Lancair IV-P Down In San Diego

Ugh not that any crash is good but these kind of stories really hit the gut. So very sad.
 
Sad :(

The IV-Ps require a lot of discipline.
 
Looking at the pic. it almost looks like a flat spin, as the spinner, cowling and prop look intact and not damaged... Maybe it was the way it hit the hillside though....

Still..... A sad day..:sad::sad::sad:
 
JimNtexas said:
This sounds very similar to the Lancair crash that killed my AME.
Click to expand...

Sad deal there too.......
The NTSB report does contain a small error though..


N11001 (serial number 153), a Lancair Laser IV-P, was built by the ATP pilot. Construction began in December 1992 and was completed in December 1994. The first flight occurred on December 28, 1994, and the airplane received its Certificate of Airworthiness in the Experimental Category on January 23, 1995. The airplane was powered by a Continental TSIO-520-B2B engine (serial number 637582A958), rated at 550 horsepower, driving a Hartzell 3-blade, all-metal, constant-speed propeller (model number HC-H3YF-1).
 
Geico266 said:
The FAA put out an advisory about that very same thing.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, people just look at the numbers and not what it takes to be a pilot capable of handling those numbers.

Of course, not all fast planes are necessarily unforgiving, but the IV-P is much like an MU-2 in that regard.
 
By that do you mean that the pilot must be adequately trained in the operation of the plane and then fly it like he has been trained?

Ted DuPuis said:
Unfortunately, people just look at the numbers and not what it takes to be a pilot capable of handling those numbers.

Of course, not all fast planes are necessarily unforgiving, but the IV-P is much like an MU-2 in that regard.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Unfortunately, people just look at the numbers and not what it takes to be a pilot capable of handling those numbers.

Of course, not all fast planes are necessarily unforgiving, but the IV-P is much like an MU-2 in that regard.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ted........

The IV-P is a razor edged toy.. It can be a blast to fly... but stepping over the fine line will lead to something REAL ugly...

Very similar to Dragstars, Hydro's and ground effect racing cars...... When they are working perfectly they are a hoot to drive....
 
wabower said:
By that do you mean that the pilot must be adequately trained in the operation of the plane and then fly it like he has been trained?
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's a novel concept in aviation. I wonder if it'll ever catch on.
 
Good grief, wasn't it just about a year ago that another AZ family was killed departing MYF?
 
N801BH said:
I agree with Ted........

The IV-P is a razor edged toy.. It can be a blast to fly... but stepping over the fine line will lead to something REAL ugly...

Very similar to Dragstars, Hydro's and ground effect racing cars...... When they are working perfectly they are a hoot to drive....
Click to expand...

I dont get it. Whats so hard about keeping the pointy end facing the relative wind?

Not sarcastic
 
bbchien said:
....which is mostly missing from general aviation.....
Click to expand...

Agreed. :(

Jaybird180 said:
I dont get it. Whats so hard about keeping the pointy end facing the relative wind?

Not sarcastic
Click to expand...

The big issue IV-Ps have is that they have very bad stall/spin characteristics, and require precise attention to airspeed when landing. A lack of discipline in a 172 in this manner usually won't kill you. In a IV-P, it often does. There seems to be one of these a year, maybe a few more.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I dont get it. Whats so hard about keeping the pointy end facing the relative wind?

Not sarcastic
Click to expand...


The IV-P is is probably the least difficult as all you need is proper airspeed to keep the wing flying and not stall.....

The Dragster is next in the problematic range as it is designed to go straight.. Any turning is not its nature....

The Hydro is designed to go straight fast and turn to the left. Any right turn is a barrel roll in the making.. Also throw in the constant changing of the surface you are racing on.. No lap is the same,, they ALWAYS are different..

