Lancair IV-P lost near Lansing MI [Archive]

Aardvark

June 2nd 04, 03:18 AM

Roger Halstead wrote:

>
> Any one have any information on the IV-P that went down around 2:00 PM
> about 30 miles west of Lansing MI on Monday?
>
> There was a story in the paper, but it was a bit short on details.
> It was registered to Ward Synthesis Inc. The flight was to be from
> Ypsilanti MI to Billings Mont.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Has photo here
http://fox17.trb.com/news/053104-wxmi-planecrash,0,2121139.story

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw98718_20040601.htm
The Eaton County sheriff's department identified the victims as Allen
Ward, 52, of Ypsilanti, the pilot; and passengers Jeffrey Chen, 23, of
Milford and Roger Hertz, 36, of Burlington, Ontario

Lots of links
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T56123478

Darkwing Duck $The Duck, The Myth, The Legend$

June 2nd 04, 05:54 PM

"Aardvark" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> >
> > Any one have any information on the IV-P that went down around 2:00 PM
> > about 30 miles west of Lansing MI on Monday?
> >
> > There was a story in the paper, but it was a bit short on details.
> > It was registered to Ward Synthesis Inc. The flight was to be from
> > Ypsilanti MI to Billings Mont.
> >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> Has photo here
> http://fox17.trb.com/news/053104-wxmi-planecrash,0,2121139.story
>
>
> http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw98718_20040601.htm
> The Eaton County sheriff's department identified the victims as Allen
> Ward, 52, of Ypsilanti, the pilot; and passengers Jeffrey Chen, 23, of
> Milford and Roger Hertz, 36, of Burlington, Ontario
>
> Lots of links
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?T56123478
>

Fuel exhaustion? Seems plausible.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

June 2nd 04, 07:46 PM

"Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)" >
wrote in message ...
>
> "Aardvark" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Roger Halstead wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Any one have any information on the IV-P that went down around 2:00 PM
> > > about 30 miles west of Lansing MI on Monday?
> > >
> > > There was a story in the paper, but it was a bit short on details.
> > > It was registered to Ward Synthesis Inc. The flight was to be from
> > > Ypsilanti MI to Billings Mont.
> > >
> > > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> > > www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> > Has photo here
> > http://fox17.trb.com/news/053104-wxmi-planecrash,0,2121139.story
> >
> >
> > http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw98718_20040601.htm
> > The Eaton County sheriff's department identified the victims as Allen
> > Ward, 52, of Ypsilanti, the pilot; and passengers Jeffrey Chen, 23, of
> > Milford and Roger Hertz, 36, of Burlington, Ontario
> >
> > Lots of links
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?T56123478
> >
>
>
> Fuel exhaustion? Seems plausible.

Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just ran
out of gas.

The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like it
was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the ground."

Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit the
control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
(assuming the witness is reliable).

Badwater Bill

June 2nd 04, 08:31 PM

>Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just ran
>out of gas.
>
>The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
>"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like it
>was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the ground."
>
>Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit the
>control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
>(assuming the witness is reliable).

Yeah. Looks like a stall-spin scenario alright. I wonder why they
got it into a stall in the first place?

This is really sad because the ****ing insurance companies are going
to stop insuring the Lancairs because of the high accident rates.
I'll bet you most of them throw in the towel soon. Insurance runs
$12,000 a year now on the Legacy.

The Lancair's have that high aspect ratio wing with high wing
loading. The Legacy is up at about 23 pounds/sq ft, and when it
stalls, it bites hard. Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
I was talking to a Legacy owner yesterday and he told me he never
stalled his, NEVER. He just didn't want to pursue the flight
characteristics in a stall. So, he just flies it fast all the time.
I guess that's one way of doing it. But, I'd rather be proficient at
recovery from a stall than never try it. That's just the way I feel
about it. I'd stall and spin the **** out of it if I had one. With
the new EFIS panels, you're not going to tumble a $3000 gyro anymore.
I'd spin it until I got proficient at the recovery or proficient at
avoiding a spin if it stalled. If you don't do that, your envelope is
pretty narrow.

