President of our local EAA chapter killed in inaugural flight

[Peter R.]

Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in Central
NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
friends to witness this first flight.

According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the Lancair
Legacy.

From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on takeoff
followed by a turning stall.

http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw

--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

Sad. My condolences.

I'll speculatively ask the obvious, though, with the usual caveats of
not knowing the full story:

1.Passenger? On the first flight? Even if it's the guy you built it
with...
2. Turn back to the runway? I can sympathize, if you have spent years
building the plane, but still...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote

> Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in
> Central
> NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
> just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
> friends to witness this first flight.
>
> According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
> during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the
> Lancair
> Legacy.
>
> From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on
> takeoff
> followed by a turning stall.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw

Condolences, and prayers for the family.

Not to be unfeeling, but it sounds like someone who should know better
violated two rules, generally accepted by the homebuilt community.

First, why was there family at the airport? It is said that this makes a
person have extra pressure to take off, ready or not, and is hard on the
family if things go badly.

Two, why the HELL where there two people on board? Regulations do not allow
a passenger on the first 25 or 50 hours, depending on the assigned test
period. One more person and his family experienced tragedy, needlessly.

Do you know if he did a full power test, (for what is it, that is
recommended - 2 or 5 minutes?) with the nose up as high as takeoff and climb
attitude would be?

It seems as though this is an often skipped test, that is probably the most
important pre-flight test that exists. I hope that is not the case.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:21:47 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Two, why the HELL where there two people on board? Regulations do not allow
> a passenger on the first 25 or 50 hours, depending on the assigned test
> period.

Regulations state that no one but required crew be aboard. Some people put a
second person aboard to "monitor the engine and other systems to allow the pilot
to concentrate on controlling the aircraft" and thus claim the second person is
"required crew." I personally don't agree with it, and IIRC, the FAA has
specifically come out denying it, but it does happen.

Ron Wanttaja

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote
>
> > Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in
> > Central
> > NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
> > just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
> > friends to witness this first flight.
> >
> > According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
> > during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the
> > Lancair
> > Legacy.
> >
> > From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on
> > takeoff
> > followed by a turning stall.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw
>
> Condolences, and prayers for the family.
>
> Not to be unfeeling, but it sounds like someone who should know better
> violated two rules, generally accepted by the homebuilt community.
>
> First, why was there family at the airport? It is said that this makes a
> person have extra pressure to take off, ready or not, and is hard on the
> family if things go badly.
>
> Two, why the HELL where there two people on board? Regulations do not allow
> a passenger on the first 25 or 50 hours, depending on the assigned test
> period. One more person and his family experienced tragedy, needlessly.
>
> Do you know if he did a full power test, (for what is it, that is
> recommended - 2 or 5 minutes?) with the nose up as high as takeoff and climb
> attitude would be?
>
> It seems as though this is an often skipped test, that is probably the most
> important pre-flight test that exists. I hope that is not the case.

I echo the condolences to all involved.

That said, I was in a chapter in CA that had three fatalities two on the
respective first flights. In both of those the builders/pilots were
secretive about their planes and did not invite other chapter members to
view the planes before the first flight. Both planes had fatal flaws.

The third had an engine problem and attempted flight anyway.

Another man here did an auto conversion in a Mustang II (both very
crude) and had an engine failure, despite other's warnings not to fly.
He apparently had a V-belt fail, which flailed about the engine
compartment and took out the ignition wiring. The forced landing in a
golf course was fatal.

Better results occurred with a friend who built an RV-4. He was doing
taxi tests and reported control/response anomalies to a friend and
myself. We recognized the anomalies and asked to see the plane before it
flew. Between us, we spotted 60 discrepancies -- some minor -- some
major and safety threatening, such as a fuel line too near an exhaust
pipe and throttle/mixture controls mounted on am aluminum plate subject
to vibration/fatigue failure. He corrected all and went on to many happy
hours in the plane.