The ground effect racing cars are probably the most unforgiving vehicles out there... So bad that most, if not all sactioning bodies have outlawed them... For the uninformed... They are basically a upside down airplane wing, with the incoming air fed through the opening under the FRONT of the car.. It passed by the airfoil that the bottom of the car is shaped like.. On the side pods of the car are "wipers" that scuff the ground and those prevent the air that enters the front from "leaking" out the sides and direct it past the inverted airfoil , out the diffuser, which in the rear of the car, and hence you are (stuck) to the ground REAL good... Get the car slightly sideways and break that perfect airflow under the car and it is like turning off a magnet instantly. You go from hooked to the track to unstuck in about .001 of a second... What kills drivers and spectators is when a driver tries to correct the skid and counter steers into it. If it rehooks, then whatever way you are pointed, you are headed. Usually it is either the guardrail or the grandstands... Both with fatal results......

The Gordon Smiley crash at Indy pretty much iced the cake on ditching ground effect cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
 
Last edited:
I wonder, razors edge, it sounds like the safety thresholds on this model would be outside a type certificated aircraft? That is exactly what I mean when I say you are paying for safety with a Type Certificated aircraft.

I could be wrong but that is my hunch.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I wonder, razors edge, it sounds like the safety thresholds on this model would be outside a type certificated aircraft? That is exactly what I mean when I say you are paying for safety with a Type Certificated aircraft.

I could be wrong but that is my hunch.
Click to expand...

Yup............ That is the price you pay going the experimental route.. Especially the high speed airframes.....
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I wonder, razors edge, it sounds like the safety thresholds on this model would be outside a type certificated aircraft? That is exactly what I mean when I say you are paying for safety with a Type Certificated aircraft.

I could be wrong but that is my hunch.
Click to expand...

N801BH said:
Yup............ That is the price you pay going the experimental route.. Especially the high speed airframes.....
Click to expand...

Yup no one ever dies in a certificated airplane. :rolleyes:

It's training, not the airframe. Any airplane flown outside of the design performance envelope is going to bite hard. Some more than others.
 
Geico266 said:
Yup no one ever dies in a certificated airplane. :rolleyes:

It's training, not the airframe. Any airplane flown outside of the design performance envelope is going to bite hard. Some more than others.
Click to expand...
Is it not a combination of both?
 
It's a moot point when the airplane couldn't be certified anywhere on the planet.

Geico266 said:
Yup no one ever dies in a certificated airplane. :rolleyes:

It's training, not the airframe. Any airplane flown outside of the design performance envelope is going to bite hard. Some more than others.
Click to expand...
 
As I've posted before, the percentage of Lancair IV accidents due to pilot handling errors isn't that much different from the RV series. I just updated my database to include 14 years of NTSB reports. About 35% of Lancair IV accidents (17/48) were due to the pilot mishandling the aircraft, vs. 36% of RVs (141/381).

However, when you look just at fatal accidents, the numbers are quite a bit different. About 22% of RV fatals (24/108) are due to pilot miscontrol, vs 33% (8/24) for Lancair IVs. This can be attributed to a number of factors, such as airframe crashworthiness and the speeds of the aircraft. However, it's also possible that the RV designs are easier to re-gain control; that more pilots are getting the planes half-stabilized prior to impact.

It's interesting to note that this difference is between, basically, a single type (e.g., Lancair IV airframe) vs. ALL the RV types. Comparing it with a single Vans airframe (the RV-6 and 6A, for instance) the difference isn't as marked... 31% of RV-6/6A fatals (16/51) were pilot miscontrol. This is very close to the Lancair IV's 33%.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
As I've posted before, the percentage of Lancair IV accidents due to pilot handling errors isn't that much different from the RV series. I just updated my database to include 14 years of NTSB reports. About 35% of Lancair IV accidents (17/48) were due to the pilot mishandling the aircraft, vs. 36% of RVs (141/381).

However, when you look just at fatal accidents, the numbers are quite a bit different. About 22% of RV fatals (24/108) are due to pilot miscontrol, vs 33% (8/24) for Lancair IVs. This can be attributed to a number of factors, such as airframe crashworthiness and the speeds of the aircraft. However, it's also possible that the RV designs are easier to re-gain control; that more pilots are getting the planes half-stabilized prior to impact.

