NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident [Archive]

spanky

September 21st 09, 11:10 PM

On Sep 21, 8:50*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:42:22 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
> >The NTSB has released the factual report:
>
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09...
>
> >This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
> >the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>
> >Ron Wanttaja
>
> according to that report of the accident it shouldnt have happened.
> there was nothing wrong.
>
> Stealth Pilot

....hate to disagree with you, but there was something very wrong,
apparently, with the most important component in the aircraft: the
pilot. According to the tox report, he had everything from Tylenol to
Valium to Vicodin to two different types of codeine derivatives to
FloMax to Ziloprim (and then some) in his system. He should never
have gotten out of bed, much less behind the wheel of a car or the
yoke of an aircraft. I knew Bill well enough to know that he probably
thought he could handle it. Events proved otherwise.

S McF

BobR

September 21st 09, 11:35 PM

On Sep 21, 5:10*pm, spanky > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:50*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:42:22 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> > wrote:
>
> > >The NTSB has released the factual report:
>
> > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09...
>
> > >This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
> > >the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>
> > >Ron Wanttaja
>
> > according to that report of the accident it shouldnt have happened.
> > there was nothing wrong.
>
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> ...hate to disagree with you, but there was something very wrong,
> apparently, with the most important component in the aircraft: *the
> pilot. *According to the tox report, he had everything from Tylenol to
> Valium to Vicodin to two different types of codeine derivatives to
> FloMax to Ziloprim (and then some) in his system. *He should never
> have gotten out of bed, much less behind the wheel of a car or the
> yoke of an aircraft. *I knew Bill well enough to know that he probably
> thought he could handle it. *Events proved otherwise.
>
> S McF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would have to agree.

The report noted “other significant conditions” of atherosclerotic
coronary artery disease, cardiomegaly, and acute mixed drug
intoxication.

Something was VERY Wrong! While it would not surprise me that Bill
would have continued flying no matter what...it surprises me that he
would have put his wife at risk too.

Brian Whatcott

September 22nd 09, 03:14 AM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> The NTSB has released the factual report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09LA016&akey=1
>
>
> This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
> the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I skimmed it -
bwb weighed in at 246 lb & 5ft 11 1/2 in Anterior artery from heart
almost blocked.
Toxic cocktail of painkillers etc. None disclosed on medical.
Three plugs oiled up. The lid might have opened, scattering stuff.....

Brian W

Ben[_3_]

September 22nd 09, 04:07 AM

On Sep 21, 4:35*pm, BobR > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 5:10*pm, spanky > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 8:50*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:42:22 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >The NTSB has released the factual report:
>
> > > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09...
>
> > > >This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
> > > >the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>
> > > >Ron Wanttaja
>
> > > according to that report of the accident it shouldnt have happened.
> > > there was nothing wrong.
>
> > > Stealth Pilot
>
> > ...hate to disagree with you, but there was something very wrong,
> > apparently, with the most important component in the aircraft: *the
> > pilot. *According to the tox report, he had everything from Tylenol to
> > Valium to Vicodin to two different types of codeine derivatives to
> > FloMax to Ziloprim (and then some) in his system. *He should never
> > have gotten out of bed, much less behind the wheel of a car or the
> > yoke of an aircraft. *I knew Bill well enough to know that he probably
> > thought he could handle it. *Events proved otherwise.
>
> > S McF- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I would have to agree.
>
> The report noted “other significant conditions” of atherosclerotic
> coronary artery disease, cardiomegaly, and acute mixed drug
> intoxication.
>
> Something was VERY Wrong! *While it would not surprise me that Bill
> would have continued flying no matter what...it surprises me that he
> would have put his wife at risk too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Like she didn't know of his health and drug issues ....
Please........... Thank god she lived.

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 22nd 09, 05:52 AM

cavelamb wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> The NTSB has released the factual report:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09LA016&akey=1
>
> Well, kids, there you have it.

Well... not COMPLETELY cut and dried.

We've still got the issue about the main driver of the accident
sequence...whether the canopy was open, and how difficult an open-canopy
situation is to handle.

A number of Lancair owners have encountered open canopies and reported
that control was no big deal. However, there have been three recent
Lancair accidents that involved open canopies. The pilot survived the
most latest one, and gives a rather hair-raising report of what the
plane was like to fly.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20090313X93849&ntsbno=CEN09LA207&akey=1

From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
catching the NTSB's notice.

When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
circumstances. You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been
able to force-land safely.

Works the other way, too. If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
cause.

From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy
*was* open. The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the
hinges forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if
the canopy was properly latched.

It all boils down to whether the NTSB concludes that the flight could
have been safely completed had Phillips not been impaired. My guess is
that the impairment won't be listed as the Primary Cause, but as a
contributor.

One thing interesting, though, is that Phillips' accident differs from
the other two canopy-open cases. In those instances, pitch control
became difficult, but neither pilot had trouble with roll. The SnF
plane continued to fly straight out, the pilot in Colorado actually
brought the plane back around the pattern and crashed on short final.

In contrast, once the canopy opened, Phillips' Lancair started turning
left and descended into the group.

Do you know what this reminds me of? John Denver's accident. The main
theory there was that Denver trying to turn a stiff fuel valve to switch
tanks after the engine quit on takeoff. He turned to the left to try
twist the valve...and his right foot applied pressure to the rudder,
turning the plane in the opposite direction from where he was looking.

Imagine Phillips' canopy coming open soon after takeoff. He turns
towards the handle on the canopy to try pull the canopy down...which is
probably mounted on the center section, above and to his right. This
naturally extends his left leg, which pushes the rudder pedal and starts
a turn to the left. The plane begins to descend, and goes into the
ground while the pilot is fiddling with the canopy. The passenger, too,
is looking up and behind at the canopy bow and doesn't notice the change
in attitude.

One of the things I've heard about the impact of drugs and alcohol is
that the first thing to go is the ability to multitask. I wonder if
that's what we're looking at, here....an unimpaired pilot would have
detected the roll, while Phillips became too focused on closing the canopy.

Ron Wanttaja

Stealth Pilot[_3_]

September 22nd 09, 12:07 PM

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:10:59 -0700 (PDT), spanky >
wrote:

>On Sep 21, 8:50*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:42:22 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The NTSB has released the factual report:
>>
>> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09...
>>
>> >This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
>> >the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>>
>> >Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> according to that report of the accident it shouldnt have happened.
>> there was nothing wrong.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>...hate to disagree with you, but there was something very wrong,
>apparently, with the most important component in the aircraft: the
>pilot. According to the tox report, he had everything from Tylenol to
>Valium to Vicodin to two different types of codeine derivatives to
>FloMax to Ziloprim (and then some) in his system. He should never
>have gotten out of bed, much less behind the wheel of a car or the
>yoke of an aircraft. I knew Bill well enough to know that he probably
>thought he could handle it. Events proved otherwise.
>
>S McF

actually I meant problems (unserviceabilities) with the aircraft.

btw if you have been taking medications for some time the body adapts.
it is possible to have high levels of medications in the blood stream
that have next to no cognitive effect on the individual. ask doctors
involved with long term pain medication or think to involvement with a
chronic alcoholic. the blood assay gives levels of drugs in the
individual but gives no real indication of the effect they have on the
individual. dont jump to conclusions without having some idea of the
medication history.

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot[_3_]

September 22nd 09, 12:15 PM

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:14:31 -0500, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> The NTSB has released the factual report:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09LA016&akey=1
>>
>>
>> This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
>> the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
>I skimmed it -
>bwb weighed in at 246 lb & 5ft 11 1/2 in Anterior artery from heart
>almost blocked.
>Toxic cocktail of painkillers etc. None disclosed on medical.
>Three plugs oiled up. The lid might have opened, scattering stuff.....
>
>Brian W

on my last annual I found 3 plugs oiled up. effect on the engine
performance was nil.

I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed.
was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to
diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery?

stealth pilot

vaughn[_2_]

September 22nd 09, 01:04 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to
> diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery?

I ain't no doctor, but diagnosing that takes some pretty $pecific and
sometimes very invasive tests that are not done without very good reason.

I also tend to focus on the canopy.
In that scenario the "real failure" was:
1) An improper (probably rushed) preflight check. (On any canopy plane, you
need to double and triple check that the canopy is secure.)
2) A failure to ignore the noise, wind, and swirling debris caused by the
open canopy and concentrate on flying the perfectly controllable airplane.

The drugs and the pilot's general health were probably certainly factors,
but even without the drugs, the same could have happened to many of us.

Vaughn

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 22nd 09, 03:58 PM

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed.
> was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to
> diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery?

Certainly, I'd say the drugs were prescribed.

As far as failure to diagnose the problem, check the NTSB report again:

"The pilot’s most recent application for airman medical certificate in
May 2007 noted a “precautionary” coronary angiogram in 2006 which
“showed no blockage.” ... Records obtained from the pilot’s cardiologist
regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006) noted a “totally
occluded” small left anterior descending coronary artery with “good
collaterals” and otherwise normal coronary arteries."

So the diagnosis had been made. Phillips knew he had a problem; this
angiogram was performed over a year before his death. We don't know if
there had been any treatment other than drugs. I suspect not; his
cardiologist would probably have noted it on his records and it would
have been mentioned in the NTSB report.

There could have been many reasons why Phillips didn't have surgery to
alleviate the problem. Denial is common enough... "I feel fine...there
isn't a problem!"

Another factor is that surgery is hard to hide. Your friends know, your
enemies find out, and there's always that fear that one of the latter
will inform the FAA and get your medical canceled. All of us know
friends who have gone through the tremendous hoops necessary to get
their medicals back after heart surgery.

>btw if you have been taking medications for some time the body adapts.
>it is possible to have high levels of medications in the blood stream
>that have next to no cognitive effect on the individual.

Certainly the body adapts, when exposed to large doses of drugs or
alcohol over a long period. We've heard stories of drunk drivers with
BACs above the line that would put most people unconscious. These
people can outwardly seem normal.

But this isn't just an issue of "Monkey Skills," as Phillips called
them. This is an issue of reaction time and decision making, especially
decision-making under stress with a less-than-nominal. cardiovascular
system. The NTSB didn't just note high levels of a cocktail of drugs
(vicodin, valium, paracodine, cardura, morphine derivatives, etc.)...the
term used was "acute mixed drug intoxication". This indicates to me
that the NTSB feels that the amount passed the line where normal
functioning was possible. The NTSB is likely to view the decision to
take off with a 20-knot gusting tailwind as an erosion of
decision-making skills due to the "drug intoxication."