BWB

Darkwing Duck $The Duck, The Myth, The Legend$

June 2nd 04, 11:59 PM

"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> >Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just
ran
> >out of gas.
> >
> >The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
> >"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like it
> >was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the ground."
> >
> >Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit the
> >control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
> >(assuming the witness is reliable).
>
>
> Yeah. Looks like a stall-spin scenario alright. I wonder why they
> got it into a stall in the first place?
>
> This is really sad because the ****ing insurance companies are going
> to stop insuring the Lancairs because of the high accident rates.
> I'll bet you most of them throw in the towel soon. Insurance runs
> $12,000 a year now on the Legacy.
>
> The Lancair's have that high aspect ratio wing with high wing
> loading. The Legacy is up at about 23 pounds/sq ft, and when it
> stalls, it bites hard. Most of the rich guys who buy them are
> doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
> killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
> I was talking to a Legacy owner yesterday and he told me he never
> stalled his, NEVER. He just didn't want to pursue the flight
> characteristics in a stall. So, he just flies it fast all the time.
> I guess that's one way of doing it. But, I'd rather be proficient at
> recovery from a stall than never try it. That's just the way I feel
> about it. I'd stall and spin the **** out of it if I had one. With
> the new EFIS panels, you're not going to tumble a $3000 gyro anymore.
> I'd spin it until I got proficient at the recovery or proficient at
> avoiding a spin if it stalled. If you don't do that, your envelope is
> pretty narrow.
>
> BWB
>
>

Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your right on
the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair didn't
certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
insurance purposes.

As far as the fuel exhaustion deal, the articles did mention that witnesses
said the engine wasn't running at times and lack of fire in the photos so it
seems.

lowflyer

June 3rd 04, 04:26 AM

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message >...

Most of the rich guys who buy them are
> doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
> killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.

You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
if it was true. Now you state essentially the same about
Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

Peter Gottlieb

June 3rd 04, 05:05 AM

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
>...
>
> You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
> You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
> if it was true.

That would be a complex study indeed.

Do you know many doctors? Many of them do indeed make a lot of money, but
they also work long and stressful hours. This tends to result in pilots who
don't fly enough yet can afford expensive fast airplanes. A fast plane gets
"ahead" of you much quicker than a slow one. Now add in complex avionics
(which take a lot of practice to master) and you get a dangerous mixture.

There is no absolute "true" or "false" to the old saw, as you put it. There
are only tendencies and probabilities. Each person is different. I happen
to know a doctor who is a fantastic pilot and as precise and meticulous as
can be. But there are othere (and not just MDs) who allow themselves to get
way too rusty yet still hop right into the cockpit and launch into difficult
conditions. The difference with those in the higher earnings brackets is
that they can buy, and thus have control over, much more advanced aircraft
than most people. Those who can't afford to own and control such a plane
must rent, and high performance rentals are much harder to find, and when
found, have strict currency and checkout requirements which must be met
before a flight can occur.

Joe Johnson

June 3rd 04, 12:03 PM

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
>...
>
>
> Most of the rich guys who buy them are
> > doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
> > killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
>
>
> You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
> You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
> if it was true. Now you state essentially the same about
> Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
> who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
> you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
> and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
> opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
> of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
> business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
> wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
> unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

A neurosurgeon saved himself and 3 skiing buddies by putting his V35 down on
route 7 near Rutland, VT. The Bo's engine quit a week after an annual. He
flew it beneath an overpass and only slightly damaged one wing. All aboard
walked away unhurt. I don't have the link, but if you google some of the
terms above, you can find Newsday's account. The article didn't say how may
hours he had, but this doctor obviously knew what he was doing.

