Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Lost RV-10 door off take off what to do now?
- Thread starter Go4it
- Start date
flion
Well Known Member
Yes, we all understand that, I think. I just prefer a positive mechanical indication; reed switches can be finicky. I can see the pin position by looking at the handle; the failure mode would almost certainly be failed extended. The door position is of primary concern - there have been enough problems even with the magnetic switches in use that I question their reliability. On the other hand, the automotive industry has used mechanical switches successfully in door applications that experience many more cycles than the typical aircraft door. Some of the problem may be the indications at the panel, as well; there have been threads here discussing this and some anecdotal evidence that the lights are not always easy to see. I'm going to have an aural indication as well as a visual one. Again, I'm not saying my plan is the best, I'm just offering some alternative thinking.
Jesse
Well Known Member
The magnetic switches were installed per the plans and the door was fully closed wi the pins in the holes correctly and the lights were off. The roll pin at the handle is where the problem was. Wen you push the button on the handle, that roll pin slides out of the slot, them the pressure sucking out on the door puts enough force on the pins that the handle turns and retracts the pins and the door comes open. As I said, it was a stock installation and the door was fully closed. My original post and point still sands, the door needs a secondary safety to keep it from coming open or to keep it from coming off if it comes open.
Doors
A couple of causes for doors coming off: Pilot error or installation error. Van's stock system will work fine. Personally I don't want to monkey with the doors while I'm trying to shut them to make sure the pins are going where they're supposed to. The stock system leaves a lot to be desired. The light system from Vans works great and is a second check that the door is closed and latched. I have these installed as well. I didn't like the SB because it looks bad sticking out of the door but most importantly it is a two hand operation. I recall a fire in an RV10 where the pilot had seconds to open his door and fly the plane to a field. It might have been harder to fly while trying to open the door with both hands. Also, even if placarded appropriately it might be harder for fire crews or rescue crews to open the door from the outside with the two hand operation.
The PlaneAround latch was designed to make closing the door easier. It is not intended to hold the door if the pins fail. Like Vans SB it keeps the door tight while the pins extend into the guides and fuse structure. I don't believe Vans SB would keep the door closed if the pins failed either. I can close my door with very little effort and know even my passengers can close it. DO I check my door lights? Heck yeah, but I know there is absolutely no way one pin is going in without the other. It is physically impossible on my door and any other properly installed PA latch. Builders should take a lot of time on the doors and make sure they fit really well and are easy to close. The RV10 is a wonderful machine but the doors need the proper attention.
A couple of causes for doors coming off: Pilot error or installation error. Van's stock system will work fine. Personally I don't want to monkey with the doors while I'm trying to shut them to make sure the pins are going where they're supposed to. The stock system leaves a lot to be desired. The light system from Vans works great and is a second check that the door is closed and latched. I have these installed as well. I didn't like the SB because it looks bad sticking out of the door but most importantly it is a two hand operation. I recall a fire in an RV10 where the pilot had seconds to open his door and fly the plane to a field. It might have been harder to fly while trying to open the door with both hands. Also, even if placarded appropriately it might be harder for fire crews or rescue crews to open the door from the outside with the two hand operation.
The PlaneAround latch was designed to make closing the door easier. It is not intended to hold the door if the pins fail. Like Vans SB it keeps the door tight while the pins extend into the guides and fuse structure. I don't believe Vans SB would keep the door closed if the pins failed either. I can close my door with very little effort and know even my passengers can close it. DO I check my door lights? Heck yeah, but I know there is absolutely no way one pin is going in without the other. It is physically impossible on my door and any other properly installed PA latch. Builders should take a lot of time on the doors and make sure they fit really well and are easy to close. The RV10 is a wonderful machine but the doors need the proper attention.
Jesse,
I have a feeling (and I tried to mention this in my other post) that since this occured , most likely the tappered/ramped portion of the ends of the pins were not fully extended through the holes in the fuselage. In this situation, the pull load on the door would cause the tappered area on the pin to push the pins towards the unlatched/retracted position.