PLEASE, GUYS! Before you fly (or even taxi test) get as many sets of
eyeballs as you can to inspect, critique, improve your handiwork!

It is not a reflection on you if something is wrong!

It is a reflection on your friends that they care enough to try to keep
you around to enjoy your company!

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-15 09:09:09 -0700, "Peter R." > said:

> Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in Central
> NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
> just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
> friends to witness this first flight.
>
> According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
> during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the Lancair
> Legacy.
>
> From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on takeoff
> followed by a turning stall.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw

That is terrible, very sad.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> Regulations state that no one but required crew be aboard. Some people
> put a
> second person aboard to "monitor the engine and other systems to allow the
> pilot
> to concentrate on controlling the aircraft" and thus claim the second
> person is
> "required crew." I personally don't agree with it, and IIRC, the FAA has
> specifically come out denying it, but it does happen.

But how does it happen? I'll bet if they told the FAA that they were going
to have a two person required crew, the FAA would say, "The hell you are!"

I recall the same thing about the FAA ruling, that there was no
justification to having two people aboard in the testing phase.

To say two people are required in the plane, would be to say that it would
require two to fly the plane, always, as in some of the older biz jets.

Most of the newer biz jets do not have to have a two person flight crew, I
believe. If you can fly a .8 mach jet with one person, you surely do not
need two pilots to fly a Lancair.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> PLEASE, GUYS! Before you fly (or even taxi test) get as many sets of
> eyeballs as you can to inspect, critique, improve your handiwork!
>
> It is not a reflection on you if something is wrong!
>
> It is a reflection on your friends that they care enough to try to keep
> you around to enjoy your company!

Good comments.

For those of you who remember Burt Rutan's proof-of-concept ground
attack aircraft, he mounted a Sony video camera so that it gave an
over-the-shoulder view of the cockpit controls and instrument panel.
Two crossed strings provided an x- and y-axis displacement reference of
the control stick in the cameras field of view.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:12:57 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
> >
> > Regulations state that no one but required crew be aboard. Some people
> > put a second person aboard to "monitor the engine and other systems
> > to allow the pilot to concentrate on controlling the aircraft" and
> > thus claim the second person is "required crew." I personally don't
> > agree with it, and IIRC, the FAA has specifically come out denying it,
> > but it does happen.
>
> But how does it happen? I'll bet if they told the FAA that they were going
> to have a two person required crew, the FAA would say, "The hell you are!"

Simple: They just don't tell the FAA. There's no requirement for an FAA
representative to be there for the first flight. What they don't know, they
can't stop.

I looked at my accident database for the years 1998-2004. During that time
period, there were about 75 accidents on the first flight of a homebuilt. Four
of them had multiple persons aboard. About one in ten accidents that occurred
during the first 40 flight hours had more than one person aboard (although some
aircraft do have shorter test periods).

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter R.]

On 4/15/2007 1:21:47 PM, "Morgans" wrote:

> Do you know if he did a full power test, (for what is it, that is
> recommended - 2 or 5 minutes?) with the nose up as high as takeoff and
> climb attitude would be?

No idea. Coincidentally I was at that airport a couple of hours earlier
partaking in my BFR, but I was not there when this accident occurred. Given
the number of ground-based witnesses including at least one very experienced
pilot, I suspect that the answer to your question is known and will come out
in the accident investigation.

--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 15, 9:09 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in Central
> NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
> just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
> friends to witness this first flight.
>
> According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
> during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the Lancair
> Legacy.
>
> From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on takeoff
> followed by a turning stall.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw
>
> --
> Peter

First flight for the plane or the owners first personal flight in it?
I assume he had a professional do the intiial test flight.
-robert

[Peter R.]

On 4/15/2007 11:09:01 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> First flight for the plane or the owners first personal flight in it?

The news reports indicate that this was the first flight for the owner/pilot
built aircraft.

--
Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote

> Simple: They just don't tell the FAA. There's no requirement for an FAA
> representative to be there for the first flight. What they don't know,
> they
> can't stop.

