot at the airport, is that bodies don't look like bodies after a crash. Although I didn't see him, I'm the most thankful for that.
Click to expand...
I'm confused.

The story quoted the sheriff's department news release as saying, "The plane was flying at a low altitude, doing aerobatic rolls, when it crashed into the ground."

Meanwhile, the fire chief says, "There are several people that heard a plane, and heard some sort of impact, at this point we have not talked to anybody that actually witnessed the crash."

A fire captain said, ""It was off in the distance, and they thought they saw an aircraft go down."

Why would the sheriff put out a press releasing reporting such a critical detail if nobody saw it?
 
Last edited:
Because it's human nature to become an instant expert every time a microphone is shoved in your face. Everybody wants their 15 minutes of TV time.
 
But he/she didn't say it when a microphone was shoved in his face. It was a press release the department reportedly issued. Like... faxxed out. After thinking about what to type.

It's very odd.
 
Bob,
I thought about this too, and I think both statements can co-exist. Here's my example of how: I'm stopped along side a road in my car watching someone doing aerobatics, and after a while, I decide to leave, and as I'm driving a way I here a crash. Now later when talking to the police I'm probably going to say, "I was watching the guy do aerobatics and then he crashed." And the police say did you actually see him crash? And of course I say no, I only heard it crash. Now the paper quotes the police as saying the plane crashed while doing aerobatics BUT no one actually witnessed the crash.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense to me, when you put it that way.

Sounds like the reports accurately quoted the authorities.
Doesn't mean they WERE doing aerobatics. But it does mean the sheriff's department said that people said they were doing aerobatics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top