As mentioned before, I have tested the door latch system in flight, and and found that the door will not unlatch just from pushing the release button on the door handle, if the pins are fully engaged in the fuselage as designed.
No argument regarding the secondary safety latch... people make mistakes... that is why Van's Aircraft supplies one in the kit.
Jesse
Well Known Member
It is possible that the ramped portions were not fully through the holes, but it was assembled per the plans. Extending them further than the plans calls for is a good idea and certainly makes it safer. There is enough of the toothed rod to make it longer with stock parts. IMHO, the Van's secondary latch is no good as such. The secondary system needs to be fastened and unfastened independently so it isn't single point of failure. The Van's latch is nice for being able to swing the door down and have it stay down when the high strength struts are installed, but I hate having an open slot in the door frame that water and crud can get in. I just think it is a poor solution.
In response to Strasnuts, yes, it may usually be pilot error or installation error, but I hunk it is also partially design error in this case.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Scott beat me to it, agree 100% that if the pins are fully engaged, and by that I mean that the tapered portion is fully inserted beyond the aluminum frame member, then the door aero forces will not make the latching system rotate.
Also, it sounds like your system is set up with very little friction-----could it be too loose?
The post awhile back about cutting the racks in half is a good idea, also I have posted in the past about drilling/tapping the end of the rack and inserting a #6screw and washer to give slightly more travel than the stock cross pin will give you if the rack is cut to factory dimensions.
The other thing that I have seen folks miss is that the rack to pinion timing needs to be such that both of the latch pins get maximum travel. It is easy to get this relationship wrong, and the plans are pretty skimpy in this area.
Vans has the slot on the outside skin, PA's is in the bottom. In my case I fiberglassed the bottom slot under the PA gearbox. Water shouldn't get into the bottom slot anyway.
I try to talk everyone into at least 1-1/2 inches of pin extension. In a post years ago I told everyone not to cut their gear racks per Vans instructions and to leave them five inches each. This enables up to 2 inches of pin travel. 90 degrees of rotation only equals 1 inch of lateral movement. I have seen a lot of stock doors running about 110 degrees and just over an inch in lateral extension.
I try to talk everyone into at least 1-1/2 inches of pin extension. In a post years ago I told everyone not to cut their gear racks per Vans instructions and to leave them five inches each. This enables up to 2 inches of pin travel. 90 degrees of rotation only equals 1 inch of lateral movement. I have seen a lot of stock doors running about 110 degrees and just over an inch in lateral extension.
Call from FAA
Received call from FAA and answered his questions and only made corrections as needed, really did not offer any other information. Now he want to see aircraft this Friday and see aircraft log books, etc. Was offended that I had not contacted them and that that I had already started work (not me but an A&P) on the door. Undecided if he want to call it an accident or incident.
Advice?
Gerald
Received call from FAA and answered his questions and only made corrections as needed, really did not offer any other information. Now he want to see aircraft this Friday and see aircraft log books, etc. Was offended that I had not contacted them and that that I had already started work (not me but an A&P) on the door. Undecided if he want to call it an accident or incident.
Advice?
Gerald
1. Immediately, I mean now (it is already late), file an ASRS report with NASA.
2. When you meet the inspector, be polite. Say that you followed bad advice from an internet forum that this did not constitute a reportable incident under part 830. Be polite. Do not mention at this time that you filed the ASRS report. Be polite.
2. When you meet the inspector, be polite. Say that you followed bad advice from an internet forum that this did not constitute a reportable incident under part 830. Be polite. Do not mention at this time that you filed the ASRS report. Be polite.
rickrv8
Well Known Member
Incident
It appears the FSDO has already listed it as an incident on their Accident and Incident Notification website. See:
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f...TE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:02-SEP-13,VANS
It appears the FSDO has already listed it as an incident on their Accident and Incident Notification website. See:
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f...TE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:02-SEP-13,VANS
dmaib
Well Known Member
+1 on Bob's advice. Don't delay.
