Lancair down at VNY

How could that have happened? I'd imagine there would have been plenty of damage on the wings if the plane stalled onto the ground.
 
Does the Lancair 320 have a special experimental certificate that allows it to operate over populated areas?
 
Ugh, I listened to that, fortunately nothing graphic, but I couldn't figure out from the tape the exact timing of the jet release before the Lancair departure, but sure seemed close enough to be a possible factor.

Folks, if you aren't **sure** if you're going to be clear of the wake, WAIT!
 
labbadabba said:
Does the Lancair 320 have a special experimental certificate that allows it to operate over populated areas?
Click to expand...

My E-LSA Limitations prohibit flight "over densely populated areas or in congested airways...

...unless directed by air traffic control, or unless sufficient altitude altitude is maintained to affect a safe emergency landing in the event of a engine power unit failure, without undue hazard to persons or property on the ground."

Can't say if the Lancair is similar, but the language seems like boilerplate to me.

Bear in mind, that sounds a lot like the language in 91.119 which applies anywhere...

"(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

So for all practical purposes, a distinction without a difference, as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
Never good may he rest in peace.
 
RIP.

Engine quit abruptly according to witnesses. That points towards sudden mechanical failure. And just like the Aerostar the Lancair has a fast and thin wing, which is not in your favour in engine out scenarios.
 
labbadabba said:
Does the Lancair 320 have a special experimental certificate that allows it to operate over populated areas?
Click to expand...
About ten years ago, the FAA started issuing Operating Limitations without the prohibition on operating over congested areas, except for Phase 1 testing.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Looking at the posted picture from the second post of this thread, the prop shows no damage. Appears to be an engine out situation.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 156
Last edited:
Several of the local news stations in LA have their articles showing the victim in the plane before he was covered up. No blurring. ?!?

Anyway, it's now reported he was a University of Arizona professor who worked for NASA JPL. Flew in from Scottsdale (where he's based) to VNY on the 6th.
 
Looking up N7ZL on Flightaware, someone changed the aircraft pic to pics of the wreck... Not sure if that's too appropriate.
 
stratobee said:
And just like the Aerostar the Lancair has a fast and thin wing, which is not in your favour in engine out scenarios.
Click to expand...

This and the fiberglass construction, is what keeps me out of these fantastic airplanes. I really don't want to end up like this guy... mostly for the sake of my wife. I believe that airplane engines quit more often than people say. I would like a better chance of survival.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Several of the local news stations in LA have their articles showing the victim in the plane before he was covered up. No blurring. ?!?

Anyway, it's now reported he was a University of Arizona professor who worked for NASA JPL. Flew in from Scottsdale (where he's based) to VNY on the 6th.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything that was identifiable..
 
Not a good end to 2014 and a bad start for 2015 for GA accidents fatalities. Some seem to be pilot errors, some mechanical. Lets do what we do and keep it safe. Every Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Sounds like wake turbulence wasn't the cause, but I moved away from KVNY to KWHP for my plane. It always amazed me how many GA pilots ignore the wake turbulence warnings there. Maybe it's because they are so frequent. Whenever I heard it, I held for 3 minutes, or extended downwind considerably in collaboration with tower. Adds up on the Hobbs.

If it was just an engine out, there are good options for a forced landing...big golf course. Yes, there are trees and a road, but in at least a good number of cases, pilots should be able to dodge the trees, do a controlled flare, and be done with it.

That aside, hopefully we can all learn something from this tragedy. RIP.
 
This isn't going to do much good for Van Nuys staying open.
 
I don't know the area. I don't know what altitude he reached. Reading the reports of the plane coming down at a steep angle (and seeing pics of an undamaged prop) I think of stall / spin secondary to engine failure.