Ron Wanttaja

BobR

September 22nd 09, 04:01 PM

On Sep 21, 11:52*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> cavelamb wrote:
> > Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> >> The NTSB has released the factual report:
>
> >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09...
>
> > Well, kids, there you have it.
>
> Well... not COMPLETELY cut and dried.
>
> We've still got the issue about the main driver of the accident
> sequence...whether the canopy was open, and how difficult an open-canopy
> situation is to handle.
>
> A number of Lancair owners have encountered open canopies and reported
> that control was no big deal. *However, there have been three recent
> Lancair accidents that involved open canopies. *The pilot survived the
> most latest one, and gives a rather hair-raising report of what the
> plane was like to fly.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20090313X93849&ntsbno=CEN09....
>
> *From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
> catching the NTSB's notice.
>
> When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
> what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
> circumstances. *You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
> Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
> failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been
> able to force-land safely.
>
> Works the other way, too. *If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
> uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
> cause.
>
> *From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy
> *was* open. *The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the
> hinges forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if
> the canopy was properly latched.
>
> It all boils down to whether the NTSB concludes that the flight could
> have been safely completed had Phillips not been impaired. *My guess is
> that the impairment won't be listed as the Primary Cause, but as a
> contributor.
>
> One thing interesting, though, is that Phillips' accident differs from
> the other two canopy-open cases. *In those instances, pitch control
> became difficult, but neither pilot had trouble with roll. *The SnF
> plane continued to fly straight out, the pilot in Colorado actually
> brought the plane back around the pattern and crashed on short final.
>
> In contrast, once the canopy opened, Phillips' Lancair started turning
> left and descended into the group.
>
> Do you know what this reminds me of? *John Denver's accident. *The main
> theory there was that Denver trying to turn a stiff fuel valve to switch
> tanks after the engine quit on takeoff. *He turned to the left to try
> twist the valve...and his right foot applied pressure to the rudder,
> turning the plane in the opposite direction from where he was looking.
>
> Imagine Phillips' canopy coming open soon after takeoff. *He turns
> towards the handle on the canopy to try pull the canopy down...which is
> probably mounted on the center section, above and to his right. *This
> naturally extends his left leg, which pushes the rudder pedal and starts
> a turn to the left. *The plane begins to descend, and goes into the
> ground while the pilot is fiddling with the canopy. *The passenger, too,
> is looking up and behind at the canopy bow and doesn't notice the change
> in attitude.
>
> One of the things I've heard about the impact of drugs and alcohol is
> that the first thing to go is the ability to multitask. *I wonder if
> that's what we're looking at, here....an unimpaired pilot would have
> detected the roll, while Phillips became too focused on closing the canopy.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

The problem with trying to diagnose what ultimately caused an accident
where something unusual occured with the aircraft is determining the
subsequent events which might have contributed. Many of the major
aircraft accidents over the years have all been traced to a series of
events that combined to cause the accident.

One of the first KIS Cruisers to be finished by a homebuilder was
destroyed when the pilot side door opened during climbout following
takeoff. The pilot reacted by trying to reach up, grab the door and
either close or hold on to it. That action caused the pilots seat
cushion to shift and jam against the stick pushing it forward and to
the right. The plane took a nose dive and hit the ground before the
pilot could recover. In that case, the pilot was very lucky and
survived with major but recoverable injuries.

Something of that very nature could have occured in this instance.
Bill was a good pilot but a distraction of trying to get the canopy
closed may have led to some other problem that he was unable to
recover from in time.

Steve Hix[_2_]

September 22nd 09, 05:34 PM

In article >,
Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
> I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed.
> was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to
> diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery?

I don't see how any other medical system would have guaranteed finding
and fixing the problem.

The autopsy noted "a 'totally occluded' small left anterior descending
coronary artery with 'good collaterals² and otherwise normal coronary
arteries".

This is no indication of significant reduced cardiac function; the loss
of blood flow through the "small anterior artery" would be at least
partially offset by the "good collaterals", and frankly was probably
completely asymptomatic.

It might not even have been noted through a cardiac stress test,
although is also probably an early precursor of further cardiac
degradation a decade or two down the road.

Perhaps some other national medical system routinely requires periodic
CAT scans of all adults through life? Because nothing less would be
likely to have found that problem.

Earlier this year, my wife had a stent installed in her right coronary
artery, which was ~95% blocked. That is a major artery, and in her case,
without "good collateral" development to carry part of the load.

We only figured out there was a problem while hiking at the top of Mt.
Haleakala (we were visiting our daughter and son-in-law who live on
Maui) that she was more short of breath than expected. A couple months
later, she was showing similar symptoms working around the house, and we
dropped everything and got it looked at. Failed treadmill test, etc. led
to getting the stent installed a couple days later. And she's fine now,
getting better, and we're back to cycling more/farther/harder than we
have for a couple three years.

The point being that her condition was worse than his, and not
noticeable until it had progressed well beyond what was reported by the
NTSB.

Steve Hix[_2_]

September 22nd 09, 05:38 PM

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> > I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed.
> > was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to
> > diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery?
>
> Certainly, I'd say the drugs were prescribed.
>
> As far as failure to diagnose the problem, check the NTSB report again:
>
> "The pilot¹s most recent application for airman medical certificate in
> May 2007 noted a ³precautionary² coronary angiogram in 2006 which
> ³showed no blockage.² ... Records obtained from the pilot¹s cardiologist
> regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006) noted a ³totally
> occluded² small left anterior descending coronary artery with ³good
> collaterals² and otherwise normal coronary arteries."
>
> So the diagnosis had been made. Phillips knew he had a problem; this
> angiogram was performed over a year before his death. We don't know if
> there had been any treatment other than drugs. I suspect not; his
> cardiologist would probably have noted it on his records and it would
> have been mentioned in the NTSB report.
>
> There could have been many reasons why Phillips didn't have surgery to
> alleviate the problem. Denial is common enough... "I feel fine...there
> isn't a problem!"

Exactly. The doctor would not have been likely to prescribe surgery, but
keep an eye peeled for further developments. Even something are
relatively simple as installing a stent has some risk associated with
it, and you're looking at a year or three of follow up medications,
lifestyle changes.

Just installing a stent, with nothing else done, can increase the risk
of inducing a coronary by generating blood clots.

[email protected]

September 22nd 09, 05:52 PM

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:07:57 GMT, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:10:59 -0700 (PDT), spanky >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sep 21, 8:50Â*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:42:22 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The NTSB has released the factual report:
>>>
>>> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09...
>>>
>>> >This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
>>> >the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>>>
>>> >Ron Wanttaja
>>>
>>> according to that report of the accident it shouldnt have happened.
>>> there was nothing wrong.
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>>...hate to disagree with you, but there was something very wrong,
>>apparently, with the most important component in the aircraft: the
>>pilot. According to the tox report, he had everything from Tylenol to
>>Valium to Vicodin to two different types of codeine derivatives to
>>FloMax to Ziloprim (and then some) in his system. He should never
>>have gotten out of bed, much less behind the wheel of a car or the
>>yoke of an aircraft. I knew Bill well enough to know that he probably
>>thought he could handle it. Events proved otherwise.
>>
>>S McF
>
>actually I meant problems (unserviceabilities) with the aircraft.
>
>btw if you have been taking medications for some time the body adapts.
>it is possible to have high levels of medications in the blood stream
>that have next to no cognitive effect on the individual. ask doctors
>involved with long term pain medication or think to involvement with a
>chronic alcoholic. the blood assay gives levels of drugs in the
>individual but gives no real indication of the effect they have on the
>individual. dont jump to conclusions without having some idea of the
>medication history.
>
>Stealth Pilot

The mixture of rocket fuel and rat poison Badwater Bill was always
bragging about would have had serious effects on the judgement and
reaction times of ANYBODY, no matter how long they were on them!!!!

Peter Dohm

September 22nd 09, 08:29 PM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> cavelamb wrote:
>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>> The NTSB has released the factual report:
>>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09LA016&akey=1
>>
>> Well, kids, there you have it.
>
> Well... not COMPLETELY cut and dried.
>
> We've still got the issue about the main driver of the accident
> sequence...whether the canopy was open, and how difficult an open-canopy
> situation is to handle.
>
> A number of Lancair owners have encountered open canopies and reported
> that control was no big deal. However, there have been three recent
> Lancair accidents that involved open canopies. The pilot survived the
> most latest one, and gives a rather hair-raising report of what the plane
> was like to fly.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20090313X93849&ntsbno=CEN09LA207&akey=1
>
> From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
> catching the NTSB's notice.
>
> When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
> what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
> circumstances. You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
> Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
> failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been able
> to force-land safely.
>
> Works the other way, too. If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
> uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
> cause.
>
> From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy *was*
> open. The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the hinges
> forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if the
> canopy was properly latched.
>
--------much snipped----------
I reached the same conclusion, that the canopy was open; and also that the
remarks about the boarding stairs were poorly phrased and more likely should
have read that the stairs wuld retract as the canopy was lowered to be
latched.

In any case, despite BWB's quirks and medications we do keep coming bach to
the matter of the canopy, and perhaps to the matter of hinged forward
canopies in general. It is certainly worrysome, although not surprising,
that two documented cases of canopies opening at or after takeoff had such
radically different symptoms. From the little that I have read about boat
hulls and the use of a slight "spoon area near the transome to prevent
oscillation, I am inclined to infer that the difference between a canopy
that might simply open slightly in trail and one which might oscillate
wildly could be a nearly imperceptable difference near the upper trailing
edge--and could easily be less than the thickness of the paint on the canopy
frame.

Peter
My conclusion does not please me!

cavelamb[_2_]

September 22nd 09, 11:02 PM

Peter Dohm wrote:

>>
> --------much snipped----------
> I reached the same conclusion, that the canopy was open; and also that the
> remarks about the boarding stairs were poorly phrased and more likely should
> have read that the stairs wuld retract as the canopy was lowered to be
> latched.
>
> In any case, despite BWB's quirks and medications we do keep coming bach to
> the matter of the canopy, and perhaps to the matter of hinged forward
> canopies in general. It is certainly worrysome, although not surprising,
> that two documented cases of canopies opening at or after takeoff had such
> radically different symptoms. From the little that I have read about boat
> hulls and the use of a slight "spoon area near the transome to prevent
> oscillation, I am inclined to infer that the difference between a canopy
> that might simply open slightly in trail and one which might oscillate
> wildly could be a nearly imperceptable difference near the upper trailing
> edge--and could easily be less than the thickness of the paint on the canopy
> frame.
>
> Peter
> My conclusion does not please me!
>

However an open canopy would effect handling (and I can see nightmares there),
there is one point we've kind of skipped over...

If the canopy latches were not damaged,
then I would surmise that it was not latched.

That would be pilot error - pure and simple.

I'm going to stay with my first impression.
BWB had no business being in the left seat.

