And, it says the canopy, etc *were* located that day, and then says they were located several days later.Someone needs to report back to the investigator. The report says the aircraft is a RV-4 and RV7 and a 200hp O-320 A1A. I sent a note to an investigator last year and he corrected the report.
Belated condolences to the families of the two pilots. A sobering result considering the number of birdstrike near misses reported on VAF this last year.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The RV-4 is a two-place, tandem-seat, low-wing amateur-built airplane with conventional landing gear powered by a 200-hp Lycoming O-320-A1A engine. The airplane was issued an FAA airworthiness certificate on November 4, 2013. The airplane maintenance records were not located during the investigation, and the airplane's maintenance history could not be determined.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus?
Translation: “False in one, false in all?”
Note: Moderators dislike posts in foreign languages!
At 0844, at 3,349 ft msl, the target turned west and continued to climb. About a minute later, the target had climbed to about 6,700 ft msl and completed a 360? right turn.
NTSB needs a proofreader?
While it is highly probable that the bird strikes are the root cause, the haunting (and familiar) image of the failed rudder awoke me at 3AM.
the omission of the canopy photos or discussion of the canopy is suspect. the canopy was found with the rudder. seems to me the canopy became loose somehow and took the tail off. I don't know how that could happen but I don't own a slider.
Your hinting it could have been a rudder failure?
To my knowledge there have been two or three tail departures over 10k plus aircraft. All attributed to gross over speed of the airplane.
If I was so worried about the rudder design of the RV series that I lost sleep over it, I wouldn't own an RV.
Perhaps I am just not understanding what your getting at here Bill.
Or it could be as simple as a bird strike penetrating the canopy, with pilot incapacitation, followed by an overspeed event.
Not hinting at this as a root cause, Jon. But to be clear, there have been 4 structural failures, all 7's, so 4 out of 1600. They are C-GNDY - overspeed, N174BK- overspeed, N307AB - turbulence, and an unfinished report for the NZ one in Jan-2018.
Regardless, the rudders all were the standard 9/7 tall rudder and seem to fail in the three pieces. This is not implying the rudder is the root cause here as it clearly is not, but it did (fact) become part of the cascade of events. I can only assume that operating the 7 within the design envelope will not result in any failures and, therefore, shall continue to own and fly my 7. Flight data is recorded for every flight.
Are the -8 and -7 rudders the same size? In other words, will the -8 rudder fit on a -7 without any modifications?
Or it could be as simple as a bird strike penetrating the canopy, with pilot incapacitation, followed by an overspeed event.
Or it could be as simple as a bird strike penetrating the canopy, with pilot incapacitation, followed by an overspeed event.
But in the absence of any hard engineering information I'm questioning whether to finish my -7 as-is or go back to the -8 rudder, just for the warm fuzzy of perceived margin.
Dave
Please excuse my ignorance and a bit of a thread drift, but would someone please describe in a little more clear concise way the differences in the 7 and 8 rudder? It would also be helpful if someone could maybe post a picture or two of the differences and or a link that details the differences. I'm about to start building the rudder for my -7 and if there's really a benefit to going with the 8 rudder, then now's the time for me to make that change.
my feelings are this report is a cover up. the lack of discussion of the canopy is highly suspect. these two guys are dead and gone but it doesn't do the pilot community any good to have a report such as this. we need to look out for the next guy. I don't understand the motive completely but I'm sure there is one. we pay these guys to do their job. in this case, I don't believe they did.