I did know Bill personally and always found him a facinating
character. Every time I did post to rah Bill would always simply reply
" I thought you was dead" I'll really miss him.

Ed Sullivan

NTSB Preliminary is out:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: WPR09LA016
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, October 18, 2008 in Parowan, UT
Aircraft: Heisler Lancair Legacy, registration: N151HT
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any
errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On October 18, 2008, about 1400 mountain daylight time, N151HT, a Heisler
Lancair Legacy, collided with terrain shortly after takeoff from the Parowan
Airport, Parowan, Utah. The pilot was operating the airplane under the
provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The airline transport
pilot was killed and the passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was
substantially damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight
plan was filed.

According to law enforcement personnel, the pilot owned a cabin in the Parowan
area and rented a hangar at the Parowan Airport. At the time of the accident, he
was returning to North Las Vegas Airport, Las Vegas, Nevada, where the airplane
was based.

Witnesses reported that the airplane departed from runway 04 and climbed to an
estimated 400 to 500 feet above ground level. The witnesses said that initially
they thought that the airplane was a cropduster because it remained at such a
low altitude. The airplane then entered a left turn and witnesses saw objects
fall, "...off of or out of the airplane." The airplane continued in a left turn
and lost altitude until the left wing tip impacted the ground and the witnesses
saw a cloud of dust at the area of impact.

Law enforcement personnel that initially responded to the accident site went to
the area specified by the witnesses as the location where the objects departed
the airplane. At this location, personal effects including clothing were
identified.

An inspector from the Salt Lake City, Utah, Federal Aviation Administration
Flight Standards District Office, responded to the accident scene. The debris
field was approximately 200 feet in length on flat terrain. The first identified
point of impact contained green lens fragments and the main wreckage came to
rest facing northeast. One propeller blade had separated from the propeller
assembly and was identified in the debris field.

At 1353, an aviation routine weather report (METAR) at Cedar City Regional
Airport, Cedar City, Utah, located approximately 17 nautical miles southwest of
the accident site, was reporting, in part: wind, 170 degrees at 10 knots and
gusting to 21 knots; visibility, 10 statute miles; sky condition, clear;
temperature, 73 degrees Fahrenheit; dew point, 19 degrees Fahrenheit; altimeter,
30.21 inHg. According to initial responders, the wind conditions reported at
Cedar City were consistent with winds in the Parowan area at the time of the
accident.
------------------------------------------------------

Ron Wanttaja

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:50:49 -0700, Ed > wrote:

>I did know Bill personally and always found him a facinating
>character. Every time I did post to rah Bill would always simply reply
>" I thought you was dead" I'll really miss him.
>
>Ed Sullivan

I will always remember Bill's series of posts on the "old mans
aeroplane building project." they were some of the most creative
writing ever about test flying an RV6.
pity the old men thought he was stealing their thunder and canned his
involvement.

he sent me some photos of his projects one christmas.
I think he went off me when I told him that I thought the girl in the
photos (janice ) was drop dead georgeous :-)

when ever I mentioned it in an email later he'd just explode.
I think he liked that girl of his. I dont think he ever actually
realised that I was 12,000 miles away and was just winding him up.

I do sincerely hope that Janice makes it back to good health and
recovers from her losses. forget my stirring. she is actually a lovely
girl. she must have put up with a lot as his medications went awry.

I'll miss him.
Stealth (what is 'ant poison'? ) Pilot

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> Law enforcement personnel that initially responded to the accident site went
> to the area specified by the witnesses as the location where the objects
> departed the airplane. At this location, personal effects including clothing were
> identified.

I am not familiar with the Lancair design, is there a baggage door on
the side of the fuselage?

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:58:39 -0400, John Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> > Law enforcement personnel that initially responded to the accident site went
> > to the area specified by the witnesses as the location where the objects
> > departed the airplane. At this location, personal effects including clothing were
> > identified.
>
> I am not familiar with the Lancair design, is there a baggage door on
> the side of the fuselage?

I don't believe there is one, in the stock configuration. However, there are
aftermarket products to convert a rear window into a baggage door. I do not
know if one had been installed.