June 3rd 04, 12:45 PM

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
> >...
>
>
> Most of the rich guys who buy them are
>> doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
>> killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
>
As a test pilot (military trained) I ended up working with a civil
airworthiness authority and have test flown about 50 hombuilt types. There
are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall characteristics.
In many cases the homebuilt community considers that these characteristics
are the price you pay for "performance".
In fact, many have characteristics that the military would simple not
accepted in their aircraft unless the performance boost so far outweighed
the flight safety issues that national defence was deemed more important.
The characteristics would certainly not be acceptable for civil
certification.
I have flown, stalled and spun high performance jet aircraft which are pussy
cats compared to some homebuilts.
The not so competent "rich" will kill themselves irrespective, but a number
of competent pilots will die in homebuilts simply because the handling
characteristics of many of these aircraft are well below that acceptable for
even hot shot military pilots.
While many people think of these homebuilts as "high performance" don't
forget that plenty of 18 -19 year old kids with a couple of hundred hours
total have successfully flown aircraft with far higher performance than the
odd Lancair or Glassair etc during military flight training.
Even a test pilot should not have to demonstrate test pilot skill and
ability just to go and have fun in a "high performance" homebuilt.
Irrespective of the above, I have no opinion on the Lancair accident.

Cheers,
Chris

[email protected]

June 3rd 04, 01:00 PM

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:03:11 GMT, "Joe Johnson" >
wrote:

>A neurosurgeon saved himself and 3 skiing buddies by putting his V35 down on
>route 7 near Rutland, VT. The Bo's engine quit a week after an annual. He
>flew it beneath an overpass and only slightly damaged one wing. All aboard
>walked away unhurt. I don't have the link, but if you google some of the
>terms above, you can find Newsday's account. The article didn't say how may
>hours he had, but this doctor obviously knew what he was doing.

I looked for the incident in Google. Turned up an article written in
Anchorage Alaska, but nothing from any papers written here in New
England. Could be the way I arranged the wording of the search.

I remember the incident, but did not recall the details well.

The pilot was lucky, and unlucky at the same time. He was lucky to be
over a nice smooth interstate highway, but unlucky in that he lost
altitude such that he could not clear the one and only overpass on the
highway.

He also blew out both main tires during the landing, must have hit a
bit hard.

Corky Scott

[email protected]

June 3rd 04, 01:16 PM

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:45:09 +1000, "s3" > wrote:

>As a test pilot (military trained) I ended up working with a civil
>airworthiness authority and have test flown about 50 hombuilt types. There
>are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
>characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall characteristics.
>In many cases the homebuilt community considers that these characteristics
>are the price you pay for "performance".
>In fact, many have characteristics that the military would simple not
>accepted in their aircraft unless the performance boost so far outweighed
>the flight safety issues that national defence was deemed more important.
>The characteristics would certainly not be acceptable for civil
>certification.
>I have flown, stalled and spun high performance jet aircraft which are pussy
>cats compared to some homebuilts.

Interesting information. It verifies what I read long ago about the
first Lancair 200's. They were very fast, as befitting their minimal
cross section and tiny wings, and also, according to the initial
flight reports, stalled extremely suddenly with no forewarning.

I also recall reading that the stall speed seemed to vary a bit. This
could be due to the laminar flow being tripped suddenly while at slow
speed by a gust of wind or whatever.

The result was that some Lancair 200's scared their pilots so badly
that they did not fly them much.

Corky Scott

Richard Kaplan

June 3rd 04, 01:21 PM

"Rolf Blom" > wrote in message
...>

> I wonder if a parachute will do much good if you are stalled/spinning;
> I'm thinking it would only twist itself up, and never deploy fully.

Spin chutes are a routine part of flight testing of airplanes in case the
airplane is found to have unrecoverable spin characteristics.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Rolf Blom

June 3rd 04, 01:22 PM

On 2004-06-03 00:59, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend) wrote:

-snip-

>
> Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your right on
> the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair didn't
> certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
> insurance purposes.
>

-snip-

I wonder if a parachute will do much good if you are stalled/spinning;
I'm thinking it would only twist itself up, and never deploy fully.

