FAA/NTSB accident data base??

[DL152279546231]

Does anyone have the web address of the FAA or NTSB accident data base??

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 15 Feb 2004 00:15:10 GMT, (DL152279546231) wrote:

>Does anyone have the web address of the FAA or NTSB accident data base??

Normally, it's:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

But I'm not able to bring it up at this time....

Ron Wanttaja

[Jerry Springer]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2004 00:15:10 GMT, (DL152279546231) wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone have the web address of the FAA or NTSB accident data base??
>
>
> Normally, it's:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>
> But I'm not able to bring it up at this time....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I also like to see the daily reports which go back ten days.


http://www1.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm

Jerry

[David O]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>
>But I'm not able to bring it up at this time....
>
>Ron Wanttaja

An NTSB web site "word string" query with a large date range and no
additional limiting criteria will bring the NTSB SQL server to its
knees. The query will time-out after a minute or so. In the
meantime, the site will appear to be dead to those who attempt to
access it. Now, let's not all rush to try it out. :)

I have the NTSB database file (1982 to present) on my computer and run
MS Access queries locally. Much better.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[DL152279546231]

I was checking the database for accidents relating to the Zenith CH 701. I set
the date range 1983 to present and left everything at default except the model
which I listed as CH 701. I only found 2, would you say that was pretty good?
Both of those appear to be related to engine failures which a kitplane
manufacturer cannot be faulted although I do wonder about the glide
characteristics of a design specifically for STOL operations

This link may be helpful to anyone doing similar research...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start

Anthony
Memphis TN

[Vaughn]

"DL152279546231" > wrote in message
...
> I was checking the database for accidents relating to the Zenith CH 701. I
set
> the date range 1983 to present and left everything at default except the
model
> which I listed as CH 701. I only found 2, would you say that was pretty
good?

Depends on how many are flying. If these are homebuilts, you may want
to take a closer look, because the FAA tends to give them wierd names (a CH
701 built my Mr. Jones might be registered as a "Jones 701") which may make
it hard to find all of the accidents for a particular model.

Vaughn



> Both of those appear to be related to engine failures which a kitplane
> manufacturer cannot be faulted although I do wonder about the glide
> characteristics of a design specifically for STOL operations
>
> This link may be helpful to anyone doing similar research...
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start
>
> Anthony
> Memphis TN

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 16 Feb 2004 00:51:55 GMT, (DL152279546231) wrote:

>I was checking the database for accidents relating to the Zenith CH 701. I set
>the date range 1983 to present and left everything at default except the model
>which I listed as CH 701. I only found 2, would you say that was pretty good?

Too specific a search. As Vaughn mentions, builders name their airplanes
as the whim strikes.

Try it this way: Set the "Amateur-Built" pull-down to "Yes" and search for
"701" as the aircraft model. Eleven records come up, all obviously Zenair
CH-701s.

>Both of those appear to be related to engine failures which a kitplane
>manufacturer cannot be faulted...

Snicker. Substitute "Mini-500" for "CH-701" and see if people will agree
with you.... :-)

Seriously, though, the decisions a kit maker/designer makes can have
long-term ramifications. They may decide that a boost pump isn't needed,
or show a fuel-line routing too close to exhaust components. *Why* an
engine failed is the most important factor.

> although I do wonder about the glide
> characteristics of a design specifically for STOL operations

A plane only performs as well as its pilot. If the pilot in inexperienced,
undertrained, or unprepared, all bets are off. A good STOL airplane like
the CH-701 can at least maximize the chance for the pilot to walk away...

Ron Wanttaja

[David O]

(DL152279546231) wrote:

>I was checking the database for accidents relating to the Zenith CH 701. I set
>the date range 1983 to present and left everything at default except the model
>which I listed as CH 701. I only found 2, would you say that was pretty good?
>Both of those appear to be related to engine failures which a kitplane
>manufacturer cannot be faulted although I do wonder about the glide
>characteristics of a design specifically for STOL operations


Anthony,

Chris Heintz and his Zenith aircraft designs have an excellent
reputation in the homebuilt community. The Zenith Aircraft Company
web site claims over 500 CH 701 flying throughout the world. The FAA
registry database shows 151 registered in the USA but those would only
be ones in which the builder chose to include "701" in the aircraft
make description. Remember, the builder *is* the manufacturer and can
put in anything for manufacturer and model on the FAA registration
form.

The NTSB accident database has 11 reports (plus one preliminary) for
aircraft with "701" in the model field. Pull them up and you'll see
that they are all clearly Zenith CH 701. Below, I've summarized those
accidents and I've also added engine make/model and pilot hours
information that is not included in the NTSB web site reports. The
only accident that remotely suggests a problem with the Zenith CH 701
design is the 4-03-90 accident ("inadequate fuel drain design").
Reading between the lines, however, I doubt that there was truly a
problem with the fuel drain. On the other hand, if there was indeed a
problem with *Zenith's* fuel drain design I'm confident that Zenith
would have addressed and fixed the problem long ago. After all, that
accident occurred some 14 years ago.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

------

7-10-03 - Suzuki 993cm (four stroke, water cooled, three cyl, auto
engine) - The flight was to be a pre purchase test flight. The pilot
was the prospective purchaser. The pilot said the engine faltered
after takeoff. The owner said pilot faltered.

6/6/03 - Cont A-75 - Engine failure. The pilot/builder stated, "...
engine quit because a jet came loose in the carburetor".

3/1/01 - Subaru - Engine failure. The pilot/bulder said he suspected
"detonation" was the cause.

5/14/00 Rotax 582UL (two stroke, two cylinder, liquid cooled) - Fuel
exhaustion due to pilot's improper fuel management.

8/21/99 Rotax 912 (four stroke, four cylinder, liquid cooled) - Pilot
had 110 hours total time and claimed 4 hours in make/type. This was
the third of his test flights in his newly completed airplane. The
first and second test flights lasted approximately 30 minutes and
ended without incident. From the NTSB narrative: "He was on a long,
low, final approach, and the airplane bounced twice and headed towards
a corn field. He applied full power to go-around but the airplane
collided with the tops of trees adjacent to the field, then the
ground. A witness reported seeing the airplane on a low approach and
believed the airplane would land short of the runway."

8/11/97 AMW - (a 2 stroke outboard boat engine) Partial loss of power
after takeoff at 50 ft AGL and total loss of power during the
crosswind-downwind turn.

8/11/96 Cont C-85 - Total loss of power. Pilot had 1085 hours total
time and 176 hours in make/type. Pilot said he switched tanks from
left to right while on final. Post accident inspection revealed the
left tank was empty and the right tank was full.

9/29/93 Rotax 582LC - Total loss of engine power for undetermined
reasons. Pilot hat 542 total time and 96 hours in make/type.

6/12/93 Rotax 582 - Pilot had 338 hours total time, 60 hours glider
time, and 2 hours in make/type. NTSB probable cause: PIC's failure to
maintain aircraft control. The PIC's lack of total experience in
aircraft type was a factor.

3/13/93 Rotax 582UL - Pilot had 800 hours total time, and 180 hours in
make/type. Takeoff was from a backyard strip. NTSB probable cause:
The pilot's inadequate compensation for wind conditions and failure to
maintain directional control after lift-off. Factors related to the
accident were; The unfavorable wind condition and proximity of the
power line.

4/3/90 Rotax 532 - Pilot had 192 hours total time and 14 hours in
make/type. NTSB probable cause: Manufacturers's inadequate design of
the fuel drain. Contributing factor was PIC's disregarding the fuel
supply which resulted in fuel exhaustion.