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/projects/legacyWindow/index.htm

Baggage on a stock Legacy is loaded from the cabin, over the seat backs. In
this case, the only ways for baggage to exit in flight is if a rear window
breaks out or if the canopy opens.

The stock Legacy has a front-opening canopy:

http://www.bock.co.za/assetts/images/aviation/DSCF2925.jpg

The Lancair that crashed at Sun-N-Fun this year had its canopy open on
takeoff...

http://tinyurl.com/5t63s6

....but the NTSB preliminary seems to minimize this as being related to the
crash, except possibly as a distraction: "During the takeoff climb a witness
said he saw the cockpit canopy moving and believed the pilot was pushing it up
and down about 6 to 12 inches. Another witness stated that shortly after takeoff
the engine lost power, the airplane continued straight and level and there was
no attempt by the pilot to return to the runway....."

Lancair claims that an open canopy on a Legacy does not affect controllability.
One Legacy owner had it happen, and reported that the only real impact was a
high noise level. However, there are anecdotal reports that conflict with this.

There is a modification available to change the Lancair to a front-hinged
canopy...

http://www.aerochia.com/kits_aft-canopy.html

.... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks, the canopy should
have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open. It would have
been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

I had my terms reversed

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:02:33 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

> The stock Legacy has a front-opening canopy:

Correction, front-HINGED canopy....


> There is a modification available to change the Lancair to a front-hinged
> canopy...

Correction, AFT-hinged canopy.

In short, the stock Lancair canopy has its hinges in the front, and opens in the
back. The airstream will limit its amount of opening in flight.


Ron Wanttaja

Corrected version...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:58:39 -0400, John Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> > Law enforcement personnel that initially responded to the accident site went
> > to the area specified by the witnesses as the location where the objects
> > departed the airplane. At this location, personal effects including clothing were
> > identified.
>
> I am not familiar with the Lancair design, is there a baggage door on
> the side of the fuselage?

I don't believe there is one, in the stock configuration. However, there are
aftermarket products to convert a rear window into a baggage door. I do not
know if one had been installed.

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/projects/legacyWindow/index.htm

Baggage on a stock Legacy is loaded from the cabin, over the seat backs. In
this case, the only ways for baggage to exit in flight is if a rear window
breaks out or if the canopy opens.

The stock Legacy has a rear-opening (front-hinged) canopy:

http://www.bock.co.za/assetts/images/aviation/DSCF2925.jpg

The Lancair that crashed at Sun-N-Fun this year had its canopy open on
takeoff...

http://tinyurl.com/5t63s6

....but the NTSB preliminary seems to minimize this as being related to the
crash, except possibly as a distraction: "During the takeoff climb a witness
said he saw the cockpit canopy moving and believed the pilot was pushing it up
and down about 6 to 12 inches. Another witness stated that shortly after takeoff
the engine lost power, the airplane continued straight and level and there was
no attempt by the pilot to return to the runway....."

Lancair claims that an open canopy on a Legacy does not affect controllability.
One Legacy owner had it happen, and reported that the only real impact was a
high noise level. However, there are anecdotal reports that conflict with this.

There is a modification available to change the Lancair to a front-opening
canopy...

http://www.aerochia.com/kits_aft-canopy.html

.... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward, the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:50:49 -0700, Ed wrote:

> I did know Bill personally and always found him a facinating
> character. Every time I did post to rah Bill would always simply reply
> " I thought you was dead" I'll really miss him.
>
> Ed Sullivan

Can you get the Beatles back?

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:


>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward, the
>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open.
>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I guess I always had to see what BWB was writing on this board. Many
times it was like to looking at an accident on the freeway. Other times
he left no doubt that he could take care of business in the air, as with
many other worthwhile things I gather he was able to accomplish with his
life. I respect the latter, let go of the former, and also say that I
will miss looking forward to future reports on his doings of this, that,
or the other.

