VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:13 PM
rv7boy's Avatar
rv7boy rv7boy is offline
Forum Peruser
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austinville, Alabama
Posts: 2,357
Default

There are photos available, in the Document Management System.

I assume everyone has access to this link:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/h...5E239E3BE61D8C

Or as an embedded link, click here.

I haven't studied these photos intensely. There are three in Section 14, "Onsite Pictures," and there is one photo of interest in Section 10, "Airframe and Engine Examination Report." By hitting the enlarge button, a lot more detail can be seen. I wish we had more photos to view. I'm quite confident they made a lot more photos. I'd like to see the photo of that splayed "aileron cable" they described.

P.S. I found more photos in Section 2, "Structures Group Chairman's Factual Report - Appendix A - Figures."

I'd rather not speculate, but there is a lot to be learned by studying these photos.
__________________
Don Hull
RV-7 Wings
KDCU Pryor Field
Pilots'n Paws Pilot
N79599/APRS Automatic Position Reporting System

“Certainly, travel is more than the seeing of sights;
it is a change that goes on, deep and permanent, in the ideas of living." Miriam Beard


"It should be added that the sublime beauty of the facture brings within the realm of discourse the substructure of critical thinking. " -using Doug's Art Critique jargon link and my birthday, I get this!

Last edited by rv7boy : 07-25-2017 at 03:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:28 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 5,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OkieDave View Post
This. Also, if there's ever a lawsuit, the discrepancy is going to be highly relevant. That's the sort of thing defense attorneys dream of.
It's my understanding that, as a point of law, NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The government has exempted itself from that can of worms.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-25-2017, 03:11 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 4,410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
It's my understanding that, as a point of law, NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The government has exempted itself from that can of worms.
The conclusions of the probable cause are not admissible. Factual findings of physical evidence are. Considering the enormous implications in a court of law of these error in the fact-finding, this is a serious issue for the NTSB. This is negligence at best, IMHO.
__________________
Greg Niehues - PPSEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2019 dues paid
N16GN flying 360hrs and counting! Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.

Last edited by airguy : 07-25-2017 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-25-2017, 03:43 PM
OkieDave OkieDave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
It's my understanding that, as a point of law, NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The government has exempted itself from that can of worms.
That would be news to me; there's a very famous Supreme Court case (Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988)) directly on point about the admissibility of accident reports. Granted, that was a Navy investigation, not an NTSB investigation, but the case was about the admissibility of public records. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed a longstanding conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports containing "factual findings," extends to conclusions and opinions contained in such reports. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit, on cross-examination, testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct.
The Court held, generally, that the JAG report was fully admissible, not just as to factual findings but also as to conclusions and opinions, to wit:
Quote:
The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the Rule 803(8)(C) issue. In the Court's holding, the Court stated: "We hold, therefore, that portions of investigatory reports otherwise admissible under Rule 803(8)(C) are not inadmissible merely because they state a conclusion or opinion. As long as the conclusion is based on a factual investigation and satisfies the Rule's trustworthiness requirement, it should be admissible along with other portions of the report." The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the District Court erred, stating "We agree with the unanimous holding of the Court of Appeals en banc that the District Court erred in refusing to permit Rainey to present a more complete picture of what he had written to Morgan. We have no doubt that the jury was given a distorted and prejudicial impression of Rainey's letter."
If the NTSB is different, I'd love to know why; if nothing else, the report--and its change history--ought to be admissible to impeach the credibility of the witness (the investigator who prepared the report, and possibly other investigators as well).

