NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident

"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 a 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

"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

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 a 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.

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?...LA207& 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

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

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

"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

"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?...LA207& 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

"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

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.