RV-8 crash

NTBS prelim report on RV-8 crash at College Place, WA, 1 April.

From prelim data looks like lost power after T/O and tied to make a
180 back to field?

My condolances to family.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````


NTBS Quote

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On April 1, 2004, approximately 1138 Pacific standard time, a
Davenport (Van's) RV-8F homebuilt experimental aircraft, N284DM,
registered to and being flown/operated by a commercial pilot sustained
substantial damage during an in-flight collision with terrain
following a loss of power on initial climb at College Place,
Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and there was no post-crash
fire. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had
been filed. The flight, which was personal, originated from Martin
Field, College Place, Washington, approximately 1135 and was destined
for Walla Walla, Washington.

A companion pilot, who departed in a separate aircraft immediately
after N284DM, reported that the accident aircraft departed on runway
23 and commenced a climbing right turn. The companion pilot departed
immediately thereafter and during his climbing right turn he passed
the accident aircraft noting that the aircraft was decelerating and
descending back toward Martin Field. Although both pilots were in
radio communication with one another the companion pilot heard no
radio transmissions from the pilot of the accident aircraft following
his departure.

The aircraft impacted flat terrain in a flat attitude between runway
23 and Whitman Drive, which runs parallel to the runway approximately
500 feet north of the field. The wreckage distribution covered
approximately 25-30 feet of ground slide toward the southwest.

how big is an RV8 - or small ?
he impacted flat terrain and in a flat attitude but still died.

Big John wrote:

NTBS prelim report on RV-8 crash at College Place, WA, 1 April.

From prelim data looks like lost power after T/O and tied to make a
180 back to field?

My condolances to family.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````

NTBS Quote

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On April 1, 2004, approximately 1138 Pacific standard time, a
Davenport (Van's) RV-8F homebuilt experimental aircraft, N284DM,
registered to and being flown/operated by a commercial pilot sustained
substantial damage during an in-flight collision with terrain
following a loss of power on initial climb at College Place,
Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and there was no post-crash
fire. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had
been filed. The flight, which was personal, originated from Martin
Field, College Place, Washington, approximately 1135 and was destined
for Walla Walla, Washington.

A companion pilot, who departed in a separate aircraft immediately
after N284DM, reported that the accident aircraft departed on runway
23 and commenced a climbing right turn. The companion pilot departed
immediately thereafter and during his climbing right turn he passed
the accident aircraft noting that the aircraft was decelerating and
descending back toward Martin Field. Although both pilots were in
radio communication with one another the companion pilot heard no
radio transmissions from the pilot of the accident aircraft following
his departure.

The aircraft impacted flat terrain in a flat attitude between runway
23 and Whitman Drive, which runs parallel to the runway approximately
500 feet north of the field. The wreckage distribution covered
approximately 25-30 feet of ground slide toward the southwest.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
how big is an RV8 - or small ?
he impacted flat terrain and in a flat attitude but still died.

Big John wrote:

NTBS prelim report on RV-8 crash at College Place, WA, 1 April.

From prelim data looks like lost power after T/O and tied to make a
180 back to field?

My condolances to family.

Big John

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````

NTBS Quote

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On April 1, 2004, approximately 1138 Pacific standard time, a
Davenport (Van's) RV-8F homebuilt experimental aircraft, N284DM,
registered to and being flown/operated by a commercial pilot sustained
substantial damage during an in-flight collision with terrain
following a loss of power on initial climb at College Place,
Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and there was no post-crash
fire. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had
been filed. The flight, which was personal, originated from Martin
Field, College Place, Washington, approximately 1135 and was destined
for Walla Walla, Washington.

A companion pilot, who departed in a separate aircraft immediately
after N284DM, reported that the accident aircraft departed on runway
23 and commenced a climbing right turn. The companion pilot departed
immediately thereafter and during his climbing right turn he passed
the accident aircraft noting that the aircraft was decelerating and
descending back toward Martin Field. Although both pilots were in
radio communication with one another the companion pilot heard no
radio transmissions from the pilot of the accident aircraft following
his departure.

The aircraft impacted flat terrain in a flat attitude between runway
23 and Whitman Drive, which runs parallel to the runway approximately
500 feet north of the field. The wreckage distribution covered
approximately 25-30 feet of ground slide toward the southwest.


An RV-8 is a two seater, probably with an O-320 or O-360 and an empty weight
of 1100 pounds or so. The the gross is 1800 lbs. The airframe is aerobatic
and is fairly robust. I think the smoking gun might be the 25-30' ground
slide, which tells me that the airplane was falling, not flying when it hit
the ground. Odds are that the aircraft had either stalled or developed a
very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't survivable.

KB

Jeff wrote in message ...
how big is an RV8 - or small ?
he impacted flat terrain and in a flat attitude but still died.

24' wingspan
21' length
max gross 1800 lb

You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect the
usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that they
tried it and they succeeded...
Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
they will turn back - and die...
denny

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in Odds are that the
aircraft had either stalled or developed a
very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't survivable.

Good point! Just "land" straight ahead - isnt that what you were trained to
do??? It is amazing the number of people who honestly think a 180deg+
turnback is a better idea. Dennis - thanks for putting that out there.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
the
usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
they
tried it and they succeeded...
Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
they will turn back - and die...
denny

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in Odds are that the
aircraft had either stalled or developed a
very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
survivable.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect the
usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that they
tried it and they succeeded...
Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
they will turn back - and die...

That's probably because the debate is not that you "absolutely,
flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try", it's more a
question of how much altitude you need to have before you are able to
turn back and live.

As a somewhat extreme example: A few years ago I busted an exhaust
header on climbout and had to shut the engine down. I easily turned
back and glided to the runway. I even flew a pattern and slipped a
little on final. Of course, with ~3500 ft. of altitude when I shut
down the engine, I wasn't too worried about dying because I turned
back :-) It's all in the details!

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Dennis O'Connor wrote:
You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...

Idiotic stupid thing to say. You have to find the altitude that you can
make the turn in. In my 182 it is 350 feet to get back to the runway I
took off from, opposite direction. 200 feet to just do a 180 and land
on a parallel runway or taxiway. Add a certain amount for the oh ****
factor and I will turn around unconditionally at 450 feet. Less if I
have another runway or taxiway to come down on.

Im' know nothing about flying....

But here is something I do when Im driving around...particularly in bad weather
or heavy traffic....

When coming up to an intersection and the light is green or it doesnt have a
light ....Im literally thinking continously.....can still stop....can still
stop..can still stop. ....nope, cant stop now...... now I am too close or going
too fast, or the road is too slick etc etc or someone is following too
closely....must commit to going through the intesection and/or swerving around
someone....

My mentally declaring a decision point prevents a momentary mental panic should
the light change or a car appear in intersection etc etc.....so that saves some
time as far as reaction time goes.....it also prevents the classic panick and
do nothing response.....and finally it lets me choose the choice most likely to
WORK rather than in panic just choosing in a more random fashion....

Doing that sorta thing in all kinds of driving scenarios has saved me more than
once....and most likely kept me from killing a driver who pulled out of side
road right in front of me at the very last instant....

Sounds like more pilots should figure out their "altitude of no return" and
make a it a point to consciously decide when they have passed that point and a
different emergency response other than "do a 180 quick" is appropriate....

take care

Blll

Bull S^&*

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
the
usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
they
tried it and they succeeded...
Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
they will turn back - and die...
denny

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in Odds are that the
aircraft had either stalled or developed a
very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
survivable.