It's interesting to note that this difference is between, basically, a single type (e.g., Lancair IV airframe) vs. ALL the RV types. Comparing it with a single Vans airframe (the RV-6 and 6A, for instance) the difference isn't as marked... 31% of RV-6/6A fatals (16/51) were pilot miscontrol. This is very close to the Lancair IV's 33%.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Ron,

Does your data give any sense of the phases of flight in which the accidents occurred?

Lancairs are more likely fly an airliner profile - take off, cruise climb, scorch along at altitude, descend, and land. That profile should offer less exposure than the RV's doing formation, aerobatics, short grass fields, etc.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I wonder, razors edge, it sounds like the safety thresholds on this model would be outside a type certificated aircraft? That is exactly what I mean when I say you are paying for safety with a Type Certificated aircraft.

I could be wrong but that is my hunch.
Click to expand...

The IV-P is an airplane that is very far outside of what is allowed to be certified. I don't know all of the details of what exactly, but a summary would be response to control inputs, spin recovery, stall recovery, etc. It's just a bad package all around. One IV-P owner I talked to was a former U-2 pilot. He stalled his once (intentionally) and it did a split S on him. He recovered, installed an AoA indicator, and said "I just make sure I don't do that anymore."

Lancair is capable of making certifiable aircraft. Remember the Coumbia/Corvallis was originally a Lancair design, and my understanding is the Evolution was designed to be certifiable as well. I've flown the iE2-powered Evolution and I found it to be very easy to fly. While I didn't try stalling it, the test pilot I was with said that it stalled like a 172. I find that hard to believe, but if it stalls like a Bonanza, then that's fine.

The IV-P was designed to be an all-out speed demon, much like the Swearingen SX300. In the pursuit of that, they ended up with an aircraft that is intolerant to icing and has poor stall characteristics. It also has the glide ratio of a brick.

Certified doesn't mean that you are paying for safety and idiot-proofing necessarily, though. The Duke and Aerostar are both notorious for difficult OEI performance, and the MU-2 was known for killing a number of pilots for what amounts to the same reasons - lack of discipline. I don't think too many IV-Ps have fallen apart because they were assembled incorrectly, I think it's mostly been due to pilots trying to fly through a thunderstorm at FL250. Bad move.

I wouldn't shy away from buying a IV-P if it fit our mission. But I would also have some pretty significant personal minimums, especially with respect to field length with it.
 
Ted, the problems with the MU-2 weren't with the airplane or crew discipline, but from lack of training. Since the type-specific requirements were enacted the plane is no longer one of the most dangerous but has become one of the safest. in terms of accident rates.

I don't know what has transpired with the Duke since the turbines were installed, but would be interested if anybody has the data.

Ted DuPuis said:
The IV-P is an airplane that is very far outside of what is allowed to be certified. I don't know all of the details of what exactly, but a summary would be response to control inputs, spin recovery, stall recovery, etc. It's just a bad package all around. One IV-P owner I talked to was a former U-2 pilot. He stalled his once (intentionally) and it did a split S on him. He recovered, installed an AoA indicator, and said "I just make sure I don't do that anymore."

Lancair is capable of making certifiable aircraft. Remember the Coumbia/Corvallis was originally a Lancair design, and my understanding is the Evolution was designed to be certifiable as well. I've flown the iE2-powered Evolution and I found it to be very easy to fly. While I didn't try stalling it, the test pilot I was with said that it stalled like a 172. I find that hard to believe, but if it stalls like a Bonanza, then that's fine.

The IV-P was designed to be an all-out speed demon, much like the Swearingen SX300. In the pursuit of that, they ended up with an aircraft that is intolerant to icing and has poor stall characteristics. It also has the glide ratio of a brick.

Certified doesn't mean that you are paying for safety and idiot-proofing necessarily, though. The Duke and Aerostar are both notorious for difficult OEI performance, and the MU-2 was known for killing a number of pilots for what amounts to the same reasons - lack of discipline. I don't think too many IV-Ps have fallen apart because they were assembled incorrectly, I think it's mostly been due to pilots trying to fly through a thunderstorm at FL250. Bad move.