Richard

The superior pilot uses his superior judgment
to avoid having to use his superior skills.

rich[_2_]

September 23rd 09, 01:16 AM

what amazes me is how fast that blockage built up in his heart after
having an angiogram in '06 that showed his heart clear. I had one in
'97 that was clear and I've been thinking I was good to go for who
knows how long. Now I see how fast that stuff can build up inside
there. A good heads up on that one. In his case, the drugs probably
had more to do with this accident rather than his heart. But it will
be interesting to see their final report.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:42:22 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>The NTSB has released the factual report:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20081017X50355&ntsbno=WPR09LA016&akey=1
>
>This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
>the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

Brian Whatcott

September 23rd 09, 02:03 AM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
....
> From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
> catching the NTSB's notice.
>
> When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
> what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
> circumstances. You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
> Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
> failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been
> able to force-land safely.
>
> Works the other way, too. If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
> uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
> cause.
>
> From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy
> *was* open. The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the
> hinges forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if
> the canopy was properly latched.
>
> It all boils down to whether the NTSB concludes that the flight could
> have been safely completed had Phillips not been impaired. My guess is
> that the impairment won't be listed as the Primary Cause, but as a
> contributor.
>
> One thing interesting, though, is that Phillips' accident differs from
> the other two canopy-open cases. In those instances, pitch control
> became difficult, but neither pilot had trouble with roll. The SnF
> plane continued to fly straight out, the pilot in Colorado actually
> brought the plane back around the pattern and crashed on short final.
>
> In contrast, once the canopy opened, Phillips' Lancair started turning
> left and descended into the group.
>
> Do you know what this reminds me of? John Denver's accident. The main
> theory there was that Denver trying to turn a stiff fuel valve to switch
> tanks after the engine quit on takeoff. He turned to the left to try
> twist the valve...and his right foot applied pressure to the rudder,
> turning the plane in the opposite direction from where he was looking.
>
> Imagine Phillips' canopy coming open soon after takeoff. He turns
> towards the handle on the canopy to try pull the canopy down...which is
> probably mounted on the center section, above and to his right. This
> naturally extends his left leg, which pushes the rudder pedal and starts
> a turn to the left. The plane begins to descend, and goes into the
> ground while the pilot is fiddling with the canopy. The passenger, too,
> is looking up and behind at the canopy bow and doesn't notice the change
> in attitude.
>
> One of the things I've heard about the impact of drugs and alcohol is
> that the first thing to go is the ability to multitask. I wonder if
> that's what we're looking at, here....an unimpaired pilot would have
> detected the roll, while Phillips became too focused on closing the canopy.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I had a canopy open. Fortunately, it started flopping early in the
takeoff roll and I stopped and fixed it.
I recall it was a strong distraction - though I was still on the ground.
It was a Fornier RF-4 (or RF-5, forget which) both of which had / have a
long clear lid with a side latch.

In contrast, a door is opened only against resistance on a Cessna 150
(while the parachute jumper jumped out...)

Brian W

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 23rd 09, 02:52 AM

cavelamb wrote:

> However an open canopy would effect handling (and I can see nightmares
> there), there is one point we've kind of skipped over...
>
> If the canopy latches were not damaged,
> then I would surmise that it was not latched.
>
> That would be pilot error - pure and simple.

The fact that the latches weren't damaged doesn't mean the canopy hadn't
been latched when the takeoff run began. Doors/canopies do pop open.
It can sometimes be a matter of rig, so that there wouldn't necessarily
be obvious evidence on the latch hardware post-crash.

According to Phillips' geocities page, the plane had a pumped seal on
the canopy. That may have applied some opening force in a case where
latch wasn't up to snuff...or if it wasn't properly latched to start
with. Are these kinds of seals normally interlocked with the canopy
latches, so they won't inflate unless the latches are set?

The NTSB report doesn't mention any previous problems with the
latch...seems like any of Phillips' friends would have cued the NTSB
investigator in if he'd been having problems with it. The plane was
built by a "hired gun," so Phillip wouldn't have had a builder's
understanding of how the system worked.

The downwind takeoff does imply he was in a hurry, and thus more likely
to forget to latch the lid. If the seals *were* interlocked with the
latches, seems like the additional noise if the seals AREN'T filled
would quickly cue the occupants that the canopy wasn't latched. But if
the seals were able to be inflated with the canopy unlatched, there
wouldn't be any sound cues...until the difference in pressure overcame
the seal's friction and popped the canopy up.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 23rd 09, 02:57 AM

rich wrote:
> what amazes me is how fast that blockage built up in his heart after
> having an angiogram in '06 that showed his heart clear.

Re-read the NTSB report. The angiogram *didn't* show his heart was
clear, though that's what he told the FAA:

"The pilot’s most recent application for airman medical certificate in
May 2007... also noted a “precautionary” coronary angiogram in 2006
which “showed no blockage.” ... Records obtained from the pilot’s
cardiologist regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006)
noted a “totally occluded” small left anterior descending coronary
artery...."

Others have stated that the occlusion mentioned may not have been that
impacting. But I don't think it justified Phillips claiming that it
"showed no blockage."

Ron Wanttaja

Stealth Pilot[_3_]

September 23rd 09, 05:23 PM

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:58:33 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed.
>> was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to
>> diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery?
>
>Certainly, I'd say the drugs were prescribed.
>
>As far as failure to diagnose the problem, check the NTSB report again:
>
>"The pilot’s most recent application for airman medical certificate in
>May 2007 noted a “precautionary” coronary angiogram in 2006 which
>“showed no blockage.” ... Records obtained from the pilot’s cardiologist
>regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006) noted a “totally
>occluded” small left anterior descending coronary artery with “good
>collaterals” and otherwise normal coronary arteries."
>
>So the diagnosis had been made. Phillips knew he had a problem; this
>angiogram was performed over a year before his death. We don't know if
>there had been any treatment other than drugs. I suspect not; his
>cardiologist would probably have noted it on his records and it would
>have been mentioned in the NTSB report.
>
>There could have been many reasons why Phillips didn't have surgery to
>alleviate the problem. Denial is common enough... "I feel fine...there
>isn't a problem!"
>
>Another factor is that surgery is hard to hide. Your friends know, your
>enemies find out, and there's always that fear that one of the latter
>will inform the FAA and get your medical canceled. All of us know
>friends who have gone through the tremendous hoops necessary to get
>their medicals back after heart surgery.
>
> >btw if you have been taking medications for some time the body adapts.
> >it is possible to have high levels of medications in the blood stream
> >that have next to no cognitive effect on the individual.
>
>Certainly the body adapts, when exposed to large doses of drugs or
>alcohol over a long period. We've heard stories of drunk drivers with
>BACs above the line that would put most people unconscious. These
>people can outwardly seem normal.
>
>But this isn't just an issue of "Monkey Skills," as Phillips called
>them. This is an issue of reaction time and decision making, especially
>decision-making under stress with a less-than-nominal. cardiovascular
>system. The NTSB didn't just note high levels of a cocktail of drugs
>(vicodin, valium, paracodine, cardura, morphine derivatives, etc.)...the
>term used was "acute mixed drug intoxication".

Ron
Acute in the medical sense is quite different from our usual meaning.
typically we laymen use acute to mean serious.
In medical terms acute just means 'of short duration'
we laymen also use chronic to mean serious whereas in medical terms
chronic just means 'of long duration'
so the term "acute mixed drug intoxication" just means a situation
that hadnt occurred for a long period. it doesnt mean that he had a
huge mixed drug intoxication problem, just one that had occurred at
the time.(unless of course the report was written by laymen)
we have little way of knowing what impairment that may have caused
because as others have commented he took lots.

rat poison is probably the warfarin that is used to break up blood
clots.

so yes the canopy was the direct cause, but long before that the heart
problem.

if we were honest the draconian aviation medical assessment for
pilots also played a part in the accident. maybe if it wasnt so
draconian, people would get the medical treatment they needed.
in australia we see lots of pilots change to ultralights and self
assessment during a clear period and go on to fly lots of hours that
would be denied to them all without much problem.
pilot medicals are after all a throwback to the days when governments
kept civil pilots as a fighting reserve and wanted them to be fit to
military standards. it is largely irrelevant now.
if we were really interested in civil aviation safety we wouldnt bar
pilots from flying, we'd more actively treat them.

the other aspect that comes from this fatal accident is that the
canopy design on that aircraft isnt fail safe. the slide back canopy
on the Jodel aircraft (as an example) can pop open or even be
deliberately opened in flight and the worst that happens is that it
flies itself shut. The Thorp T18 has a similar style of fail safe
canopy.
I'll bet not many people would have the intelligence to change the
canopy design on that design to something that was fail safe.

so yes there are lots of lessons that can be learnt from bill's prang.
the question is "will we actually learn them?"
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot[_3_]

September 23rd 09, 05:27 PM

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:57:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>rich wrote:
>> what amazes me is how fast that blockage built up in his heart after
>> having an angiogram in '06 that showed his heart clear.
>
>Re-read the NTSB report. The angiogram *didn't* show his heart was
>clear, though that's what he told the FAA:
>
>"The pilot’s most recent application for airman medical certificate in
>May 2007... also noted a “precautionary” coronary angiogram in 2006
>which “showed no blockage.” ... Records obtained from the pilot’s
>cardiologist regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006)
>noted a “totally occluded” small left anterior descending coronary
>artery...."
>
>Others have stated that the occlusion mentioned may not have been that
>impacting. But I don't think it justified Phillips claiming that it
>"showed no blockage."
>
>Ron Wanttaja

in your entire life you've never told a lie in a situation of great
duress????????

you wouldnt be human if you hadn't.

Stealth Pilot

Stu Fields

September 23rd 09, 05:42 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:57:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
>>rich wrote:
>>> what amazes me is how fast that blockage built up in his heart after
>>> having an angiogram in '06 that showed his heart clear.
>>
>>Re-read the NTSB report. The angiogram *didn't* show his heart was
>>clear, though that's what he told the FAA:
>>
>>"The pilot's most recent application for airman medical certificate in
>>May 2007... also noted a "precautionary" coronary angiogram in 2006
>>which "showed no blockage." ... Records obtained from the pilot's
>>cardiologist regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006)
>>noted a "totally occluded" small left anterior descending coronary
>>artery...."
>>
>>Others have stated that the occlusion mentioned may not have been that
>>impacting. But I don't think it justified Phillips claiming that it
>>"showed no blockage."
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
> in your entire life you've never told a lie in a situation of great
> duress????????
>
> you wouldnt be human if you hadn't.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Providing information that isn't true to a bureacrat is not lying. It is
just expediency.