A.L.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
>
>>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward, the
>>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open.
>>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
> it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
> canopies seem to have little to do with it.
> the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
> regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.
>
> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>
> tragic.
> Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig >
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward, the
>>>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open.
>>>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>>>
>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
>> canopies seem to have little to do with it.
>> the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
>> regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.
>>
>> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
>> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>>
>> tragic.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
>Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
>>>>the
>>>>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
>>>>come open.
>>>>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>>>>
>>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>>
>>> it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
>>> canopies seem to have little to do with it.
>>> the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
>>> regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.
>>>
>>> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
>>> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>>>
>>> tragic.
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>>I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
>>Holy ****!
>
> that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
> grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
> inherently the safest designs.
> sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
> shot. ...in australia.
>
> Stealth Pilot

How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?

Peter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
>>>>>the
>>>>>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
>>>>>come open.
>>>>>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>>>
>>>> it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
>>>> canopies seem to have little to do with it.
>>>> the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
>>>> regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.
>>>>
>>>> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
>>>> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>>>>
>>>> tragic.
>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>>I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
>>>Holy ****!
>>
>> that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
>> grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
>> inherently the safest designs.
>> sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
>> shot. ...in australia.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?
>
> Peter

And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
>>>>>>come open.
>>>>>>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>>>>
>>>>> it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
>>>>> canopies seem to have little to do with it.
>>>>> the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
>>>>> regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.
>>>>>
>>>>> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
>>>>> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>>>>>
>>>>> tragic.
>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>
>>>>I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
>>>>Holy ****!
>>>
>>> that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
>>> grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
>>> inherently the safest designs.
>>> sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
>>> shot. ...in australia.
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>> How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?
>>
>> Peter
>
> And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
statistically significant.

Peter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:10:31 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
>>
>>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
>>>>>>>come open.
>>>>>>>It would have been found with the personal items that came out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
>>>>>> canopies seem to have little to do with it.
>>>>>> the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
>>>>>> regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
>>>>>> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tragic.
>>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
>>>>>Holy ****!
>>>>
>>>> that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
>>>> grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
>>>> inherently the safest designs.
>>>> sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
>>>> shot. ...in australia.
>>>>
>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>> How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?
>
> My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
> Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
> However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
> not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
> statistically significant.
>
> Peter

Agreed. My question is, whether or not the Lanc stats are significant,
are there other statistically significant sets of data that point to
"killer" design flaws.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:00:28 -0400, Gezellig >
wrote:


>>>>>>> at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
>>>>>>> builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tragic.
>>>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
>>>>>>Holy ****!
>>>>>

>>>> How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?
>>>>

every australian aircraft. dont know the figure because the details
were related to me by the atsb guy himself. I never saw his
spreadsheet. probably 10 as a ballpark.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/pdf/AviationStats.pdf

this link is a 375kb download which will show the fatality rates in
australia. it doesnt allow me to segregate figures by aircraft type.


>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?
>>
>> My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
>> Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
>> However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
>> not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
>> statistically significant.
>>
>> Peter
>
>Agreed. My question is, whether or not the Lanc stats are significant,
>are there other statistically significant sets of data that point to
>"killer" design flaws.

I think there were 5 or 6 or 7 fatalities. I dont have the figures.
for australia the figure was significant.

Stealth Pilot

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:10:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
> Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
> However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
> not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
> statistically significant.

Yep. Several homebuilt types have similar annual US fleet accident rates as
Lancairs (examples: Velocity, RANS, Zenair) but the sample sizes vary so much
that one or two accidents more or less can make a real difference. I suspect the
Aussie fleet is quite a bit smaller.

We also have to consider our definition of "Lancair." Is it fair to lump a
Lancair Legacy with a Lancair IVP? Is it fair to lump a Lancair ES with the
original Lancair O-235 (which had a REALLY small tail)?

If you don't...then your sample size gets a lot smaller and your data is less
reliable. How many of those ten Lancairs in Australia were Legacies?

That said, the original two-seat Lancairs did have trouble getting certified in
Australia, way back when. They used to require flight testing of homebuilts
just like production aircraft, and the government test pilots rejected the
Lancair due to its handling qualities.

Ron Wanttaja