Bill.Peyton
Well Known Member
I found this article regarding reporting etc. This is just a excerpt of the total article. It's a bit long, but good reading...
[FONT=ariel, helvetica, sans-serif]The Do’s and Do Not’s of Aircraft Accident and Incident Reporting
Who Do You Notify?
Part 830.5 requires that the operator of an aircraft provide notification of any “accident” and certain “incidents” immediately. It is important to note that you must notify the NTSB, not the FAA. The NTSB is a federal agency separate from the FAA and it has the authority to investigate aircraft accidents and reportable incidents. Although the NTSB delegates some accident investigation to the FAA, the notification required by Part 830 must be made to the NTSB.
The notification must be given to the NTSB immediately. Part 830.6 states that the initial notification must include the following information: (1) Type, nationality, and registration marks of the aircraft; (2) Name of owner, and operator of the aircraft; (3) Name of the pilot-in-command; (4) Date and time of the accident; (5) Last point of departure and point of intended landing of the aircraft; (6) Position of the aircraft with reference to some easily defined geographical point; (7) Number of persons aboard, number killed, and number seriously injured; (8) Nature of the accident, the weather and the extent of damage to the aircraft, so far as is known; and (9) A description of any explosives, radioactive materials, or other dangerous articles carried.
In addition to the initial notification, a written report of an accident must be made on NTSB Form 6120 and filed with the nearest NTSB field office within 10 days of the accident, or for a reportable incident only as requested by an authorized representative of the NTSB. The form is available from the NTSB field offices and can also be obtained from the local FAA FSDO.
Who Is Required To Provide The Notification?
The rule defines an “operator” as “any person who causes or authorizes the operation of an aircraft” which can include the owner, lessee, or anyone flying or using the aircraft. Please note that this does not necessarily mean the pilot. An aircraft owner or FBO can make the report even if the pilot does not. However, if someone other than the pilot makes the report, Part 830.15(b) requires that the crewmembers, if they are physically able at the time the report is submitted, attach a statement providing the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to the accident or incident as they appear to him or her. If the crewmember is incapacitated, he or she must submit the statement as soon as he or she is physically able.
Accident, Incident or Neither?
Although the terms “accident” and “incident” have commonly understood meanings, for purposes of this rule you must understand the meanings defined in Part 830.2 in order to determine whether you are dealing with an accident, a reportable incident, or neither. Under the Rule, an “Accident” is “an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.” Although “death” is easily understood, the rule provides specific definitions for the terms “serious injury” and “substantial damage”. A “serious injury” is defined as “any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.”
"Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component." Substantial damage does not include: engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips./1/
An “incident” is defined as “an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.” You do not need to report an incident involving a small aircraft except when it involves: 1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness; (3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes; (4) In-flight fire; or (5) Aircraft collide in flight; (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less./2/
Incidents involving large, multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight) must be reported if they involve: (1) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments; (2) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces; (3) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and (4) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
Conclusion
As you can see from the rule, the definitions are very specific. Under the rule’s definitions, minimal bent metal or your typical gear-up landings do not trigger the notification and reporting requirements. However, any time you find yourself in a situation in which a “mishap” has occurred, it is important that you familiarize yourself with and compare the facts of your situation to Rule 830.
Why is this important? First, because it is a law with which we must comply. And, although a quick search did not reveal any enforcement or civil penalty actions based upon a failure to provide notification of an accident or incident, such an action is possible.
Second, an aircraft mishap can be costly and embarrassing enough without drawing undue attention to it with an unnecessary report to the NTSB or FAA. Certainly if your “mishap” fits within the definition of an accident or reportable incident, you need to provide notification as required by the rule. However, if it does not, you do not need to report it to the NTSB.
The FAA has pursued enforcement actions against airmen arising out of reported aircraft “mishaps” that Rule 830 did not require that the airmen report. By understanding the obligations imposed by Rule 830 you can ensure your compliance and avoid any unnecessary attention from the FAA if you are involved in an aircraft “mishap”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=ariel, helvetica, sans-serif]The Do’s and Do Not’s of Aircraft Accident and Incident Reporting
Who Do You Notify?