Stu Fields

Peter Dohm

September 23rd 09, 10:31 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
------------------much snipped---------------
>
> Ron
> Acute in the medical sense is quite different from our usual meaning.
> typically we laymen use acute to mean serious.
> In medical terms acute just means 'of short duration'
> we laymen also use chronic to mean serious whereas in medical terms
> chronic just means 'of long duration'
> so the term "acute mixed drug intoxication" just means a situation
> that hadnt occurred for a long period. it doesnt mean that he had a
> huge mixed drug intoxication problem, just one that had occurred at
> the time.(unless of course the report was written by laymen)
> we have little way of knowing what impairment that may have caused
> because as others have commented he took lots.
>
> rat poison is probably the warfarin that is used to break up blood
> clots.
>
> so yes the canopy was the direct cause, but long before that the heart
> problem.
>
> if we were honest the draconian aviation medical assessment for
> pilots also played a part in the accident. maybe if it wasnt so
> draconian, people would get the medical treatment they needed.
> in australia we see lots of pilots change to ultralights and self
> assessment during a clear period and go on to fly lots of hours that
> would be denied to them all without much problem.
> pilot medicals are after all a throwback to the days when governments
> kept civil pilots as a fighting reserve and wanted them to be fit to
> military standards. it is largely irrelevant now.
> if we were really interested in civil aviation safety we wouldnt bar
> pilots from flying, we'd more actively treat them.
>
> the other aspect that comes from this fatal accident is that the
> canopy design on that aircraft isnt fail safe. the slide back canopy
> on the Jodel aircraft (as an example) can pop open or even be
> deliberately opened in flight and the worst that happens is that it
> flies itself shut. The Thorp T18 has a similar style of fail safe
> canopy.
> I'll bet not many people would have the intelligence to change the
> canopy design on that design to something that was fail safe.
>
> so yes there are lots of lessons that can be learnt from bill's prang.
> the question is "will we actually learn them?"
> Stealth Pilot
>

I agree with you on both points, and really doubt that there is much real
reason for medical certification unless passengers are being carried for
hire--and even then a case could be argued that the requirement is currently
more stringent than needed except in single pilot operation.

As to the canopy, the only defense of the tilt forward designs that I have
ever been able to understand is that they do make it much easier to enter
and exit the aircraft under normal conditions, and much the same could be
said of the side hinged designs.

Personally, both have made me just a little nervous when I have sat in them
on the ground at shows and I would prefer to stay with the many sliding
canopy designs--with the addition of hand holds on the windshield hoop or on
the underside of the glare shield and also a ridge across the floor, if one
is not already present, in order to easily heave myself up to a standing
position in the case of the tailwheel types.

BTW, so far, all of the RV builders who I know personally have stayed with
the sliding canopies.

Peter

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 24th 09, 04:13 AM

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:57:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
>> Others have stated that the occlusion mentioned may not have been that
>> impacting. But I don't think it justified Phillips claiming that it
>> "showed no blockage."
>
> in your entire life you've never told a lie in a situation of great
> duress????????

I've only told a lie twice in my life. Uhhh, three, if you count now.
Uhhh...four? :-)

We're not talking a mere "lie," here, we're talking about a criminal
act. Lying on an FAA medical is good for a quarter-million-dollar fine
and/or a five-year prison sentence.

> you wouldnt be human if you hadn't.

And I'm not catching the "duress" here. Phillips had nine months after
his angioplasty to decide what to say on his next medical. He did not
fly for hire; his livelihood did not depend on retaining his medical.
He didn't even *have* to take the medical... he could have let it expire
and continue to fly as a Sport Pilot.

So there was no "great duress." His option was to commit a felony, fly
without a medical, or not fly.

I don't want to come over all priggish here; there's probably a good
chance I'd continue to fly, with the same sort of conditions. The
difference would be that I don't think I'd commit perjury to do it, and
I wouldn't risk a passenger's life. There's a lot of peace of mind, in
flying a single-seat airplane....

From another posting...

> so the term "acute mixed drug intoxication" just means a situation
> that hadnt occurred for a long period. it doesnt mean that he had a
> huge mixed drug intoxication problem, just one that had occurred at
> the time.

I'm not a medical person...you may be right. A guy on the POA forum who
claims he's an MD said that the levels of Vicodin was in the "high toxic
to low lethal range," and the codine was "at the top of Therapeutic and
approaching Toxic." One would hope this wasn't a daily occurrence.

The accident occurred in late October as Phillips and his wife were
coming home from their cabin in the mountains of Utah. It's possible,
given the lateness of the year, that they had been closing out the cabin
for the winter. Phillips may have overdone it; he may have thrown his
back out and started chugging pills.

Ron Wanttaja

Peter Dohm

September 25th 09, 02:19 AM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:57:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
>> wrote:
> >
>>> Others have stated that the occlusion mentioned may not have been that
>>> impacting. But I don't think it justified Phillips claiming that it
>>> "showed no blockage."
>>
>> in your entire life you've never told a lie in a situation of great
>> duress????????
>
> I've only told a lie twice in my life. Uhhh, three, if you count now.
> Uhhh...four? :-)
>
> We're not talking a mere "lie," here, we're talking about a criminal act.
> Lying on an FAA medical is good for a quarter-million-dollar fine and/or a
> five-year prison sentence.
>
>> you wouldnt be human if you hadn't.
>
> And I'm not catching the "duress" here. Phillips had nine months after
> his angioplasty to decide what to say on his next medical. He did not fly
> for hire; his livelihood did not depend on retaining his medical.
> He didn't even *have* to take the medical... he could have let it expire
> and continue to fly as a Sport Pilot.
>
> So there was no "great duress." His option was to commit a felony, fly
> without a medical, or not fly.
>
> I don't want to come over all priggish here; there's probably a good
> chance I'd continue to fly, with the same sort of conditions. The
> difference would be that I don't think I'd commit perjury to do it, and I
> wouldn't risk a passenger's life. There's a lot of peace of mind, in
> flying a single-seat airplane....
>
> From another posting...
>
> > so the term "acute mixed drug intoxication" just means a situation
> > that hadnt occurred for a long period. it doesnt mean that he had a
> > huge mixed drug intoxication problem, just one that had occurred at
> > the time.
>
> I'm not a medical person...you may be right. A guy on the POA forum who
> claims he's an MD said that the levels of Vicodin was in the "high toxic
> to low lethal range," and the codine was "at the top of Therapeutic and
> approaching Toxic." One would hope this wasn't a daily occurrence.
>
> The accident occurred in late October as Phillips and his wife were coming
> home from their cabin in the mountains of Utah. It's possible, given the
> lateness of the year, that they had been closing out the cabin for the
> winter. Phillips may have overdone it; he may have thrown his back out
> and started chugging pills.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

Well, actually, he could not have [legally] flown that aircraft as a sport
pilot; but your basic point is well taken and I am really more than a little
dissappointed there seems to be so little new to learn. If the presumed
doctor on the POA forum is correct, then it would appear that BWB might have
taken some more medication just before departure--almost in the manner of a
college freshman chugging beer--and that his ability to fly was becomming
more degraded from moment to moment. All of that could be a dfpretty good
explanation of at least one way the the canopy latch might not have been
operated correctly and also how a noise level distraction might have gained
priority over simply "flying the airplane" and even suggests the possibility
that he might well have become incapacitated during the flight if the
takeoff and climb had been uneventfull.

BTW, all of this makes it seem almost appropriate to ask: does anyone here
know how Mrs Phillips got her nickname?

Peter
Staying with sliding and not hinged canopies!

Ben[_3_]

September 25th 09, 04:10 AM

On Sep 24, 7:19*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Stealth Pilot wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:57:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Others have stated that the occlusion mentioned may not have been that
> >>> impacting. *But I don't think it justified Phillips claiming that it
> >>> "showed no blockage."
>
> >> in your entire life you've never told a lie in a situation of great
> >> duress????????
>
> > I've only told a lie twice in my life. *Uhhh, three, if you count now..
> > Uhhh...four? :-)
>
> > We're not talking a mere "lie," here, we're talking about a criminal act.

Ben[_3_]

September 25th 09, 04:14 AM

Stealth Pilot[_3_]

September 25th 09, 02:02 PM

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:30:52 +0000 (UTC), Clark >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Ron
>> Acute in the medical sense is quite different from our usual meaning.
>> typically we laymen use acute to mean serious.
>> In medical terms acute just means 'of short duration'
>[snip]
>
>Nope. It means of severe and short duration so far.
>
>Don't minimize this one. Bill was obviously way over the line to be flying a
>plane. If we try to hide it behind fancy words then we are doing ourselves a
>disfavor.

that's the problem. bill wasnt obviously anything. he could have had a
pair of knickers over his face or have been blinded by something in
his eyes. you leap to the drugs aspect as the cause.
the stupid canopy design used on the aircraft was a greater factor in
the accident than his blood chemistry.

ymmv
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot[_3_]

September 25th 09, 02:05 PM

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Ben >
wrote:

>On Sep 24, 7:19*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>

>>
>> BTW, all of this makes it seem almost appropriate to ask: *does anyone here
>> know how Mrs Phillips got her nickname?
>>
>> Peter
>> Staying with sliding and not hinged canopies!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Boom Boom was the sound the plane made as it hit the ground in a
>uncontrolled manner.... Bubbles and Trixie just don't roll of the
>tongue right..

you're an idiot ben.
Bill posted the story behind the nickname here many years ago.
it has something to do with the timing of a thunderstorm :-)

Stealth Pilot

Ben[_3_]

September 25th 09, 02:35 PM

On Sep 25, 7:05*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Ben >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 24, 7:19*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> BTW, all of this makes it seem almost appropriate to ask: *does anyone here
> >> know how Mrs Phillips got her nickname?
>
> >> Peter
> >> Staying with sliding and not hinged canopies!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Boom Boom was the sound the plane made as it hit the ground in a
> >uncontrolled manner.... Bubbles and Trixie just don't roll of the
> >tongue right..
>
> you're an idiot ben.
> Bill posted the story behind the nickname here many years ago.
> it has something to do with the timing of a thunderstorm :-)
>
> Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just some light hearted fun...... Ease back on the serious button
sir...

Steve Hix[_2_]

September 25th 09, 06:30 PM

In article
>,
Ben > wrote:

> On Sep 25, 7:05*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Ben >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Sep 24, 7:19*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > >> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >> BTW, all of this makes it seem almost appropriate to ask: *does anyone
> > >> here
> > >> know how Mrs Phillips got her nickname?
> >
> > >> Peter
> > >> Staying with sliding and not hinged canopies!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > >Boom Boom was the sound the plane made as it hit the ground in a
> > >uncontrolled manner.... Bubbles and Trixie just don't roll of the
> > >tongue right..
> >
> > you're an idiot ben.
> > Bill posted the story behind the nickname here many years ago.
> > it has something to do with the timing of a thunderstorm :-)
> >
> > Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just some light hearted fun...... Ease back on the serious button
> sir...

Making a joke of a fatal crash, especially one involving serious injury
of the surviving spouse, is nothing in world like "light hearted fun".

tom c[_3_]

September 25th 09, 06:34 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> that's the problem. bill wasnt obviously anything. he could have had a
> pair of knickers over his face or have been blinded by something in
> his eyes. you leap to the drugs aspect as the cause.
> the stupid canopy design used on the aircraft was a greater factor in
> the accident than his blood chemistry.
>
> ymmv
> Stealth Pilot

Some clarifications;

Acute in a clinicians realm is either a new sudden onset such as AMI (Acute
Myocardial Infarction) or a sudden flare up of an old condition such as
Acute Exacerbation of COPD.

