What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Another Sad Day for GA

Sad day, indeed!

The accident even made the front of Foxnews.com. I can't say I have ever seen a small accident on there.

Here is the article, such as it is.

My best to the families!
 
N731RV was the first RV I've flown in , I put up my skyhawk for sale the next day and I went to buy a RV7 4 days after.
The owner was the nicest person I've met in my life. He was more prepared than any pilot I've known, and the tips he shared got my out of many bad situations, let alone prevented more than a dozen of them.
Retired fighter pilot and retired airline captain, one of the the best pilots I've ever flown with.
Great loss for GA and RV community.
He was family for most of us.
Our prayers and thoughts are with his entire family.
 
are they saying pigeons brought the plane down?

The plexiglass canopy, vertical stabilizer, and rudder were located during the examination of the accident site on that day; they were located several days later about 1 mile northwest of the main wreckage.

edit: could a bird unlock the canopy?

condolences to the family.
 
Last edited:
Strange (actually, not that inconsistent with other NTSB reports I've read) that no mention was made about whether there was bird impact damage to the canopy itself. Canopies tend to not sustain extensive damage if they have separated from the a/c and fall to earth on their own, so you'd think they would have been able to detect bird strike damage there.
 
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.
 
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.
And, it says the canopy, etc *were* located that day, and then says they were located several days later.
 
"Birds struck the vertical stabilizer causing it to swing top end to the left side of the aircraft which in turn caused the bottom rod end bearing to break, which showed signs of corrosion(post-crash). "

A pigeon hit the vertical stab and did this. I don't buy it.

No mention of the canopy.

The author is an amateur or has some other motive.
 
Last edited:
I don't get this report.

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.

Cut and paste error as it was an RV-7 and an O-320 can't put out 200 HP unless it is running at Reno and has been HIGHLY modified!

It makes me wonder how many errors, omissions, and misstatements are in that report.
 
In performing extensive research base on NTSB and other government aviation databases, I've found numerous, numerous errors. It's also the case that just publishing a form doesn't mean that the form will ask the right questions, nor insure that those who fill out those forms later on will know what the authors intended. Recall also that some of the NTSB data is generated by FAA personnel, and it's clear these days that ex-military people have rarely paid the correct dues to be effective in general aviation. And despite considerable care and effort, I've too often found errors in my own published articles to my considerable chagrin, embarrassment and annoyance.

There's a great quote along the lines of don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance...
 
but really, a pigeon hit the tail and ripped it right off. I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
I have already contacted the NTSB about the incorrect designation of the aircraft and the engine. Apparently they didn't change it.
 
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus?
Translation: “False in one, false in all?”
Note: Moderators dislike posts in foreign languages!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus?
Translation: “False in one, false in all?”
Note: Moderators dislike posts in foreign languages!

I figured it was common English usage.


In any case, I just finished reading the material lab report and the damage to the vertical stab looks minor, but the rudder was ripped from the rear spar of the vertical stab, and the rivets on the vertical stab failed. Must have been an extreme moment to cause that. — edited: probably ground impact related.

There was a dent at the rear of the tail cone in which bird material was found and at first I thought that a sidewise impact of a bird there could have caused a jam of the elevators or possibly the rudder, but it would have had to have been a really high energy impact.

The main report states that bird material was found in the cabin under the seats and in the area behind the pilot. But no mention of any bird damage to the canopy?
 
Last edited:
Could have been pilot startle reaction to bird strike causing airframe over stress.
LeRoy Johnston RV-6A Esperanza 1250 hrs
 
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.

Climb rate of 3351 ft/min and a 360 degree turn?
 
Small detail... passenger listed as Airplane Rating(s): Single-engine Land with (Estimated) 3.2 hours (Total, all aircraft)

NTSB needs a proofreader?
 
Regardless of the errors in the report and probably some false assumptions, the accident wasn't caused by an airframe design failure, pilot error, recklessness, or other cause that anyone could control. I look at these reports to try to educate myself and avoid trouble. There is little to learn here. It was a very odd and rare event that led to an unavoidable and tragic accident.
 