Right. The sad part is, as president of an EAA chapter, he knew better, and
decided that the rules didn't apply to him.

It makes me mad. Incidents like this give us all a black eye.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:


>
> Right. The sad part is, as president of an EAA chapter, he knew better, and
> decided that the rules didn't apply to him.
>
> It makes me mad. Incidents like this give us all a black eye.


I disagree. It gives EAA types a black eye.

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Morgans wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja wrote
>
>> Simple: They just don't tell the FAA. There's no requirement for an FAA
>> representative to be there for the first flight. What they don't know,
>> they can't stop.
>
> Right. The sad part is, as president of an EAA chapter, he knew better, and
> decided that the rules didn't apply to him.
>
> It makes me mad. Incidents like this give us all a black eye.

We don't know the facts. From:

http://tinyurl.com/2yy7k

(An EAA Members Only web page):

"If there is a situation where the builder has a specific need for
additional crew in the aircraft during the fight test period, FAA
Advisory Circular AC 20-27E, CERTIFICATION AND OPERATION OF
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT, offers the following advice:

“If an additional crew member is required for a particular test
function, that requirement should be specified in the application
program letter for the airworthiness certificate and listed in the
operating limitations by the FAA.”

The FAA will review each application on a case-by-case basis, and may
allow additional crew if they feel there is sufficient justification."


So, while unlikely, it is possible that this person got permission
from the FAA and had written into his op-limits that he could have a
2nd crewmember.

Personally, I'm very against this practice and always caution against
it (having done the first flight in my plane solo), but he MIGHT have
had permission, in which case there's no "black eye", or disobeying
the rules.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2007

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote

> We don't know the facts. From:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2yy7k

>> So, while unlikely, it is possible that this person got permission
> from the FAA and had written into his op-limits that he could have a 2nd
> crewmember.

If it is show that he did have permission to take a second person, I will
make a public apology, on this forum.

I doubt that he did, also.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay B]

On Apr 15, 9:09 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in Central
> NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
> just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
> friends to witness this first flight.
>
> According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
> during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the Lancair
> Legacy.
>
> From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on takeoff
> followed by a turning stall.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw
>
> --
> Peter

<Cloaking Device Off>

Peter,

Tragic news.

Prayers for the family and friends.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

<Cloaking Device On>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:38:52 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Morgans wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Right. The sad part is, as president of an EAA chapter, he knew better, and
>> decided that the rules didn't apply to him.
>>
>> It makes me mad. Incidents like this give us all a black eye.
>
>
>I disagree. It gives EAA types a black eye.