I wouldn't shy away from buying a IV-P if it fit our mission. But I would also have some pretty significant personal minimums, especially with respect to field length with it.
Click to expand...
 
wanttaja said:
As I've posted before, the percentage of Lancair IV accidents due to pilot handling errors isn't that much different from the RV series. I just updated my database to include 14 years of NTSB reports. About 35% of Lancair IV accidents (17/48) were due to the pilot mishandling the aircraft, vs. 36% of RVs (141/381).

However, when you look just at fatal accidents, the numbers are quite a bit different. About 22% of RV fatals (24/108) are due to pilot miscontrol, vs 33% (8/24) for Lancair IVs. This can be attributed to a number of factors, such as airframe crashworthiness and the speeds of the aircraft. However, it's also possible that the RV designs are easier to re-gain control; that more pilots are getting the planes half-stabilized prior to impact.

It's interesting to note that this difference is between, basically, a single type (e.g., Lancair IV airframe) vs. ALL the RV types. Comparing it with a single Vans airframe (the RV-6 and 6A, for instance) the difference isn't as marked... 31% of RV-6/6A fatals (16/51) were pilot miscontrol. This is very close to the Lancair IV's 33%.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I wonder about the experience level of the pilots of both aircraft types. Seems from casual observation that the IV pilots are usually very experienced with commercial/military backgrounds. That is one of the things that speaks to me about the unforgiving nature of the aircraft.
 
wabower said:
Ted, the problems with the MU-2 weren't with the airplane or crew discipline, but from lack of training. Since the type-specific requirements were enacted the plane is no longer one of the most dangerous but has become one of the safest. in terms of accident rates.
Click to expand...

Certainly the IV-P will never be considered one of the safest aircraft regardless of training, but without an SFAR like the MU-2, the only required training is based on insurance. So in that instance, I see some comparison. You also see a typically higher experience level with pilots operating a turbine pressurized twin like an MU-2 than you'd necessarily see with a Lancair, even though the Lancair warrants that same high level of experience. It seems that the more experienced pilots tend to have better discipline required, likely in large part due to flying other aircraft that may have unforgiving characteristics.

Obviously you'd know better than me, but weren't there also a number of people who were buying MU-2s for a while because they were cheap and then flying them with little/no training, and likely minimal experience/discipline?

I understand your point, but I think there is a comparison to be made.

I don't know what has transpired with the Duke since the turbines were installed, but would be interested if anybody has the data.
Click to expand...

Don't know either, but if they have auto-feather, that would surely help.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I wonder about the experience level of the pilots of both aircraft types. Seems from casual observation that the IV pilots are usually very experienced with commercial/military backgrounds. That is one of the things that speaks to me about the unforgiving nature of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

What are the backgrounds on the people who kill themselves with IV-Ps?
 
kyleb said:
Ron,

Does your data give any sense of the phases of flight in which the accidents occurred?

Lancairs are more likely fly an airliner profile - take off, cruise climb, scorch along at altitude, descend, and land. That profile should offer less exposure than the RV's doing formation, aerobatics, short grass fields, etc.
Click to expand...
There is a "Phase of Flight" parameter, but it's hard to use. It often refers to what was happening immediately prior to impact, so there are multiple cases of "Descent - Uncontrolled". Which, looking at the narrative, could mean initial climb, maneuvering, or cruise.

For the 24 Lancair IV fatals, the "Phase of Flight" breakdown is:

Approach - VFR: 2
Approach: 1 (no VFR or IFR specified)
Climb: 2
Cruise: 4
Descent - Uncontrolled: 3
Emergency Descent: 1
Emergency Landing: 1
Landing - Aborted: 1
Maneuvering: 2
Takeoff - Initial climb: 3

The rest are blank.