I wonder what speed he was climbing at. If he was climbing relatively slowly at say 90-100 kts and the engine failed, how long would it take to recognize the engine failure and react to it? What would his speed decrease to?
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Sounds like wake turbulence wasn't the cause, but I moved away from KVNY to KWHP for my plane. It always amazed me how many GA pilots ignore the wake turbulence warnings there. Maybe it's because they are so frequent. Whenever I heard it, I held for 3 minutes, or extended downwind considerably in collaboration with tower. Adds up on the Hobbs.

If it was just an engine out, there are good options for a forced landing...big golf course. Yes, there are trees and a road, but in at least a good number of cases, pilots should be able to dodge the trees, do a controlled flare, and be done with it.

That aside, hopefully we can all learn something from this tragedy. RIP.
Click to expand...

Looking at the ground scar direction(on right xw for 16R), he may have been trying to make the impossible turn. It did appear he kept the wings somewhat level and may have nosed over trying to avoid power lines. Yes, the golf course straight ahead may have been a better choice. Easy for me to say, warm and cozy on the couch. Like the Piper Seneca crash, it can happen to even the most experienced guys, both CFI's/high timers. Be careful, practice those engine outs, know your go/no-go altitude for returning to the field before shoving the throttle in.
 
dans2992 said:
If VNY and SMO both close, that would be a big problem!
Click to expand...

Is VNY in trouble? I know SMO is, but I haven't heard much about VNY one way or the other...
 
N801BH said:
ALL airports are in trouble..
Click to expand...

That's a good point. But some are in worse shape than others, and I didn't think VNY was on the chopping block quite yet.
 
RV10flyer said:
Looking at the ground scar direction(on right xw for 16R), he may have been trying to make the impossible turn. It did appear he kept the wings somewhat level and may have nosed over trying to avoid power lines. Yes, the golf course straight ahead may have been a better choice. Easy for me to say, warm and cozy on the couch. Like the Piper Seneca crash, it can happen to even the most experienced guys, both CFI's/high timers. Be careful, practice those engine outs, know your go/no-go altitude for returning to the field before shoving the throttle in.
Click to expand...


And that is the troubling part when reading about these accidents. He was an A&P as well.
 
RV10flyer said:
Looking at the ground scar direction(on right xw for 16R), he may have been trying to make the impossible turn.
Click to expand...

I kind of doubt it was the impossible turn. Looks a lot more like a basic engine failure followed by stall/spin.

Look at that prop. Not a scratch. It was not turning...not even windmilling suggesting possible engine seizure. If he was doing a high performance climb (perhaps attempting to avoid potential wake turbulence) and the engine suddenly seized, if he did not immediately PUSH the nose down, a stall spin would be very likely.
 
I did not say the cause for his wanting to return, but yes I do agree the engine was not turning. I would say he was aiming for that street at a very high descent rate as there are not many choices once you start a turn to the right. I guess it is also possible that during the LOC, that is where he ended up.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
If it was just an engine out, there are good options for a forced landing...big golf course. Yes, there are trees and a road, but in at least a good number of cases, pilots should be able to dodge the trees, do a controlled flare, and be done with it.
Click to expand...

You really need to consider this airplane's flight characteristics. It lands at a 152's cruise speed. If you slow it down close to it's stall speed, it sinks like a brick. Keep the speed up and you can glide longer, but things are coming at you quicker. Choices are, horizontally fast, or vertically fast. If the airplane hits the ground hard, it explodes.

This is not an engine out in a 172. IMO, his aircraft choice stacked the odds against him in this scenario assuming it was an engine failure.
 
"One witness said the plane was apparently spiraling before it crashed."
 
"The engine wasn't on at all," said Cheryl Dickerson, who was with a neighbor near the crash site seconds before the crash. "He happens to look up and goes, 'Do you think he's going to make it?' I said, 'I don't know.'"
She said the plane glided silently for a few seconds before nose-diving — somehow managing to avoid hitting anyone.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ted-Near-Van-Nuys-Airport-LAFD-288087871.html

Unfortunately, the fireman was in the process of covering the body with a sheet when the photo or video still shot was taken in the above link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top