/Rolf

Richard Russell

June 3rd 04, 01:56 PM

On 2 Jun 2004 20:26:52 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message >...
>
>
> Most of the rich guys who buy them are
>> doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
>> killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
>
>
>You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
>You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
>if it was true. Now you state essentially the same about
>Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
>who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
>you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
>and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
>opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
>of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
>business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
>wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
>unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

I've always interpreted the "doctor killer" tag as something that
refered generically to someone who has plenty of disposable income but
limited time, interest or motiviation to pusue proper training and to
maintain proficiency. I never took the term too literally. Doctors
are a convenient example of the genus. It's similar to soccer moms.
Not all soccer moms actually have kids playing soccer.
Rich Russell

Rolf Blom

June 3rd 04, 02:12 PM

On 2004-06-03 14:21, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Rolf Blom" > wrote in message
> ...>
>
>>I wonder if a parachute will do much good if you are stalled/spinning;
>>I'm thinking it would only twist itself up, and never deploy fully.
>
>
> Spin chutes are a routine part of flight testing of airplanes in case the
> airplane is found to have unrecoverable spin characteristics.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

I stand corrected.

I was thinking of those large parachutes that can carry the whole plane.

/Rolf

Richard Kaplan

June 3rd 04, 02:56 PM

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...>

On 2 Jun 2004 20:26:52 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

> I've always interpreted the "doctor killer" tag as something that
> refered generically to someone who has plenty of disposable income but
> limited time, interest or motiviation to pusue proper training and to

Well as both a doctor and a CFII I will agree with that... there are good
and bad doctor pilots an the same is true of most other professions.

What I have noticed, however, in doing instruction with pilots who own high
performance airplanes is that one demographic factor which seems to put
pilots at risk is to have the money to fly a high performance airplane but
without a vocational background which requires regular self-study. The
generic prototype would be someone with a limited education who inherited a
lot of money. Sometimes these pilots can be mentored to begin a lifelong
process of reading/learning about aviation, but sometimes it is just foreign
to them and that pilot might do well in a routine flight situation but may
have difficulty working through an unanticipated problem.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Bill Denton

June 3rd 04, 02:58 PM

The whole money 'n doctors 'n Bonanzas thing makes a nice mantra, but it
totally ignores the most important factor in the equation...

True, many doctors have a high income level.

True, many doctors own expensive toys like Porches, Mercedes, Nikon cameras,
and other such things.

And a Bonanza is an expensive toy. But it does require a certain level of
skill to fly it.

Guess what else takes a certain level of skill? Sawing a man's chest open,
yanking out his heart, cutting the heart open, putting in a few valves,
sticking it back in his chest, and having the patient wake up good as new.

Yes, it takes skill, knowledge, and training. But it takes one more thing to
enable you to do something that could very well kill another human being:
balls! Or more correctly, it takes a very high level of self-confidence.

Some of us are born self-confident; some of us develop self-confidence. But
doctors, during their training, have self-confidence pounded into them.
Simply because a doctor cannot do his/her job without a high degree of
self-confidence.

Military jet-jockeys are also force-fed self-confidence, although many of
them come into the service with a high level. When the wheels come off the
runway that pilot is the best one in the air. But you see quite a few
accidents involving military or ex-military pilots. Why is that? "I can fly
an F-18, I can fly a stinking ultralight!"

I don't do sports, but from what I read, Thurman Munson was a very good
baseball player. It would be reasonable to believe that when he walked onto
the field he was self-confident in his ability to win ball games, and that
he was one of the best in the business. And I'm sure he had plenty of
self-confidence when he pushed the throttles forward on that Citation.
Unfortunately, once he pushed the throttles forward, self-esteem wasn't that
important any more; a different set of traits were needed.

There's an old joke:

Q: "What's the difference between God and a doctor?"

A: "God doesn't think he's a doctor!"

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot whose skills are somewhat below
those necessary to fly the aircraft to it's maximum capabilities. As long as
that pilot recognizes his limitations and flies the aircraft within his
limitations, he will probably come out O.K.

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot who one hour previously was
sewing somebody's heart closed...

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
>...
>
>
> Most of the rich guys who buy them are
> > doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
> > killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
>
>
> You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
> You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
> if it was true. Now you state essentially the same about
> Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
> who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
> you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
> and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
> opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
> of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
> business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
> wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
> unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

lowflyer

June 3rd 04, 03:18 PM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
> > You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
> > if it was true.
>
> That would be a complex study indeed.
>
> Do you know many doctors? Many of them do indeed make a lot of money, but
> they also work long and stressful hours. This tends to result in pilots who
> don't fly enough yet can afford expensive fast airplanes. A fast plane gets
> "ahead" of you much quicker than a slow one. Now add in complex avionics

I know a lot of doctors and know what they earn, but that's another
thread. You've re-stated the mantra, which on the surface seems
logical, but is it true? In many walks of life we accept things as
truth never knowing the origen of the "truth", only to discover on
analysis that it's false.