RV-6/6A fatals, 51 total:

Approach - VFR: 2
Approach: 2 (no VFR or IFR specified)
Cruise: 4
Descent: 2
Emergency Landing: 1
Landing: 4
Landing - Roll: 1
Maneuvering: 9
Manuevering - Turn to landing: 1
Maneuvering - turn to reverse: 1 (looks like the impossible turn - DEN03FA114)
Takeoff - Initial climb: 4

The rest are blank.

For the "Maneuvering" ones, five occurred at low altitude, one is a midair.

I've never found the "Phase of flight" parameter that much use, and about three years ago, the NTSB changed its file format and my old filters don't work anymore. Guess I should see if I can fix that.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What are the backgrounds on the people who kill themselves with IV-Ps?
Click to expand...

I haven't done deep research on Lancair IV's like Ron. All I'm saying is that from casual observation they often seem to have very experienced pilots when they go down, which leads me to believe the aircraft itself is hard to handle.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What are the backgrounds on the people who kill themselves with IV-Ps?
Click to expand...
Out of 19 fatal Lancair IVP accidents:

Private: 9
Commercial: 7
ATP: 2

Lowest number of total flight hours was 700. Median flight hours was 1900. Median for the Private Pilots was 1705. Time in type was not available in every case, but ranged from a low of 18 hours to a high of 1,000. Median time in type was 109 hours, but only about half the cases included a value.

Ron Wanttaja
 
This can be attributed to a number of factors, such as airframe crashworthiness and the speeds of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Ron, you're the man when it comes to the statistics of crash frequency etc. If you would, allow me to add some comments on the "severity"/survivability end of things. It is worth noting that, while neither of those designs (Lancair or RV) is exactly what one could call "good" when it comes to crashworthiness, I have yet to see a Lancair crash (other than an incident during taxi or rollout) with serious or fatal injury that did not involve one or all of the occupants being thrown out of the aircraft. The Lancair makes a Cirrus look like the picture of crash survivability which is saying something...

I don't think too many IV-Ps have fallen apart because they were assembled incorrectly, I think it's mostly been due to pilots trying to fly through a thunderstorm at FL250. Bad move.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Vermontville, Michigan crash, I got to see the end result of that in the form of photos of the scene and the autopsy report. It was a hell of a mess.
 
Last edited:
The Moos were/are different in many ways, and lack of training led to the demise of pilots of all rank and odor. The fact that they were cheap and available to owners who probably shouldn't have been flying them obviously contributed to the accident rates. Many of the problems stemmed from the use of spoilers rather than ailerons, which resulted in the need for different control inputs during OEI ops. Once pilots were forced to understand the differences the airplane became just another turboprop.

Ted DuPuis said:
Certainly the IV-P will never be considered one of the safest aircraft regardless of training, but without an SFAR like the MU-2, the only required training is based on insurance. So in that instance, I see some comparison. You also see a typically higher experience level with pilots operating a turbine pressurized twin like an MU-2 than you'd necessarily see with a Lancair, even though the Lancair warrants that same high level of experience. It seems that the more experienced pilots tend to have better discipline required, likely in large part due to flying other aircraft that may have unforgiving characteristics.

Obviously you'd know better than me, but weren't there also a number of people who were buying MU-2s for a while because they were cheap and then flying them with little/no training, and likely minimal experience/discipline?

I understand your point, but I think there is a comparison to be made.



Don't know either, but if they have auto-feather, that would surely help.
Click to expand...
 
The Moos were/are different in many ways, and lack of training led to the demise of pilots of all rank and odor. The fact that they were cheap and available to owners who probably shouldn't have been flying them obviously contributed to the accident rates. Many of the problems stemmed from the use of spoilers rather than ailerons, which resulted in the need for different control inputs during OEI ops. Once pilots were forced to understand the differences the airplane became just another turboprop.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there also a string of crashes in the MU-2 fleet due to issues with the deicing system back in the early 1980s? I seem to recall something about crashes in both the US and Australia due to this but don't recall the specifics.
 
Dunno.
SteveinIndy said:
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there also a string of crashes in the MU-2 fleet due to issues with the deicing system back in the early 1980s? I seem to recall something about crashes in both the US and Australia due to this but don't recall the specifics.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top