Chronic is an ongoing but currently stable problem. Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease. Chronic conditions over the course of time cause
deterioration and for many mortality. Example would be Pulmonary Fibrosis.

In another post a "doctor" from POA said Bill's "Vicodin Level" was near
lethal. There is no such thing as a Vicodin Level. Vicodin (Lortab, Norco
etc) is a combination of acetaminophen (Tylenol) and hydrocodone. In the
report Bill's acetaminophen level was barely at the low end of therapeutic
and the hydrocodone and metabolites were sub therapeutic.

This isn't meant as defense of anyone it is only a clarification from a
clinicians perspective.

tom c

jan olieslagers[_2_]

September 25th 09, 07:34 PM

Steve Hix schreef:
>
> Making a joke of a fatal crash, especially one involving serious injury
> of the surviving spouse, is nothing in world like "light hearted fun".

Thank you for wording my thoughts better than I could myself. Not done,
indeed!
KA

Ben[_3_]

September 26th 09, 12:49 AM

On Sep 25, 11:30*am, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Ben > wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 7:05*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Ben >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Sep 24, 7:19*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > >> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > >> BTW, all of this makes it seem almost appropriate to ask: *does anyone
> > > >> here
> > > >> know how Mrs Phillips got her nickname?
>
> > > >> Peter
> > > >> Staying with sliding and not hinged canopies!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >Boom Boom was the sound the plane made as it hit the ground in a
> > > >uncontrolled manner.... Bubbles and Trixie just don't roll of the
> > > >tongue right..
>
> > > you're an idiot ben.
> > > Bill posted the story behind the nickname here many years ago.
> > > it has something to do with the timing of a thunderstorm :-)
>
> > > Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just some light hearted fun...... Ease back on the serious button
> > sir...
>
> Making a joke of a fatal crash, especially one involving serious injury
> of the surviving spouse, is nothing in world like "light hearted fun".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Back a few years ago BWB and a few of his cheering section had a field
day at my expense and most thought his verbal attack was cute..... To
hear some people talk about his flying ability you would think he was
the best pilot ever. So......
Lets gather the facts.

1- He was flying an experimental that was built by a hired gun...
What, was he not smart enough to build his own?
2- Gave false info on his last medical. = illegal.
3- Took off with a gusting 20 kt tailwind. = dumb
4- took off under the influence of several painkillers. = illegal
5- failed to pilot his plane to a successful landing. = dumb
6- Seriously injured a passenger in the plane he was Pilot in Command
of. = fact

Now. unless they found his wife bound and gagged in the wreckage
common sense says she had to have known he was on drugs and got into
the plane with him anyway ... On her own. This whole NTSB report reads
like a comic book of things , NOT TO DO. It is so crazy it is
funny..... Hence the " light hearted " comment. YMMV.

Brian Whatcott

September 26th 09, 01:14 AM

tom c wrote:
....
> Some clarifications;
>
....
> In another post a "doctor" from POA said Bill's "Vicodin Level" was near
> lethal....
> tom c
>
>

Hmmmm...you too may be a "doctor" or even a doctor, so let me ask: which
elements of the drug cocktail reported in BWB's corpse would lead to the
official description of a "toxic" quantity?

I could mention that aspirin and codeine, and paracetamol
(acetaminophen) and codeine are over-the counter pain killers in Europe,
so presumably it is not that element that is drawing approbation...
One supposes it is the rat-poison?

Brian Whatcott

tom c[_3_]

September 26th 09, 01:39 AM

tom c[_3_]

September 26th 09, 01:43 AM

"Ben" > wrote in message
...
funny..... Hence the " light hearted " comment. YMMV.

It's still classless but hey YMMV

tom c

Steve Hix[_2_]

September 26th 09, 02:12 AM

In article
>,
Ben > wrote:

> On Sep 25, 11:30*am, Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Ben > wrote:
> > > On Sep 25, 7:05*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Ben >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >On Sep 24, 7:19*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > > >> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > >> BTW, all of this makes it seem almost appropriate to ask: *does
> > > > >> anyone
> > > > >> here
> > > > >> know how Mrs Phillips got her nickname?
> >
> > > > >> Peter
> > > > >> Staying with sliding and not hinged canopies!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > >Boom Boom was the sound the plane made as it hit the ground in a
> > > > >uncontrolled manner.... Bubbles and Trixie just don't roll of the
> > > > >tongue right..
> >
> > > > you're an idiot ben.
> > > > Bill posted the story behind the nickname here many years ago.
> > > > it has something to do with the timing of a thunderstorm :-)
> >
> > > > Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Just some light hearted fun...... Ease back on the serious button
> > > sir...
> >
> > Making a joke of a fatal crash, especially one involving serious injury
> > of the surviving spouse, is nothing in world like "light hearted fun".-
> > Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Back a few years ago BWB and a few of his cheering section had a field
> day at my expense and most thought his verbal attack was cute

And this makes your tasteless joke all right how, exactly?

Suck it up, grow up, and act like an adult. Even if someone else didn't
treat you as you liked, you don't have to stoop the their level.

Wallowing in schadenfreude isn't particularly admirable, just in case
you were wondering.

Peter Dohm

September 26th 09, 02:34 AM

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> tom c wrote:
> ...
>> Some clarifications;
>>
> ...
>> In another post a "doctor" from POA said Bill's "Vicodin Level" was near
>> lethal....
>> tom c
>
>
> Hmmmm...you too may be a "doctor" or even a doctor, so let me ask: which
> elements of the drug cocktail reported in BWB's corpse would lead to the
> official description of a "toxic" quantity?
>
> I could mention that aspirin and codeine, and paracetamol (acetaminophen)
> and codeine are over-the counter pain killers in Europe,
> so presumably it is not that element that is drawing approbation...
> One supposes it is the rat-poison?
>
> Brian Whatcott

Really, all of this is still just speculation whether there is some sound
reason that the canopy might not have been fully latched and on how BWB's
condition might have progressed during the flight if the takeoff and climb
had been uneventfull.

Taking the second issue first, it really does seem that Mrs Phillips would
have been quite familiar with the aircraft and also had skills far above
those of the typical AOPA Pinch Hitter level, if she is not a fully
qualified pilot; so while we are speculating as to the causes, I am willing
to speculate that pilot incapacitation was not the root cause of this
accident.

Which brings back to the issue of the canopy...

Peter

P.S.: Just as a slightly off topic aside: Even on a warm day at gross
weight and with full flaps deployed, a Piper PA38-112 Tomahawk will take off
and climb almost normally to the top of ground effect and a Cessna 150M will
climb slightly on a missed approach under the same conditions. No one
needed to be impared in any way to prove either of the above, or a few
others, although the first situation was helped along by an instructor who
was confident that the airplane could not get airborne.

Peter Dohm

September 26th 09, 02:38 AM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:30:52 +0000 (UTC), Clark >
> wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> Acute in the medical sense is quite different from our usual meaning.
>>> typically we laymen use acute to mean serious.
>>> In medical terms acute just means 'of short duration'
>>[snip]
>>
>>Nope. It means of severe and short duration so far.
>>
>>Don't minimize this one. Bill was obviously way over the line to be flying
>>a
>>plane. If we try to hide it behind fancy words then we are doing ourselves
>>a
>>disfavor.
>
> that's the problem. bill wasnt obviously anything. he could have had a
> pair of knickers over his face or have been blinded by something in
> his eyes. you leap to the drugs aspect as the cause.
> the stupid canopy design used on the aircraft was a greater factor in
> the accident than his blood chemistry.
>
> ymmv
> Stealth Pilot
>

Exactly, a safety catch that would only let the rear edge of the canopy to
rise a small amount would almost certainly have prevented this accident; and
a fixed windshield with sliding canopy would be safer still.

Peter

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 26th 09, 04:17 AM

tom c wrote:

> Acute in a clinicians realm is either a new sudden onset such as AMI (Acute
> Myocardial Infarction) or a sudden flare up of an old condition such as
> Acute Exacerbation of COPD.
>
> Chronic is an ongoing but currently stable problem. Chronic Obstructive
> Pulmonary Disease. Chronic conditions over the course of time cause
> deterioration and for many mortality. Example would be Pulmonary Fibrosis.
>
> In another post a "doctor" from POA said Bill's "Vicodin Level" was near
> lethal. There is no such thing as a Vicodin Level. Vicodin (Lortab, Norco
> etc) is a combination of acetaminophen (Tylenol) and hydrocodone. In the
> report Bill's acetaminophen level was barely at the low end of therapeutic
> and the hydrocodone and metabolites were sub therapeutic.

Thanks, Tommy. I'm yust an engineer; I don't have any medical
background, and the wide variety of opinion on this is making my head
spin. Some people say he would have been unaffected by the levels found
in the autopsy; others claim they are near-fatal doses.

BTW, in the interest of clarity, here's the link to the post from the
doctor on POA:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=495506&postcount=16

I figured his reference to "Vicodin level" was an attempt to simplify
things for the layman. When I first read the NTSB report, I had to Wiki
the drug terms to find out what that stuff is.

I guess I still step back to the "acute drug intoxication" comment on
the NTSB factual. Stealth and you have explained the medical meaning.
But when I do a Google search on the term, the hits seem to imply that
this is a fairly dire condition.

Let me try to put it simpler. If I get pulled over by the cops and my
blood test shows "... 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g) diazepam, 0.031 (ug/mL, ug/g)
dihydrocodeine, doxazosin, 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g) hydrocodone, and 0.094
(ug/ml, ug/g) nordiazepam," is this a level at which the courts would
consider me impaired?

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 26th 09, 05:06 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> Really, all of this is still just speculation whether there is some sound
> reason that the canopy might not have been fully latched and on how BWB's
> condition might have progressed during the flight if the takeoff and climb
> had been uneventfull.
>
> ...I am willing to speculate that pilot incapacitation was not the root
> cause of this accident.
>
> Which brings back to the issue of the canopy...

I don't think pilot incapacitation is the root cause of the accident,
either. However, pilot *impairment* may well have been a contributing
cause.

Let's play NTSB here, and step through the known facts.

1. Was the canopy open at time of impact?

A. No damage to the canopy latches, and significant sideways impact
damage to the canopy hinges. Canopy was probably open at the time of
impact.

2. Had the canopy been properly latched at the time of takeoff?

Nothing overt, here. No detected damage to the latching mechanism. No
previous problems noted with the latch on the accident airplane.
Aircraft equipped with a pressurized seal that may have held the canopy
in place until the airspeed rose to the point where lift forces on the
canopy may have overcome the friction of the seal.

3. Would an unlatched canopy cause the airplane to be uncontrollable?

A. The kit manufacturer says no. Several owners of that aircraft type
have reported open canopies in flight with varying effects of control of
the aircraft.