Andrew Sarangan

June 3rd 04, 03:21 PM

I don't think military jets to homebuilts is a fair comparison. How many
military jets do you know that fly at 200 mph at 8 gph? I think
homebuilts operate under a much tighter equipment, budget and powerplant
constraints.

"s3" > wrote in
:

>
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> om...
>> (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>
>> Most of the rich guys who buy them are
>>> doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
>>> killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight
>>> characteristics.
>>
> As a test pilot (military trained) I ended up working with a civil
> airworthiness authority and have test flown about 50 hombuilt types.
> There are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling
> handling characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall
> characteristics. In many cases the homebuilt community considers that
> these characteristics are the price you pay for "performance".
> In fact, many have characteristics that the military would simple not
> accepted in their aircraft unless the performance boost so far
> outweighed the flight safety issues that national defence was deemed
> more important. The characteristics would certainly not be acceptable
> for civil certification.
> I have flown, stalled and spun high performance jet aircraft which are
> pussy cats compared to some homebuilts.
> The not so competent "rich" will kill themselves irrespective, but a
> number of competent pilots will die in homebuilts simply because the
> handling characteristics of many of these aircraft are well below that
> acceptable for even hot shot military pilots.
> While many people think of these homebuilts as "high performance"
> don't forget that plenty of 18 -19 year old kids with a couple of
> hundred hours total have successfully flown aircraft with far higher
> performance than the odd Lancair or Glassair etc during military
> flight training. Even a test pilot should not have to demonstrate test
> pilot skill and ability just to go and have fun in a "high
> performance" homebuilt. Irrespective of the above, I have no opinion
> on the Lancair accident.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>

Joe Johnson

June 3rd 04, 03:35 PM

OK, I found it in my email archives:
============ =========== ==========
DIX HILLS
Safe landing after scare

BY COLLIN NASH
STAFF WRITER

March 2, 2004

Just minutes away from touching down at Rutland airport in Vermont on
Sunday, the four Long Island men aboard the single-engine aircraft
talked
excitedly about skiingdown the sun-bathed slopes of Okemo or Killington.

Suddenly an eerie quiet took the place of the drone from the
six-passenger
Beechcraft Bonanza. The engine was dead.

Gliding more than 7,500 feet above the valleys and foothills of the
Green
Mountains and losing altitude at about 700 feet a minute, the pilot, Dr.

Jeffrey Epstein, a neurosurgeon, drew on training from his high-pressure

profession. "I wasn't panicked," he said yesterday, recalling how he
calmly
radioed Albany airport for the nearest site to land the plane. "I was
more
concerned about making it over the mountains and finding a flat place to
land."

Epstein, of Dix Hills, and his three passengers, Dr. Brad Litwak, an
anesthesiologist also of Dix Hills; Ed Garger, an insurance manager from

Glen Cove, and Bob McBride of Northport, made it safely over the
mountains.
And Epstein, skirting under overhead electrical wires and a 16-foot
overpass, found his flat surface to put the plane down - the northbound
lane of U.S. Route 7 in Sunderland.

The plane, which Epstein said underwent its annual maintenance check
just
more than a week ago, blew out its tires and sustained wing damage. No
one,
including Epstein, 52, a father of three, and his passengers, was
injured,
authorities said.

Garger, 52, had agreed on the spur of the moment to join the three
others
on the ski trip when his friend McBride invited him during dinner
Saturday.
It was his maiden voyage in a single-engine aircraft, Garger said.

The takeoff about 8:15 from Farmingdale "was perfect," he said. Epstein
was
very thorough about staying in radio contact with air traffic
controllers
throughout the flight, he said. "We were all calm" when the engine died,
he
said. "I said to myself, 'This is not the day I'm gonna die.'"