NTSB needs a proofreader?

I was asked to proof-read a couple of TSB reports prior to them being published. The person asking has a masters in translation and, on a personal level, a perfectionist. Even with that person's considerable editorial skill applied I still managed to bleed a fair bit of red ink on the documents. Getting a document of this nature right takes a lot of effort, effort that's typically not going to be invested by an individual who is tasked with applying greater effort to the act of completing the actual accident investigation.
 
All the supporting documents seem to be correct, it's just the top level summary.

I think the materials lab report has the best attempt at the root cause. There is a lot of information in this(these) report(s) taking a lot of study to understand just exactly what is being said.

Not much discussion here about what happened beyond the multiple bird impacts. It appears in Fig 17 in the materials lab document that the LE of the left HS was impacted and deformed by the strike. There are no immediately visible causes for the separation of the VS or the (now familiar) failure mode of the rudder. There is a small deformation on the RS of the lower LE of the VS, but could be the result of ground impact on that tip.

For structural guys, it is possible for the mass of a pigeon with an additional velocity of 88 FPS to penetrate/deform the HS and precipitate failure?

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Maybe a defected bird unzipped it

Maybe the bird deflected off the horizontal or vertical, hit the rudder hard enough to unzip it, then it was all history at that point. What ever the official reason, reading a report of finding another unzipped rudder at a crash site is what wakes me up at 3am. Good thing mine is hanging on the hangar wall where it is safe from birds and fludder.
 
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.
 
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.

Or it could be as simple as a bird strike penetrating the canopy, with pilot incapacitation, followed by an overspeed event.
 
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.

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.
 
Or it could be as simple as a bird strike penetrating the canopy, with pilot incapacitation, followed by an overspeed event.

The above does seem to be a likely explanation. Just a pilot reaction to a bird strike and overstress probably would not take the canopy off however an overspeed event might cause a damaged canopy to depart.

From bird strike report:
quote "Birds struck the vertical stabilizer causing it to swing top end to the left side of the
aircraft which in turn caused the bottom rod end bearing to break, which showed signs of
corrosion(post-crash). The rudder bell crank snapped near both rudder cable fittings right
side had signs of 45 degree shearing marks and left side showed signs of peeling away down
and to the left which is consistent with the vertical being struck by and object from the
left side."

I doubt pigeon strike/strikes would cause the VS to depart but the canopy definitely would.

Quote: "The FAA National Wildlife Strike Database (1990-2015) includes 20 birdstrikes with Rock
Pigeon at or above 2000 feet AGL; five of those strikes occurred between 4,000 and 6,000 feet
AGL"

I had no idea pigeons would be flying at 4,000 to 6,000 AGL.
 
Another option

Another option is to put a -8 rudder on the -7. More than one person has gone that route for looks and in my opinion, more margin.

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?
 
Yes

Yes, it bolts right up. You need to replace the little fiberglass tip on the vertical. Keep in mind that the larger -7 rudder will give a little better spin recovery over the -8 rudder (1 to 1.5 turns if I recall). Given the data gathered to date, I suspect that unrecoverable spins are not on the radar like the unzipped rudders are.

Are the -8 and -7 rudders the same size? In other words, will the -8 rudder fit on a -7 without any modifications?
 
Vans originally shipped RV-7 kits with the RV-8 rudder, then switched somewhere before 2004 because as Craig mentioned the -7's spin recovery characteristics are apparently better with the -9 rudder.

C-GNDY and N174BK were both overspeed when their failures occurred and it's reasonable to assume that this accident airplane was as well. I haven't seen any accidents like this in RV-8s, or small-tail -7s and it's also reasonable to assume that they're flying the same mission profiles - maybe even more possibility of overspeed with -8s because they're more often flown aerobatically.

Does that mean that the -7 has more overspeed margin (in either flutter or overload) with an -8 rudder? Only Van's knows the answer to that question. 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.