There were two other accidents involving open Lancair canopies within
six months of Phillips'. In the first case, witnesses reported that the
pilot had trouble closing the canopy before takeoff. The canopy opened
after takeoff, and witnesses report seeing the canopy bob up and down
like the pilot was trying to close it. Engine power was lost, but as
there was no reaction, it's possible the pilot killed the throttle to
try to reduce the airflow over the canopy to assist in closing it. The
airplane pitched nose down and descended in a left-hand turn. No
mechanical cause was found for the reduction in power.

In the second case, the pilot apparently failed to latch the canopy. He
reports the canopy oscillated on its own, and that pitch control of
the aircraft became very difficult. The pilot brought the plane around,
but wasn't able to maintain the approach path and landed short.

In short, everyone who experienced an open canopy and lived reported
that the airplane was at least somewhat controllable. There is only one
other instance of a fatality after a Lancair open canopy, and that case
exhibited a simple stall with no outward signs of control trouble.

(More discussion at:

http://98.192.103.179/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=296

4. Was the pilot qualified to fly the aircraft?

A. Yes. ATP with 4,500 hours, including 150 in type.

5. Were there factors that may have affected the pilot's ability to
control the aircraft?

Evidence of use of sedatives, painkillers, and muscle relaxants. Side
effects of Vicodin can include dizziness, lightheadedness, drowsiness,
euphoria, changes in mood, and mental fogginess.

I suspect the NTSB probable cause will be similar to that of the April
2008 fatality: "The pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control.
Contributing to the accident was the pilot's distraction with the canopy
during takeoff." They'll probably add a comment about pilot impairment,
as well.

I don't think the heart trouble or the lying on the medical will even
gain a mention, in the Probable Cause. However, since Phillips gained
his medical by fraud, the insurance company has grounds to deny any claim.

Ron Wanttaja

tom c[_3_]

September 26th 09, 08:45 AM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...

>
> Let me try to put it simpler. If I get pulled over by the cops and my
> blood test shows "... 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g) diazepam, 0.031 (ug/mL, ug/g)
> dihydrocodeine, doxazosin, 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g) hydrocodone, and 0.094
> (ug/ml, ug/g) nordiazepam," is this a level at which the courts would
> consider me impaired?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

It would vary by state but the sub therapeutic levels would weigh at trial.
Utah has a statute - driving while impaired - meaning that a hard limit
isn't necessary for conviction. There is a second statute for driving over
the limit RE alcohol. Most state don't enumerate a fixed limit on drugs.
Mere presence with evidence of impairment is significant for arrest. In
Utah's case being under the 0.08% isn't a guarantee of acquittal in a DWI
case. If the prosecutor can show evidence that the driver was impaired they
can still obtain a conviction. Likewise with drugs. The key is often the
dash camera.

The flip side of the coin is how long drugs remain in the system even after
the effects may no longer be present. THC remains detectable for a very long
period of time. Its presence can be found in hair for weeks. Certain drugs
can give false positives for others in quantity. I had a 78 year old lady as
a patient a few years ago. She essentially overdosed herself on
dextromethphorothan. Her Urine tox came back positive for PCP! We sent a
second specimen to verify and it was positive again. Called poison control
and they verified that the cough syrup gives a false positive for PCP. This
raises question regarding when the meds were taken.

Guess in the long run we'll need to wait for the NTSB final. The dissection
of the chain of events will be a lesson.

tom c

Brian Whatcott

September 26th 09, 01:06 PM

tom c wrote:
> "brian whatcott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> tom c wrote:
>> ...
>>> Some clarifications;
>>>
>> ...
>>> In another post a "doctor" from POA said Bill's "Vicodin Level" was near
>>> lethal....
>>> tom c
>>
>> Hmmmm...you too may be a "doctor" or even a doctor, so let me ask: which
>> elements of the drug cocktail reported in BWB's corpse would lead to the
>> official description of a "toxic" quantity?
>>
>> I could mention that aspirin and codeine, and paracetamol (acetaminophen)
>> and codeine are over-the counter pain killers in Europe,
>> so presumably it is not that element that is drawing approbation...
>> One supposes it is the rat-poison?
>>
>> Brian Whatcott
>
>
> The report itself never uses the term toxic.

Hmmm....
Let me quote from the finding of facts:

The State of Utah, Office for the Medical Examiner, completed an autopsy
on the pilot. The manner of death was classified as an accident due to
blunt force injuries. The report noted “other significant conditions” of
atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, cardiomegaly, and
***acute mixed drug intoxication.**** [my asterisks]

The FAA Bioaeronautical Research Laboratory completed toxicology
testing. The tests were negative for carbon monoxide, cyanide, and
volatiles. The test was positive for the following tested drugs: 10.01
(ug/ml, ug/g) acetaminophen, 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g) diazepam, 0.031 (ug/mL,
ug/g) dihydrocodeine, doxazosin, 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g) hydrocodone, and
0.094 (ug/ml, ug/g) nordiazepam, detected in blood; 0.46 (ug/mL, ug/g)
dihydrocodeine, doxazosin, 1.755 (ug/ml, ug/g) hydrocodone, 0.54 (ug/mL,
ug/g) hydromorphone, and nordiazepam, were detected in urine.

"Drug intoxication" means the presence of toxic quantities of some drug
cocktail.

Brian Whatcott

vaughn[_2_]

September 26th 09, 01:33 PM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's play NTSB here, and step through the known facts.
>
> 1. Was the canopy open at time of impact?
>
> A. No damage to the canopy latches, and significant sideways impact
> damage to the canopy hinges. Canopy was probably open at the time of
> impact.
>
Also in the report supporting this conclusion are: The witnesses to the
crash who "... saw objects fall, ...off of or out of the airplane."

AND: "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."

Unless Bill and his wife were busily stuffing these items out the canopy
vent door just to confuse us, there seems little doubt that the canopy was
open at the time of the impact. We can speculate about everything else, but
this part of the accident sequence seems pretty sure to me.

Vaughn

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 26th 09, 05:52 PM

Clark wrote:
> Here's a listing of various drug levels. I believe it indicates that the
> hydrocondone level was in the therapeutic range.
>
> http://fscimage.fishersci.com/webimages_FSC/downloads/winek.pdf

Outstanding. Here's a comparison of the NTSB Factual Report level vs.
the table.

Acetaminophen (Tylenol): 10.01 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 10-20 ug/ml is therapeutic.
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range

Diazepam (Valium): 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 0.02-4.00 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range

Dihydrocodeine (Codine derivative): 0.031 (ug/mL, ug/g)
Table: 0.03-0.25 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range

Hydrocodone (Vicodin): 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 0.03-0.25 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Mid therapeutic range

Nordiazepam: 0.094 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 0.1-2.6 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range (Wikipedia says that this is
a metabolite of Valim)

Everything looks in the therapeutic range, to this layman. I looked for
a list online of which are banned by the FAA, but didn't find one that
addressed anything other than general classes (AOPA has one, but I'm not
a member).

Ron Wanttaja

Peter Dohm

September 27th 09, 01:55 AM

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Let's play NTSB here, and step through the known facts.
>>
>> 1. Was the canopy open at time of impact?
>>
>> A. No damage to the canopy latches, and significant sideways impact
>> damage to the canopy hinges. Canopy was probably open at the time of
>> impact.
>>
> Also in the report supporting this conclusion are: The witnesses to the
> crash who "... saw objects fall, ...off of or out of the airplane."
>
> AND: "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."
>
> Unless Bill and his wife were busily stuffing these items out the canopy
> vent door just to confuse us, there seems little doubt that the canopy was
> open at the time of the impact. We can speculate about everything else,
> but this part of the accident sequence seems pretty sure to me.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the area of discussion most
applicable to this particular forum.

There is a good reason that I have placed several posts that would seem to
put me on both sides of the question of Bill's condition; and that reason is
that I really am. I believe that my position is reasonable and correct for
the following reason. Even if he was taking prohibited medications, and
overdosed as well, and then added one of the two most frequently fatal
deseases of pilots, Get-home-itis or Get-there-itis, and additional
outrages; we are still left with important questions that should interest us
as home-builders and potential home-builders:
1) Was the canopy open/unlatched?
(It very probably was)
2) Could this happen to an umimpaired pilot?
(Obviously yes, since it has happened several times)
3) Could an open/unlatched canopy be prevented, or
could the results be mitigated in a cost effective way?
(I think so, and think it needs further discussion)

As Stealth has pointed out, those canopies appear not to be a fail safe
design. One would initially presume that they would only open slightly and
maintain a slightly open position in trail, which was true in at lease one
instance and might presumably have been true of the test aircraft. However,
at least one other example apears to have behaved quite differently and I
personally doubt that the difference in shape would need to be much greater
than the thickness of a coat of paint to cause a dramatic difference in
behavior.

I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the result
of an unlatched canopy and make the occurance less likely.

I still would not personally choose a hinged canopy; but those improvements
should be sufficient to render my other criticisms nearly moot.

Peter

vaughn[_2_]

September 27th 09, 02:27 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
> automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
> oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
> canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the
> result of an unlatched canopy and make the occurance less likely.

I agree 100%. Your car door latches automatically when you close it. We
would not tolerate car doors that did anything else, because if they did NOT
latch automatically, people would fall out of cars and be killed with
depressing regularity. Unlatched canopies kill people...why can't they be
made to latch automatically?

This ain't rocket science.

Vaughn

[email protected]

September 27th 09, 03:34 AM

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:55:06 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Let's play NTSB here, and step through the known facts.
>>>
>>> 1. Was the canopy open at time of impact?
>>>
>>> A. No damage to the canopy latches, and significant sideways impact
>>> damage to the canopy hinges. Canopy was probably open at the time of
>>> impact.
>>>
>> Also in the report supporting this conclusion are: The witnesses to the
>> crash who "... saw objects fall, ...off of or out of the airplane."
>>
>> AND: "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."
>>
>> Unless Bill and his wife were busily stuffing these items out the canopy
>> vent door just to confuse us, there seems little doubt that the canopy was
>> open at the time of the impact. We can speculate about everything else,
>> but this part of the accident sequence seems pretty sure to me.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
>Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the area of discussion most
>applicable to this particular forum.
>
>There is a good reason that I have placed several posts that would seem to
>put me on both sides of the question of Bill's condition; and that reason is
>that I really am. I believe that my position is reasonable and correct for
>the following reason. Even if he was taking prohibited medications, and
>overdosed as well, and then added one of the two most frequently fatal
>deseases of pilots, Get-home-itis or Get-there-itis, and additional
>outrages; we are still left with important questions that should interest us
>as home-builders and potential home-builders:
>1) Was the canopy open/unlatched?
> (It very probably was)
>2) Could this happen to an umimpaired pilot?
> (Obviously yes, since it has happened several times)
>3) Could an open/unlatched canopy be prevented, or
> could the results be mitigated in a cost effective way?
> (I think so, and think it needs further discussion)
>
>As Stealth has pointed out, those canopies appear not to be a fail safe
>design. One would initially presume that they would only open slightly and
>maintain a slightly open position in trail, which was true in at lease one
>instance and might presumably have been true of the test aircraft. However,
>at least one other example apears to have behaved quite differently and I
>personally doubt that the difference in shape would need to be much greater
>than the thickness of a coat of paint to cause a dramatic difference in
>behavior.
>
>I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
>automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
>oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
>canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the result
>of an unlatched canopy and make the occurance less likely.
>
>I still would not personally choose a hinged canopy; but those improvements
>should be sufficient to render my other criticisms nearly moot.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
Just like the door issues on RV10 aircraft. It is possible to close
the door and throw the latch pins - and have one of the pins (I
believe the rear) OUTSIDE the cockpit instead ov through the
latchplate on the fuselage door-post.