His fate didn't cross his mind, Epstein said.

Vermont State Police said the Federal Aviation Administration is
investigating the incident.

Copyright C 2004, Newsday, Inc.

Bob Moore

June 3rd 04, 03:53 PM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote

> Well as both a doctor and a CFII I will agree with that...
> there are good and bad doctor pilots an the same is true
> of most other professions.

Hmmmm...and all of this time, I thought that you were a
physician, properly addressed as Doctor Kaplan. :-)
That's OK though, my AME, good friend, and next door
neighbor thinks that he is a "doctor" also. We get together
every two years and swap a Flight Review for a Third Class
Medical Examination. The third member of our group is also
properly addressed as Doctor Caldwell, but he is really just
an Electrical Engineer with a PhD. As for me, I'm not really
a CFII, just a Flight Instructor with an Instrument Airplane
rating on my certificate.

Bob Moore

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

June 3rd 04, 04:18 PM

"Rolf Blom" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-06-03 14:21, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > "Rolf Blom" > wrote in message
> > ...>
> >
> >>I wonder if a parachute will do much good if you are stalled/spinning;
> >>I'm thinking it would only twist itself up, and never deploy fully.
> >
> >
> > Spin chutes are a routine part of flight testing of airplanes in case
the
> > airplane is found to have unrecoverable spin characteristics.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Richard Kaplan, CFII
> >
> > www.flyimc.com
> >
> >
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> I was thinking of those large parachutes that can carry the whole plane.
>

Actually, the Cirrus parachute was desiged specifically for deployment
during a spin.

In the Cirrus POH, it states that the only approved way to recover a Cirrus
from a spin is to deploy the parachute.

Kathryn & Stuart Fields

June 3rd 04, 04:21 PM

Rolf: I once opened my parachute in free fall while I was spinning so fast
the ground was a blur. The chute opened with the lines twisted together all
the way to the lower lateral band of the canopy. I almost got sick
unwinding, then overshooting, then unwinding again but the chute did open as
much as it could with the lines wound up and it did unwind coming down.
Stu Fields
"Rolf Blom" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-06-03 00:59, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend) wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> >
> > Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your
right on
> > the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair didn't
> > certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
> > insurance purposes.
> >
>
> -snip-
>
> I wonder if a parachute will do much good if you are stalled/spinning;
> I'm thinking it would only twist itself up, and never deploy fully.
>
>
> /Rolf

Richard Kaplan

June 3rd 04, 05:45 PM

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...>

> Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot who one hour previously was
> sewing somebody's heart closed...

First of all, few doctors do work that is as dramatic as you say... probably
similar to the percentage of pilots who regularly do inverted flat spins.

Second of all, self-confidence is a TERRIFIC pilot attribute. The problem
only comes in when that self-confidence is not equally tempered with an
understanding of one's limitations. As for doctors, the concept of risk vs.
benefit is very well understood. The sports analogy does not hold.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Dude

June 3rd 04, 06:02 PM

Not to worry, the stall in the new 400 is supposed to be trainer like.

Can't wait to fly one of those babies. Better than a parachute is a good
stall behavior if you ask me. Besides that parachute is costing Cirrus more
in insurance if you ask me.

"Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)" >
wrote in message ...
>
> "Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > >Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just
> ran
> > >out of gas.
> > >
> > >The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
> > >"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like
it
> > >was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the
ground."
> > >
> > >Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit
the
> > >control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
> > >(assuming the witness is reliable).
> >
> >
> > Yeah. Looks like a stall-spin scenario alright. I wonder why they
> > got it into a stall in the first place?
> >
> > This is really sad because the ****ing insurance companies are going
> > to stop insuring the Lancairs because of the high accident rates.
> > I'll bet you most of them throw in the towel soon. Insurance runs
> > $12,000 a year now on the Legacy.
> >
> > The Lancair's have that high aspect ratio wing with high wing
> > loading. The Legacy is up at about 23 pounds/sq ft, and when it
> > stalls, it bites hard. Most of the rich guys who buy them are
> > doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
> > killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
> > I was talking to a Legacy owner yesterday and he told me he never
> > stalled his, NEVER. He just didn't want to pursue the flight
> > characteristics in a stall. So, he just flies it fast all the time.
> > I guess that's one way of doing it. But, I'd rather be proficient at
> > recovery from a stall than never try it. That's just the way I feel
> > about it. I'd stall and spin the **** out of it if I had one. With
> > the new EFIS panels, you're not going to tumble a $3000 gyro anymore.
> > I'd spin it until I got proficient at the recovery or proficient at
> > avoiding a spin if it stalled. If you don't do that, your envelope is
> > pretty narrow.
> >
> > BWB
> >
> >
>
>
> Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your right
on
> the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair didn't
> certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
> insurance purposes.
>
> As far as the fuel exhaustion deal, the articles did mention that
witnesses
> said the engine wasn't running at times and lack of fire in the photos so
it
> seems.
>
>
>

Dude

June 3rd 04, 06:04 PM

I did that too, from 1200 feet. My lines were so twisted, I could not raise
my head to check my canopy. I kicked and pedaled like the Tour de France!

Then I learned to tuck better when departing the plane :)

"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
> Rolf: I once opened my parachute in free fall while I was spinning so
fast
> the ground was a blur. The chute opened with the lines twisted together
all
> the way to the lower lateral band of the canopy. I almost got sick
> unwinding, then overshooting, then unwinding again but the chute did open
as
> much as it could with the lines wound up and it did unwind coming down.
> Stu Fields
> "Rolf Blom" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2004-06-03 00:59, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)
wrote:
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > >
> > > Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your
> right on
> > > the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair
didn't
> > > certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
> > > insurance purposes.
> > >
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > I wonder if a parachute will do much good if you are stalled/spinning;
> > I'm thinking it would only twist itself up, and never deploy fully.
> >
> >
> > /Rolf
>
>

goombah

June 3rd 04, 06:57 PM

"s3" > wrote in message
...
>
There
> are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
> characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall characteristics.

Chris, thanks for the informative post. Can you name the worst offenders, by
aircraft type. I for one would consider that very valuable info.

Morgans

June 3rd 04, 11:33 PM

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
> I don't think military jets to homebuilts is a fair comparison. How many
> military jets do you know that fly at 200 mph at 8 gph?

Constraints aside, his point is still valid. Changes need to be made to
some designs, to make better control harmony, or stall characteristics, or
whatever, but are not made. Why not? Too much money, more time, or lack of
expertise in knowing what to change. In most cases, it would have little to
no difference in "speed per gallon."
--
Jim in NC

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/29/2004

Dave Stadt

June 4th 04, 04:44 AM

"goombah" > wrote in message
...
> "s3" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> There
> > are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
> > characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall
characteristics.
>
> Chris, thanks for the informative post. Can you name the worst offenders,
by
> aircraft type. I for one would consider that very valuable info.

Prescott Pusher.

Badwater Bill

June 4th 04, 06:29 PM

>
>Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your right on
>the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair didn't
>certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
>insurance purposes.
>
>As far as the fuel exhaustion deal, the articles did mention that witnesses
>said the engine wasn't running at times and lack of fire in the photos so it
>seems.

Can't do it. Not enough useful load. IN the Legacy with full fuel
and a 220 pound PIC, he can only get in his girlfriend and no baggage
right now. There's really no wieight left for an onboard oxygen
system, let alone a parachute.

BWB

Badwater Bill

June 4th 04, 06:30 PM

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:21:07 -0700, "Kathryn & Stuart Fields"
> wrote:

>Rolf: I once opened my parachute in free fall while I was spinning so fast
>the ground was a blur. The chute opened with the lines twisted together all
>the way to the lower lateral band of the canopy. I almost got sick
>unwinding, then overshooting, then unwinding again but the chute did open as
>much as it could with the lines wound up and it did unwind coming down.
>Stu Fields

Stu:

What were you flying? How did the landing turn out? What happened?