I agree with you, but in the eyes of the lay public, it affects all
airmen.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 1:43 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote:
> > "Peter R." > wrote
>
> > > Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in
> > > Central
> > > NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of their
> > > just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited family and
> > > friends to witness this first flight.
>
> > > According to the news article, the pilot/president was a former B-52 pilot
> > > during the Vietnam war and had spent the last two years building the
> > > Lancair
> > > Legacy.
>
> > > From initial witness accounts speculation suggests engine failure on
> > > takeoff
> > > followed by a turning stall.
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2p9csw
>
> > Condolences, and prayers for the family.
>
> > Not to be unfeeling, but it sounds like someone who should know better
> > violated two rules, generally accepted by the homebuilt community.
>
> > First, why was there family at the airport? It is said that this makes a
> > person have extra pressure to take off, ready or not, and is hard on the
> > family if things go badly.
>
> > Two, why the HELL where there two people on board? Regulations do not allow
> > a passenger on the first 25 or 50 hours, depending on the assigned test
> > period. One more person and his family experienced tragedy, needlessly.
>
> > Do you know if he did a full power test, (for what is it, that is
> > recommended - 2 or 5 minutes?) with the nose up as high as takeoff and climb
> > attitude would be?
>
> > It seems as though this is an often skipped test, that is probably the most
> > important pre-flight test that exists. I hope that is not the case.
>
> I echo the condolences to all involved.
>
> That said, I was in a chapter in CA that had three fatalities two on the
> respective first flights. In both of those the builders/pilots were
> secretive about their planes and did not invite other chapter members to
> view the planes before the first flight. Both planes had fatal flaws.
>
> The third had an engine problem and attempted flight anyway.
>
> Another man here did an auto conversion in a Mustang II (both very
> crude) and had an engine failure, despite other's warnings not to fly.
> He apparently had a V-belt fail, which flailed about the engine
> compartment and took out the ignition wiring. The forced landing in a
> golf course was fatal.
>
> Better results occurred with a friend who built an RV-4. He was doing
> taxi tests and reported control/response anomalies to a friend and
> myself. We recognized the anomalies and asked to see the plane before it
> flew. Between us, we spotted 60 discrepancies -- some minor -- some
> major and safety threatening, such as a fuel line too near an exhaust
> pipe and throttle/mixture controls mounted on am aluminum plate subject
> to vibration/fatigue failure. He corrected all and went on to many happy
> hours in the plane.
>
> PLEASE, GUYS! Before you fly (or even taxi test) get as many sets of
> eyeballs as you can to inspect, critique, improve your handiwork!
>
> It is not a reflection on you if something is wrong!
>
> It is a reflection on your friends that they care enough to try to keep
> you around to enjoy your company!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And pack those parachutes !!

[Peter R.]

On 4/15/2007 12:09:12 PM, "Peter R." wrote:

> Yesterday (Saturday) the president of our local EAA chapter here in
> Central NY (USA) and a passenger were killed during the first takeoff of
> their just-completed Lancair Legacy aircraft. Sadly they had invited
> family and friends to witness this first flight.

An update: Tonight after returning to my home field I spoke briefly with a
source who witnessed this accident. The source stated that the engine of the
airplane was not running right as the aircraft taxied by the small crowd that
was invited to watch the flight. There was no at-length run-up performed
before takeoff.

Additionally, preliminary investigation discovered metal, corkscrew-shaped
shavings throughout the fuel system. The engine was brand new/ According to
this witness, it appeared that after engine failure during takeoff, the pilot
did attempt a turn-back to the airport but stalled and spun the aircraft in.

Preliminary accident report is here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070424X00449&key=1


--
Peter

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> The source stated that the engine of the
> airplane was not running right as the aircraft taxied by the small crowd that
> was invited to watch the flight. There was no at-length run-up performed
> before takeoff.

Stuff like that, if true, simply blows my mind.

Yet we hear and read it again and again...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. ..
> Peter R. wrote:
>> The source stated that the engine of the
>> airplane was not running right as the aircraft taxied by the small crowd
>> that
>> was invited to watch the flight. There was no at-length run-up performed
>> before takeoff.
>
> Stuff like that, if true, simply blows my mind.
>
> Yet we hear and read it again and again...

Yep. I hope that a record of this whole incident is kept as a record of
what not to do for an airplane's first flight.

Let's see; what can we list, so far.

*Taking a second, unnecessary person along during the testing period.
*Not performing a nose high (climb attitude) extended full power engine test
run.
*Adding to the pressure of taking off on a certain time and place, because
of an invited, interested, significant
person crowd being present for first flight.
*Allowing contaminants to be present in the fuel system.
*Not doing a runup before first flight.
*Taking off with a rough running engine.
*Attempting to do the deadly "return to the runway turn" at too low of an
altitude.

[Peter R.]

On 4/27/2007 10:57:56 AM, "Morgans" wrote:

> Yep. I hope that a record of this whole incident is kept as a record of
> what not to do for an airplane's first flight.