Part 830.5 requires that the operator of an aircraft provide notification of any “accident” and certain “incidents” immediately. It is important to note that you must notify the NTSB, not the FAA. The NTSB is a federal agency separate from the FAA and it has the authority to investigate aircraft accidents and reportable incidents. Although the NTSB delegates some accident investigation to the FAA, the notification required by Part 830 must be made to the NTSB.
The notification must be given to the NTSB immediately. Part 830.6 states that the initial notification must include the following information: (1) Type, nationality, and registration marks of the aircraft; (2) Name of owner, and operator of the aircraft; (3) Name of the pilot-in-command; (4) Date and time of the accident; (5) Last point of departure and point of intended landing of the aircraft; (6) Position of the aircraft with reference to some easily defined geographical point; (7) Number of persons aboard, number killed, and number seriously injured; (8) Nature of the accident, the weather and the extent of damage to the aircraft, so far as is known; and (9) A description of any explosives, radioactive materials, or other dangerous articles carried.
In addition to the initial notification, a written report of an accident must be made on NTSB Form 6120 and filed with the nearest NTSB field office within 10 days of the accident, or for a reportable incident only as requested by an authorized representative of the NTSB. The form is available from the NTSB field offices and can also be obtained from the local FAA FSDO.
Who Is Required To Provide The Notification?
The rule defines an “operator” as “any person who causes or authorizes the operation of an aircraft” which can include the owner, lessee, or anyone flying or using the aircraft. Please note that this does not necessarily mean the pilot. An aircraft owner or FBO can make the report even if the pilot does not. However, if someone other than the pilot makes the report, Part 830.15(b) requires that the crewmembers, if they are physically able at the time the report is submitted, attach a statement providing the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to the accident or incident as they appear to him or her. If the crewmember is incapacitated, he or she must submit the statement as soon as he or she is physically able.
Accident, Incident or Neither?
Although the terms “accident” and “incident” have commonly understood meanings, for purposes of this rule you must understand the meanings defined in Part 830.2 in order to determine whether you are dealing with an accident, a reportable incident, or neither. Under the Rule, an “Accident” is “an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.” Although “death” is easily understood, the rule provides specific definitions for the terms “serious injury” and “substantial damage”. A “serious injury” is defined as “any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.”
"Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component." Substantial damage does not include: engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips./1/
An “incident” is defined as “an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.” You do not need to report an incident involving a small aircraft except when it involves: 1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness; (3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes; (4) In-flight fire; or (5) Aircraft collide in flight; (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less./2/
Incidents involving large, multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight) must be reported if they involve: (1) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments; (2) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces; (3) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and (4) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
Conclusion
As you can see from the rule, the definitions are very specific. Under the rule’s definitions, minimal bent metal or your typical gear-up landings do not trigger the notification and reporting requirements. However, any time you find yourself in a situation in which a “mishap” has occurred, it is important that you familiarize yourself with and compare the facts of your situation to Rule 830.
Why is this important? First, because it is a law with which we must comply. And, although a quick search did not reveal any enforcement or civil penalty actions based upon a failure to provide notification of an accident or incident, such an action is possible.
Second, an aircraft mishap can be costly and embarrassing enough without drawing undue attention to it with an unnecessary report to the NTSB or FAA. Certainly if your “mishap” fits within the definition of an accident or reportable incident, you need to provide notification as required by the rule. However, if it does not, you do not need to report it to the NTSB.
The FAA has pursued enforcement actions against airmen arising out of reported aircraft “mishaps” that Rule 830 did not require that the airmen report. By understanding the obligations imposed by Rule 830 you can ensure your compliance and avoid any unnecessary attention from the FAA if you are involved in an aircraft “mishap”.
[/FONT]
ppilotmike
Well Known Member
Incident or Accident?