I know it's legally dangerous for Van's to respond in a public forum, but perhaps they'll find another way to educate us -7 builders on this topic.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Or it could be as simple as a bird strike penetrating the canopy, with pilot incapacitation, followed by an overspeed event.

Honestly, this seems like a very likely scenario, given the various reports in the docket (including a subtly veiled reference in the Smithsonian's report), but why in the world is there no discussion or photographic reference to the condition of the canopy as found?
 
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.
 
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.

Moderator note;

This line of inquiry needs to be in a separate thread. Please move the RV-X tail discussion to its own thread so the discussion of this tragic accident can proceed uninterrupted.

Thanks
 
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.
 
I wonder it the authorities view these experimentals differently than the certified cans, and this is reflected on their investigations.
 
Conspiracy theory? Steve, really.
The Feds have limited budget to analyze GA accidents that affect a very few people and pose very little public risk.

These unfortunate people flew into a group of birds. What else do you think can be learned here?

It is well documented what kind of energy a bird impact the size of a Pigeon has. Our airplanes are not designed to handle this. Simple as that.
 
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.

Anyone that has spent a lot of time with NTSB reports (I have) will learn a few things......

1. They often contain errors (numerous ones have already been mentioned for the accident being discussed here)

2. They often lack information that we outsiders consider important.

2. They rarely ever imply any type of speculation as to the cause, prior to the final report being published.

Are any of these things reason to speculate a cover up? Not in my opinion.
Especially with the countless times I have seen the final report fill in the gaps and surprise everyone that had a personal interest.

I think this thread has already touched the edge of the line regarding Doug's policy of no speculation prior to a final report being issued. Everyone is of course free to come to there own personal conclusion, though as happens often, they may have to change that once the final report is issued.

I personally see no evidence of a cover up. The docket documents clearly mention that the roll bar (This was a sliding canopy RV-7) and a portion of the canopy frame (doesn't mention what portion) was present at the main wreckage but there was no canopy material. That would indicate to me that something rather violent occurred which caused the loss of the canopy and the wind screen during flight. Flight at cruise speed in an RV-7, with no canopy and wind screen (more speculation) would be incapacitating for any pilots.

Based on that, I think comments that there is a conspiracy or cover up are way out of line, and that this thread is probably on the verge of being closed (but that is up to Doug or a moderator to decide).
 
It appears that there may be a Typo in the report.
Quoted from the report:

The plexiglass canopy, vertical stabilizer, and rudder were located during the examination of the accident site on that day; they were located several days later about 1 mile northwest of the main wreckage.

Shouldn't it read:

The plexiglass canopy, vertical stabilizer, and rudder were NOT located during the examination of the accident site on that day; they were located several days later about 1 mile northwest of the main wreckage.
 
This was just a preliminary factual report and a somewhat shoddy one at that. Obviously nobody seriously proof read it. Often when a GA airplane goes in they don't even send anyone. So to suggest that there is a cover up or conspiracy is pretty off the wall. To engage in a conspiracy, first you have to care!

I expected the moderators to stomp on a lot of the speculation I am reading here, but for some reason they have not. I am an Aero Eng and have worked in accident investigation for a few years. While I would find a bird taking off the vertical fin or rudder quite surprising, I would not challenge that finding unless I had all the info in front of me - the weight of the bird, speed of the airplane, where it hit, pictures of the damaged structure to know the failure mode, then run the numbers knowing the strength of the structure. I would never speculate without any information unless it was something very obvious. I don't think this is.

Certainly Dan's hypothesis is very plausible. I would hate to get a bird in the face. it wouldn't end well. They did not mention of there was evidence of bird residue in the crew's bodies. As unpleasant as it is to contemplate, it would be an important finding.

Flying is risky and I think bird strikes and mid-airs are 2 of the big risks we face that are not necessarily in our control i.e. not like running out of gas or flying into VMC or attempting to fly maneuvers or in conditions beyond our skill level. We will always have to accept some level of risk.
 
Back
Top