I believe VANS has come out with a set of switches that will indicate
whether or not the pins have been properly fired home.

Ron Wanttaja[_2_]

September 27th 09, 04:21 AM

vaughn wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
>> automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
>> oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
>> canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the
>> result of an unlatched canopy and make the occurance less likely.
>
> I agree 100%. Your car door latches automatically when you close it. We
> would not tolerate car doors that did anything else, because if they did NOT
> latch automatically, people would fall out of cars and be killed with
> depressing regularity. Unlatched canopies kill people...why can't they be
> made to latch automatically?
>
> This ain't rocket science.

Indeed. Check out the January instance of an open Lancair canopy,
specifically the entry the pilot made in the "Recommendations" section.

"In the "RECOMMENDATION" section of the NTSB Pilot/Operator Report, form
6120.1 the pilot stated;

"1. The airplane should be tested/modified to make sure the canopy
(oscillations) do not impair the pilot's ability to control the airplane,
"2. a canopy latch warning system, [should be installed] or
"3. [there should be] the installation of a secondary [safety] latch ."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20090313X93849&ntsbno=CEN09LA207&akey=1

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

The big drawback is that this is probably a fairly complex undertaking,
especially the warning system. Switches have to be positioned, wires
have to be run, power supplied, panel lights/horn installed, etc.

Not something out of the ordinary for an aircraft builder, but a bit
more complex if a person buys a completed aircraft rather than learning
the skills during construction. I bought my Fly Baby instead of
building it, but everything on it is dead-nuts simple. Plus, Phillips'
Lancair was a show machine... he probably wouldn't have tolerated the
kind of rough-holes, wires running-in-the-open bandage job that I'm
satisfied with (1/2 :-)

I do not know if Phillips had been in communication with other builders
regarding canopy issues. As I've related in other postings, most of the
comments seem to indicate the aircraft is adequately controllable. This
may have given him a false sense of security..."If those *******s can
fly the airplane with the canopy open, I'll have no trouble." This
would make him less likely to spend the money and accept the downtime to
have his airplane modified.

Ron Wanttaja

Brian Whatcott

September 27th 09, 04:38 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
....
> 1) Was the canopy open/unlatched?
> (It very probably was)
> 2) Could this happen to an unimpaired pilot?
> (Obviously yes, since it has happened several times)
> 3) Could an open/unlatched canopy be prevented, or
> could the results be mitigated in a cost effective way?
> (I think so, and think it needs further discussion)
>
> As Stealth has pointed out, those canopies appear not to be a fail safe
> design. One would initially presume that they would only open slightly and
> maintain a slightly open position in trail, which was true in at lease one
> instance and might presumably have been true of the test aircraft. However,
> at least one other example appears to have behaved quite differently and I
> personally doubt that the difference in shape would need to be much greater
> than the thickness of a coat of paint to cause a dramatic difference in
> behavior.
>
> I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
> automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
> oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
> canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the result
> of an unlatched canopy and make the occurence less likely.
>
> I still would not personally choose a hinged canopy; but those improvements
> should be sufficient to render my other criticisms nearly moot.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
Side and forward hinged canopies can lift in the airstream. This
would not be a "gee-whiz how could that happen" type of problem.
I have reported my own stone-cold sober experience with a side hinge top
canopy unlatching at takeoff and I would be surprised to hear of side
and front hinged canopies that DON'T lift in the air stream.
Accordingly, I think a secondary catch sounds like a very, very sensible
idea. You can't imagine how distracting it is 'til you experience it.
an inch or two of bobble would be a whole lot less threatening,
in my view.

Brian W

bildan

September 27th 09, 04:04 PM

On Sep 26, 9:38*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > 1) * *Was the canopy open/unlatched?
> > * * * * (It very probably was)
> > 2) * *Could this happen to an unimpaired pilot?
> > * * * * (Obviously yes, since it has happened several times)
> > 3) * *Could an open/unlatched canopy be prevented, or
> > * * * * could the results be mitigated in a cost effective way?
> > * * * * (I think so, and think it needs further discussion)
>
> > As Stealth has pointed out, those canopies appear not to be a fail safe
> > design. *One would initially presume that they would only open slightly and
> > maintain a slightly open position in trail, which was true in at lease one
> > instance and might presumably have been true of the test aircraft. *However,
> > at least one other example appears to have behaved quite differently and I
> > personally doubt that the difference in shape would need to be much greater
> > than the thickness of a coat of paint to cause a dramatic difference in
> > behavior.
>
> > I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
> > automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
> > oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
> > canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the result
> > of an unlatched canopy and make the occurence less likely.
>
> > I still would not personally choose a hinged canopy; but those improvements
> > should be sufficient to render my other criticisms nearly moot.
>
> > Peter
>
> Side and forward hinged canopies can lift in the airstream. * *This
> would not be a "gee-whiz how could that happen" type of problem.
> I have reported my own stone-cold sober experience with a side hinge top
> canopy unlatching at takeoff and I would be surprised to hear of side
> and front hinged canopies that DON'T lift in the air stream.
> Accordingly, I think a secondary catch sounds like a very, very sensible
> idea. You can't imagine how distracting *it is 'til you experience it.
> an inch or two of bobble would be a whole lot less threatening,
> in my view.
>
> Brian W

Sailplanes are adopting forward hinged canopies as a safety feature.
Any canopy opening system can open inadvertently if not properly
latched but the forward hinge system will open less violently than
other systems.

Regardless of the hinge system, an open canopy is not likely to render
an aircraft unflyable. The first priority is to FLY THE AIRCRAFT and
deal with the canopy on the ground after a safe landing.

Long experience has shown that the biggest hazard of an open canopy in
flight is the pilot trying to close the canopy and not flying the
aircraft while he's doing it. There's a history of glider accidents
with this scenario. Glider pilots are taught to assume an open canopy
is trashed, put it out of their mind and fly the glider as an open
cockpit aircraft.

As a standard part of training, I will have students open the canopy
in flight and enjoy a few minutes of open cockpit flying. The point
is for them to see that the glider flies just fine with the canopy
open so if it opens inadvertently, they aren't panicked.

Finally, one has to consider the effect of a large jolt of adrenalin
when added to Bill's drug cocktail. It's possible that he could have
dealt with flying the airplane under non-emergency conditions but not
with the stress and adrenalin of an open canopy.

Bill Daniels

Morgans[_2_]

September 27th 09, 08:24 PM

"bildan" > wrote

> Finally, one has to consider the effect of a large jolt of adrenalin
> when added to Bill's drug cocktail. It's possible that he could have
> dealt with flying the airplane under non-emergency conditions but not
> with the stress and adrenalin of an open canopy.
>
The adrenalin theory may be true, but I favor the John Denver type scenario.

If you turn around to the left (to turn a fuel valve or close a canopy, you
turn to the left, 99.9% of the time. Low to the ground, with clothes and
probably some dirt from the floorboards blowing around in your eyes, you
have an ideal accident chain continuing onward.
--
Jim in NC

Peter Dohm

September 27th 09, 10:10 PM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> vaughn wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
>>> automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
>>> oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
>>> canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the
>>> result of an unlatched canopy and make the occurance less likely.
>>
>> I agree 100%. Your car door latches automatically when you close it. We
>> would not tolerate car doors that did anything else, because if they did
>> NOT latch automatically, people would fall out of cars and be killed with
>> depressing regularity. Unlatched canopies kill people...why can't they
>> be made to latch automatically?
>>
>> This ain't rocket science.
>
> Indeed. Check out the January instance of an open Lancair canopy,
> specifically the entry the pilot made in the "Recommendations" section.
>
> "In the "RECOMMENDATION" section of the NTSB Pilot/Operator Report, form
> 6120.1 the pilot stated;
>
> "1. The airplane should be tested/modified to make sure the canopy
> (oscillations) do not impair the pilot's ability to control the airplane,
> "2. a canopy latch warning system, [should be installed] or
> "3. [there should be] the installation of a secondary [safety] latch ."
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20090313X93849&ntsbno=CEN09LA207&akey=1
>
> Seems pretty reasonable to me.
>
> The big drawback is that this is probably a fairly complex undertaking,
> especially the warning system. Switches have to be positioned, wires have
> to be run, power supplied, panel lights/horn installed, etc.
>
> Not something out of the ordinary for an aircraft builder, but a bit more
> complex if a person buys a completed aircraft rather than learning the
> skills during construction. I bought my Fly Baby instead of building it,
> but everything on it is dead-nuts simple. Plus, Phillips' Lancair was a
> show machine... he probably wouldn't have tolerated the kind of
> rough-holes, wires running-in-the-open bandage job that I'm satisfied with
> (1/2 :-)
>
> I do not know if Phillips had been in communication with other builders
> regarding canopy issues. As I've related in other postings, most of the
> comments seem to indicate the aircraft is adequately controllable. This
> may have given him a false sense of security..."If those *******s can fly
> the airplane with the canopy open, I'll have no trouble." This would make
> him less likely to spend the money and accept the downtime to have his
> airplane modified.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Those are good points, and add to my feeling that white glove competitions
tend to distort the priorities of owners, builders, and restorers.

I might also add that, even if Bill was in excellent shape and as skillfull
as any boast he was ever said to have made, I doubt that he would have fared
better that a new private pilot if the newbee was helmeted including a face
shield and he was unprotected with personal effects swirling around.