I failed to mention previously that there were at least two if not more video
clips of the entire ill-fated flight so I am hopeful the NTSB will be able to
come to a confident conclusion as to the cause of this accident.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 8:57 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in gy.net...
>
> > Peter R. wrote:
> >> The source stated that the engine of the
> >> airplane was not running right as the aircraft taxied by the small crowd
> >> that
> >> was invited to watch the flight. There was no at-length run-up performed
> >> before takeoff.
>
> > Stuff like that, if true, simply blows my mind.
>
> > Yet we hear and read it again and again...
>
> Yep. I hope that a record of this whole incident is kept as a record of
> what not to do for an airplane's first flight.
>
> Let's see; what can we list, so far.
>
> *Taking a second, unnecessary person along during the testing period.
> *Not performing a nose high (climb attitude) extended full power engine test
> run.
> *Adding to the pressure of taking off on a certain time and place, because
> of an invited, interested, significant
> person crowd being present for first flight.
> *Allowing contaminants to be present in the fuel system.
> *Not doing a runup before first flight.
> *Taking off with a rough running engine.
> *Attempting to do the deadly "return to the runway turn" at too low of an
> altitude.

Man, even back when I was flying RC planes a lot, I always did a full
power extended engine test before flying a new model, and would tilt
the nose of the plane up, and down through the vertical to make sure
that it wouldn't cut out. That was all just to keep from wrecking a
plane that I had put lots of hours into. Now if my ass was going in
the plane that I had just built, I would want to be at least as
thorough in confirming that the engine was running reliably, and I
would wring out the flight controls and double inspect all structural
elements, and invite as many experienced builders to do the same as I
could find willing to help me...

I just can't understand why anyone would do anything less.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Man, even back when I was flying RC planes a lot, I always did a full
> power extended engine test before flying a new model, and would tilt
> the nose of the plane up, and down through the vertical to make sure
> that it wouldn't cut out.

I used to fly a lot of r/c, as well! I know exactly what you're
talking about.

How many times have you seen someone faff with a poorly running engine
for 1/2 hour+, then fly it anyway, resulting in a destroyed model? <G>
I've seen it far more often than I care to remember.

You'd think in a full scale craft people would be more aware of the
consequences.

[Al G[_2_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 27, 8:57 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in
>> gy.net...
>>
>> > Peter R. wrote:
>> >> The source stated that the engine of the
>> >> airplane was not running right as the aircraft taxied by the small
>> >> crowd
>> >> that
>> >> was invited to watch the flight. There was no at-length run-up
>> >> performed
>> >> before takeoff.
>>
>> > Stuff like that, if true, simply blows my mind.
>>
>> > Yet we hear and read it again and again...
>>
>> Yep. I hope that a record of this whole incident is kept as a record of
>> what not to do for an airplane's first flight.
>>
>> Let's see; what can we list, so far.
>>
>> *Taking a second, unnecessary person along during the testing period.
>> *Not performing a nose high (climb attitude) extended full power engine
>> test
>> run.
>> *Adding to the pressure of taking off on a certain time and place,
>> because
>> of an invited, interested, significant
>> person crowd being present for first flight.
>> *Allowing contaminants to be present in the fuel system.
>> *Not doing a runup before first flight.
>> *Taking off with a rough running engine.
>> *Attempting to do the deadly "return to the runway turn" at too low of an
>> altitude.
>
> Man, even back when I was flying RC planes a lot, I always did a full
> power extended engine test before flying a new model, and would tilt
> the nose of the plane up, and down through the vertical to make sure
> that it wouldn't cut out. That was all just to keep from wrecking a
> plane that I had put lots of hours into. Now if my ass was going in
> the plane that I had just built, I would want to be at least as
> thorough in confirming that the engine was running reliably, and I
> would wring out the flight controls and double inspect all structural
> elements, and invite as many experienced builders to do the same as I
> could find willing to help me...
>
> I just can't understand why anyone would do anything less.
>

Also, the EAA has a very successful Flight Advisor Program. Where were
they? Would the Pilot not accept the advice? As you have all said, too
many
things wrong.

Al G
EAA Flight Advisor