Incidentally, I think Rainey is ripe for re-examination, albeit for slightly different reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy View Post
The conclusions of the probable cause are not admissible. Factual findings of physical evidence are. Considering the enormous implications in a court of law of these error in the fact-finding, this is a serious issue for the NTSB. This is negligence at best, IMHO.
Again, please cite as to why they're not admissible if you can; that is directly contrary to Rainey, and I'd love to know more.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-25-2017, 04:11 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 4,410
Default

Only took about 30 seconds with Google. You reference Rainey which occurred in 1988 - this slightly more recent reference from 2006 discusses your Rainey decision and several that came after it, including an amendment to section 835.2 dated 1998 which clearly delineates that the final conclusion of the NTSB is NOT admissible, but the factual findings ARE.

http://www.elrodtrial.com/docs/publications/Article%20-%20Get%20in%200r%20keep%20out%20govt%20docs%20in%2 0aviation%20cases.pdf
__________________
Greg Niehues - PPSEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2019 dues paid
N16GN flying 360hrs and counting! Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.

Last edited by airguy : 07-25-2017 at 04:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-25-2017, 06:05 PM
OkieDave OkieDave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 106
Default

Thank you both! I learned something today.

My apologies for dragging the thread off topic.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-25-2017, 09:55 PM
Infidel's Avatar
Infidel Infidel is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: WV22
Posts: 842
Default

One would think there would be more photos associated with an investigation like this. I've taken more photos of simple vehicle collisions than what is available in this report.
__________________
RV-4 0320\D3G 160, Whirlwind 200GA 70".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2017, 01:13 PM
Ulrich Ulrich is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 19
Default

I noticed the NTSB report mentioned the 6G limit and weight of 1800#! Van's states the 6G gross weight is 1600#.. putting this one at or over gross (weight was estimated). Anytime you have two up acro..you are going to be close to or over gross and have to keep the Gs down. Have fun, a lot of fun, but be safe!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-10-2017, 01:54 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 599
Default Tail question

Bill, I'm would guess the obivious that the tail separated first and thus the reason it's the fartherest away from main crash site. As to the reason of why it came off, well, I guess even the NTSB didn't want to speculate. The fact that it departed first is interesting. I wonder how many occurances of tail separations by type have occurred. My memory isn't what it used to be but I suspect the -3,-4,-6, -9, and -10 do not have the same frequency. If the tail separation causes can't be determined, would it be insane to assume that the data will get better over time without any changes ( that is, less tail separations occurances)?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL View Post
Is there a technical reason for the VS with upper rudder attached to have settled to earth well in advance of the HS (L & R)? The report states the HS failed first, separated (and from the debris field) landed closer to the main site.
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-4 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 IO-360 CS, Built and Flying
Comanche 260 - poor mans RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-02-2017, 07:34 PM
Thermos's Avatar
Thermos Thermos is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: KASH
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grubbat View Post
I wonder how many occurances of tail separations by type have occurred. My memory isn't what it used to be but I suspect the -3,-4,-6, -9, and -10 do not have the same frequency.
I've kept track of structures-related accidents in RVs in general, but my focus is obviously on the -7.

There have been two other RV-7/7A tail separation accidents in recent memory that appear to be similar to this one. One was a Canadian RV-7A, C-GNDY, which was investigated by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board. A later one was an RV-7A, N174BK, in New Jersey, which was investigated by the NTSB. Both of those accidents had much more data available from which to draw a conclusion, so in this case I think the NTSB did the best they could with what they had.

At the risk of being accused of speculation by a mod, all three of these accidents were "big tail" RV-7As, i.e., with RV-9 rudders, and according to the accident reports, were estimated to be well above Vne (20-35 kts) when structural failure occurred. The RV-7's rear fuselage and stabilizer structure is very similar to the RV-8, and given the relatively greater use of the -8 for aerobatics, and the probability that some have been past Vne, should we expect to have seen similar accidents in the -8? Of course, that question leave a lot of factors out like build quality, pilot training, usage spectrum, sample size, etc.

I'm forced to wonder if the combination of the -7 VS and -9 rudder may be less robust than with the original -7/ current -8 rudder, but the bottom line is still to fly your airplane inside the design speed/weight/CG envelope.

Dave
__________________
Dave Setser
RV-7 skin, bones, muscle and heart complete, nervous system in progress
Nashua, NH (KASH)
Putting the "slow" in slow-build since 2004!

Last edited by Thermos : 09-02-2017 at 07:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.