Peter

Peter Dohm

September 27th 09, 10:18 PM

"bildan" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 26, 9:38 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > 1) Was the canopy open/unlatched?
> > (It very probably was)
> > 2) Could this happen to an unimpaired pilot?
> > (Obviously yes, since it has happened several times)
> > 3) Could an open/unlatched canopy be prevented, or
> > could the results be mitigated in a cost effective way?
> > (I think so, and think it needs further discussion)
>
> > As Stealth has pointed out, those canopies appear not to be a fail safe
> > design. One would initially presume that they would only open slightly
> > and
> > maintain a slightly open position in trail, which was true in at lease
> > one
> > instance and might presumably have been true of the test aircraft.
> > However,
> > at least one other example appears to have behaved quite differently and
> > I
> > personally doubt that the difference in shape would need to be much
> > greater
> > than the thickness of a coat of paint to cause a dramatic difference in
> > behavior.
>
> > I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
> > automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
> > oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
> > canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the
> > result
> > of an unlatched canopy and make the occurence less likely.
>
> > I still would not personally choose a hinged canopy; but those
> > improvements
> > should be sufficient to render my other criticisms nearly moot.
>
> > Peter
>
> Side and forward hinged canopies can lift in the airstream. This
> would not be a "gee-whiz how could that happen" type of problem.
> I have reported my own stone-cold sober experience with a side hinge top
> canopy unlatching at takeoff and I would be surprised to hear of side
> and front hinged canopies that DON'T lift in the air stream.
> Accordingly, I think a secondary catch sounds like a very, very sensible
> idea. You can't imagine how distracting it is 'til you experience it.
> an inch or two of bobble would be a whole lot less threatening,
> in my view.
>
> Brian W

Sailplanes are adopting forward hinged canopies as a safety feature.
Any canopy opening system can open inadvertently if not properly
latched but the forward hinge system will open less violently than
other systems.

Regardless of the hinge system, an open canopy is not likely to render
an aircraft unflyable. The first priority is to FLY THE AIRCRAFT and
deal with the canopy on the ground after a safe landing.

Long experience has shown that the biggest hazard of an open canopy in
flight is the pilot trying to close the canopy and not flying the
aircraft while he's doing it. There's a history of glider accidents
with this scenario. Glider pilots are taught to assume an open canopy
is trashed, put it out of their mind and fly the glider as an open
cockpit aircraft.

As a standard part of training, I will have students open the canopy
in flight and enjoy a few minutes of open cockpit flying. The point
is for them to see that the glider flies just fine with the canopy
open so if it opens inadvertently, they aren't panicked.

Finally, one has to consider the effect of a large jolt of adrenalin
when added to Bill's drug cocktail. It's possible that he could have
dealt with flying the airplane under non-emergency conditions but not
with the stress and adrenalin of an open canopy.

Bill Daniels

-------------new post begins---------------

You have fewer choices with the sailplane, because few if any could accept a
rearward sliding canopy. Therefore, the front hinged canopy should be a big
safety improvement over the side hinged designs--especially with the lower
speeds and narrower cabin.

Personally, I would still include a safety catch; but the benefit should be
far less dramatic.

Peter

bildan

September 28th 09, 03:21 AM

On Sep 27, 3:18*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "bildan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 26, 9:38 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > 1) Was the canopy open/unlatched?
> > > (It very probably was)
> > > 2) Could this happen to an unimpaired pilot?
> > > (Obviously yes, since it has happened several times)
> > > 3) Could an open/unlatched canopy be prevented, or
> > > could the results be mitigated in a cost effective way?
> > > (I think so, and think it needs further discussion)
>
> > > As Stealth has pointed out, those canopies appear not to be a fail safe
> > > design. One would initially presume that they would only open slightly
> > > and
> > > maintain a slightly open position in trail, which was true in at lease
> > > one
> > > instance and might presumably have been true of the test aircraft.
> > > However,
> > > at least one other example appears to have behaved quite differently and
> > > I
> > > personally doubt that the difference in shape would need to be much
> > > greater
> > > than the thickness of a coat of paint to cause a dramatic difference in
> > > behavior.
>
> > > I suspect that a safety catch of a type common on the engine hoods of
> > > automobiles and placed close enough to the latched position to preclude
> > > oscillation, accompanied by the installation of a warning lamp when the
> > > canopy is not in its fully latched position, would both mitigate the
> > > result
> > > of an unlatched canopy and make the occurence less likely.
>
> > > I still would not personally choose a hinged canopy; but those
> > > improvements
> > > should be sufficient to render my other criticisms nearly moot.
>
> > > Peter
>
> > Side and forward hinged canopies can lift in the airstream. This
> > would not be a "gee-whiz how could that happen" type of problem.
> > I have reported my own stone-cold sober experience with a side hinge top
> > canopy unlatching at takeoff and I would be surprised to hear of side
> > and front hinged canopies that DON'T lift in the air stream.
> > Accordingly, I think a secondary catch sounds like a very, very sensible
> > idea. You can't imagine how distracting it is 'til you experience it.
> > an inch or two of bobble would be a whole lot less threatening,
> > in my view.
>
> > Brian W
>
> Sailplanes are adopting forward hinged canopies as a safety feature.
> Any canopy opening system can open inadvertently if not properly
> latched but the forward hinge system will open less violently than
> other systems.
>
> Regardless of the hinge system, an open canopy is not likely to render
> an aircraft unflyable. *The first priority is to FLY THE AIRCRAFT and
> deal with the canopy on the ground after a safe landing.
>
> Long experience has shown that the biggest hazard of an open canopy in
> flight is the pilot trying to close the canopy and not flying the
> aircraft while he's doing it. *There's a history of glider accidents
> with this scenario. *Glider pilots are taught to assume an open canopy
> is trashed, put it out of their mind and fly the glider as an open
> cockpit aircraft.
>
> As a standard part of training, I will have students open the canopy
> in flight and enjoy a few minutes of open cockpit flying. *The point
> is for them to see that the glider flies just fine with the canopy
> open so if it opens inadvertently, they aren't panicked.
>
> Finally, one has to consider the effect of a large jolt of adrenalin
> when added to Bill's drug cocktail. *It's possible that he could have
> dealt with flying the airplane under non-emergency conditions but not
> with the stress and adrenalin of an open canopy.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> -------------new post begins---------------
>
> You have fewer choices with the sailplane, because few if any could accept a
> rearward sliding canopy. *Therefore, the front hinged canopy should be a big
> safety improvement over the side hinged designs--especially with the lower
> speeds and narrower cabin.
>
> Personally, I would still include a safety catch; but the benefit should be
> far less dramatic.
>
> Peter

True, few modern gliders could accommodate the classic sliding canopy
but an old one did - the USAAF TG-4. War surplus TG-4's were used by
many US soaring clubs from WWII to around 1965.

The rear seat had a sliding canopy which made summer instructing much
more fun. OTOH, the canopy didn't seal very well when closed so
winter instruction was cold and drafty.

Wayne Paul

September 28th 09, 03:21 PM

> Sailplanes are adopting forward hinged canopies as a safety feature.
> Any canopy opening system can open inadvertently if not properly
> latched but the forward hinge system will open less violently than
> other systems.
>
> Regardless of the hinge system, an open canopy is not likely to render
> an aircraft unflyable. The first priority is to FLY THE AIRCRAFT and
> deal with the canopy on the ground after a safe landing.
>
> Long experience has shown that the biggest hazard of an open canopy in
> flight is the pilot trying to close the canopy and not flying the
> aircraft while he's doing it. There's a history of glider accidents
> with this scenario. Glider pilots are taught to assume an open canopy
> is trashed, put it out of their mind and fly the glider as an open
> cockpit aircraft.

Bill is correct. The biggest hazard of an unlatch/open canopy is trying to close it. I can make this statement as a "voice of experience."
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm

I only had about 30 hours in glider when this incident occurred. If I my glider had a forward hinged canopy the result of an unlatched canopy would have been a bit of noise caused by the canopy not being properly sealed.

One of these days I am going to have to replace the canopy on my current homebuilt sailplane. When the time arrives a I will install forward hinged canopy.

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

vaughn[_2_]

September 28th 09, 03:56 PM

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
m...

>Bill is correct. The biggest hazard of an unlatch/open canopy is trying to
>close it. I can make this statement as a "voice of experience."
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm

To add to Wayne's excellent post, the following canopy-caused accident
always sticks in my mind. It caused fatal injuries to a paying passenger,
severe injuries to the Commercial pilot, & less severe injusies to the tow
pilot. There happened to be an FAA inspector watching the accident happen,
so the witness description is probably better than most.

"A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector witnessed
the accident. In a
written statement the Inspector said:

"My attention was drawn to the glider by its erratic pitch changes. As I
concentrated on the

glider I saw that the rear canopy had opened and the person in the rear seat
extended an arm toward

the open canopy. At the same time, the glider pitched up rather steeply and
the arm returned

inside the glider. With the canopy still open, the glider reduced its pitch
but remained on high

tow. This effort to close the canopy occurred at least three times with the
glider going higher

and higher. Toward the end of the runway, the tow plane began to descend
then pitch up once or

twice then descend and impact the ground. As the tow plane impacted the
ground, the glider, which

was much higher and still on the tow rope, continued forward and climbing
and the tow rope became

almost vertical...[which] separated from the glider and fell in a pile by
the tow plane. The

glider continued...beyond the tow plane...rolled left to the inverted
position...and impacted the

ground..."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD99FA004B&rpt=fa

Like I said, this one sticks in my mind, but if you search the NTSB database
you will find too many more.

Vaughn

bildan

September 29th 09, 05:20 AM

On Sep 28, 8:56*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
>
> m...
>
> >Bill is correct. *The biggest hazard of an unlatch/open canopy is trying to
> >close it. *I can make this statement as a "voice of experience."
> >http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm
>
> To add to Wayne's excellent post, the following canopy-caused accident
> always sticks in my mind. *It caused fatal injuries to a paying passenger,
> severe injuries to the Commercial pilot, & less severe injusies to the tow
> pilot. *There happened to be an FAA inspector watching the accident happen,
> so the witness description is probably better than most.
>
> "A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector witnessed
> the accident. In a
> written statement the Inspector said:
>
> "My attention was drawn to the glider by its erratic pitch changes. As I
> concentrated on the
>
> glider I saw that the rear canopy had opened and the person in the rear seat
> extended an arm toward
>
> the open canopy. At the same time, the glider pitched up rather steeply and
> the arm returned
>
> inside the glider. With the canopy still open, the glider reduced its pitch
> but remained on high
>
> tow. This effort to close the canopy occurred at least three times with the
> glider going higher
>
> and higher. Toward the end of the runway, the tow plane began to descend
> then pitch up once or
>
> twice then descend and impact the ground. As the tow plane impacted the
> ground, the glider, which
>
> was much higher and still on the tow rope, continued forward and climbing
> and the tow rope became
>
> almost vertical...[which] separated from the glider and fell in a pile by
> the tow plane. The
>
> glider continued...beyond the tow plane...rolled left to the inverted
> position...and impacted the
>
> ground..."
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD99FA004B&rpt=fa
>
> Like I said, this one sticks in my mind, but if you search the NTSB database
> you will find too many more.
>
> Vaughn

I should have added that when letting a student open a canopy in
flight, it is done at low airspeed and in a glider whose canopy is
known to be easily opened and closed in flight. There are many
expensive two-east gliders with canopies costing thousands of dollars
that I would never let a student risk.

On at least one occasion a student of mine who had experienced a
deliberate canopy opening with me later suffered an inadvertent
opening and handled it well. He told me the story years after his
training.

Bill Daniels