Based on the information above regarding the regs, it seems like this would be considered an "accident" due to "substantial damage" to the aircraft (i.e. missing door affects flight characteristics). However, the filing reports it as an "incident", which I guess is better than an accident. Now I'm really confused..
Based on the information above regarding the regs, it seems like this would be considered an "accident" due to "substantial damage" to the aircraft (i.e. missing door affects flight characteristics). However, the filing reports it as an "incident", which I guess is better than an accident. Now I'm really confused..
I think is just the way the system works - it's an incident until the facts become known.
I've read a number of NTSB reports which say "...this was originally reported as an incident, but was upgraded to an accident following the discovery of a bent main spar...." or stuff like that.
I've read a number of NTSB reports which say "...this was originally reported as an incident, but was upgraded to an accident following the discovery of a bent main spar...." or stuff like that.
Bill.Peyton
Well Known Member
I would call it an incident. The airplane is perfectly capable of flight without the door. I would not consider the door a structural component of the fuselage, nor would I say that there is major damage.
Now, if the door caught the tail assy, requiring replacement of the tail and control surfaces, I would think that would classify as an accident.
With that said. It's not up to the operator. The NTSB/FAA will make that determination.
This may or may not fall under the reportable incident scenario, for which you have 10 days to make the report. To be safe, this may be something you want to consider.
Now, if the door caught the tail assy, requiring replacement of the tail and control surfaces, I would think that would classify as an accident.
With that said. It's not up to the operator. The NTSB/FAA will make that determination.
This may or may not fall under the reportable incident scenario, for which you have 10 days to make the report. To be safe, this may be something you want to consider.
dmaib
Well Known Member
Bill's post is right on the money as far as filing a report with the NTSB concerning the incident. Different interpretations of the relevant areas of Part 830 might lead one individual to deem this as reportable, and another to say it is not reportable.
However, don't confuse reporting to the NTSB with filing an ASRS report within the 10 day window. It costs you nothing to file the ASRS report and the info is completely confidential. However, filing the report may shield you from any enforcement action in the event the FAA decides you violated FAR's during this incident. It sounds like this is pretty unlikely in this case, but it is cheap insurance.
However, don't confuse reporting to the NTSB with filing an ASRS report within the 10 day window. It costs you nothing to file the ASRS report and the info is completely confidential. However, filing the report may shield you from any enforcement action in the event the FAA decides you violated FAR's during this incident. It sounds like this is pretty unlikely in this case, but it is cheap insurance.
Meeti with FAA today
Meeting today with FAA went well I think. Two gentlemen from FAA came and look at aircraft and logs, took notes for report. Said would go down as incident. Lasted 15 min in 95 degree hangar, sometimes hot Texas summers are good for something.
Now can start repairs.
Thanks for your support.
Gerald
Meeting today with FAA went well I think. Two gentlemen from FAA came and look at aircraft and logs, took notes for report. Said would go down as incident. Lasted 15 min in 95 degree hangar, sometimes hot Texas summers are good for something.
Now can start repairs.
Thanks for your support.
Gerald
Excellent job handling your door off emergency!
Looking at your pictures it appears that you have a clean break from the rear.
I believe your rear pin was not engaged into any part of the fuselage.
Had your door separated from the top due to a fiberglass failure you would at least show some damage to the pin area front and back. The door would have been flopping around with the pins still engaged and finally come loose after enough flexing outside of the door frame.
I see no damage in those areas and having the rear pin not engaged allows the door to come off without tearing up the bottom end.
I am firmly in the camp of non believers of multiple safety mechanisms.
I have Van's stock door lock, (no center latch), aluminum guides and safety lights as per Vans instructions.
One of the leading causes of engine failures is still fuel starvation despite all the bells and whistles honking at us.
I am not accusing you of anything but the PIC must ensure that both doors are closed and locked.
I do exactly the same
I deliberately installed the lights front and center outside of the EFIS clutter
to make sure they stand out
I did install a handle on the rear bottom of the door to assist in ensuring positive engagement of the rear pin.
Details on your door handle install?