BWB

Badwater Bill

June 4th 04, 06:43 PM

On 3 Jun 2004 07:18:25 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

>"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
>> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >
>> > You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
>> > You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
>> > if it was true.
>>
>> That would be a complex study indeed.
>>
>> Do you know many doctors? Many of them do indeed make a lot of money, but
>> they also work long and stressful hours. This tends to result in pilots who
>> don't fly enough yet can afford expensive fast airplanes. A fast plane gets
>> "ahead" of you much quicker than a slow one. Now add in complex avionics
>
>I know a lot of doctors and know what they earn, but that's another
>thread. You've re-stated the mantra, which on the surface seems
>logical, but is it true? In many walks of life we accept things as
>truth never knowing the origen of the "truth", only to discover on
>analysis that it's false.

Oh, I have to tell ya, I took a shot at the doctors on that one. It
may be unjustified at this point in time. I don't know it to be a
fact. In fact, doctors don't make the money they used to make in
relation to other businessmen. It's just that I've been a CFI for 30
years and I've never met a medical doctor who remained proficient. As
I sit here to day and think about all my doctor friends who own
Bonanza or Cessna-210's and 310's I can't think of any of them I'd put
my wife in the cockpit with. For some reason they just don't stay
current, proficient or even safe.

Staying proficient in a high performance airplane is a tough thing to
do. It requires you to go flyin a couple times each week and not just
for fun either. You have to go shoot approaches, do some maneuvers
and stay on top and ahead of the machine. If you can't do that , you
have no business owning that level of airplane.

I have a buddy who is a doctor who doesn't fly much at all but what he
did was convert his Cessna 210 into something quite docile in order to
compensate. He put speed breaks on it, a Robertson STOL kit, Flint
tips to increase the aspect ratio. The ailerons droop when you lower
the flaps, etc. He did everything he could to make the airplane into
a C-172 when you slow it down. And I'm here to tell you, it worked.
That old airplane is like an old horse. If you fell asleep, it would
find its way back home. You can't stall it at all (I mean it's hard
to do). With the ASI reading 55 knots and the nose up 20 degrees, at
full flaps it just parachutes down into the runway at about 300
ft/min.

My buddy survives this way because his business is just too demanding
for him to go fly twice a week and stay proficient. So, this airplane
is not beyond his cabability to cope with. The Lancairs are a
completely different ball of wax. You don't have the extra useful
load to install all the safety stuff that makes that wing well behaved
at low speed. So, you has what you has. One hundred knot pattern
speeds and 90 over the fence. More like flying a fighter than an
private airplane. You must stay proficient. Even then it still might
bite you.

BWB

With the

Badwater Bill

June 4th 04, 06:56 PM

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:45:42 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...>
>
>> Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot who one hour previously was
>> sewing somebody's heart closed...
>
>First of all, few doctors do work that is as dramatic as you say... probably
>similar to the percentage of pilots who regularly do inverted flat spins.
>
>Second of all, self-confidence is a TERRIFIC pilot attribute. The problem
>only comes in when that self-confidence is not equally tempered with an
>understanding of one's limitations. As for doctors, the concept of risk vs.
>benefit is very well understood. The sports analogy does not hold.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

You guys are very interesting to read. Where the hell did you come
from? I've rarely seen such thought provoking posts on RAH. It must
be the cross post to this other group on piloting. Thank you for
taking the time to share your thoughts here.

What you say here reminds me of John Kennedy and his crash. Here was
a guy with all the money in the world, all the women he'd ever need,
all the "everything" that being rich could bring a guy. I think that
someone like him may have extrapolated into thinking they were so
blessed that they didn't need to pay attention in an airplane in
marginal VFR conditions without proper training.

As an old time CFI and CFII I've seen this a lot and it's what I call
the "Doctor" syndrome, although it isn't strictly reserved to doctors.
These people are so successful in every aspect of their lives that
they assume they will be "just as blessed" with good luck, proper
responses and problem solving techniques in a 200 mph airplane in IMC.
It is as you guys say. It's an ego thing of self confidence. Kennedy
was so successful and blessed, he knew the laws of physics were for
everyone else and since he was so special, they just didn't apply to
him. It's a mind-set. I for one, think this had a lot to do with
what bit him.

BWB