Plane Crash In Bonita Springs, FL (1/22/18) (Daniel Bernath / aka danielabernath)

[DaleB]

Off topic of the thread, but I am wondering about the fuel tank behind the passenger seat. For me that would be a deal breaker building and flying the RV-12. I would like to hear your comments. Thanks, Bill B

On-board fuel tanks are nothing new. An awful lot of older planes have them, either in front or behind the seats. I'm not thrilled about the loss of baggage space, but having the tank in the cabin is really not a problem. There were some SBs issued against older kits with some reinforcements to the tank and a couple of frangible bolts, after someone managed to rupture the bottom of the tank in an airplane vs. berm incident. If you look at how it's built, I think the tank would survive anything I did.

 

[AKBill]

If you look at how it's built, I think the tank would survive anything I did.

Thanks for your comments..

 

[unsafervguy]

Of course, since this was an RV, an experimental aircraft, he was able to do some of his own maintenance. Apparently, he was doing some of his own work on the plane. So even if this is airframe or engine related, the root cause of that failure may still be him.

I'm not sure but I believe it was a lsa version. Either way that would be his fault but not pilot error.
Bob

 

[Paulie]

On-board fuel tanks are nothing new. An awful lot of older planes have them, either in front or behind the seats. I'm not thrilled about the loss of baggage space, but having the tank in the cabin is really not a problem. There were some SBs issued against older kits with some reinforcements to the tank and a couple of frangible bolts, after someone managed to rupture the bottom of the tank in an airplane vs. berm incident. If you look at how it's built, I think the tank would survive anything I did.

The twin otter carries all it's fuel below the floor boards. All airliners have fuel below you. Not a big deal. If you hit hard enough to rupture them I doubt you'll be able to care about it.

 

[N659HB]

Most Luscombe 8As have fuselage tanks... right behind your head.

 

[FastEddieB]

Off topic of the thread, but I am wondering about the fuel tank behind the passenger seat. For me that would be a deal breaker building and flying the RV-12. I would like to hear your comments. Thanks, Bill B

My Sky Arrow carries up to 18 gals of fuel behind the passenger seat (in a tandem configuration). For whatever reason, this has never concerned me. I suppose there are some edge-case accidents where it could be a liability, but it’s far from a deal breaker for me, obviously.

Just curious, has there ever been an RV12 accident where the location of the fuel tank has caused injuries? I can’t think of any in Sky Arrows.

 

[wanttaja]

Just curious, has there ever been an RV12 accident where the location of the fuel tank has caused injuries? I can’t think of any in Sky Arrows.

I did a fast pass through the database (including both EAB and LSA RV-12s). Found 13 accidents (though one is a "RANS RV 12") . Three included post crash-fires:

CEN13CA569
ERA16FA165 (2 Fatal)
CEN17FA334 (Fatality)

The first one (non fatal) was short landing that hit a berm. The report says the gear collapsed. No details as to the status of the tank.

The second is just preliminary, but the accident itself didn't sound survivable (stall on final, aircraft cartwheeled).

The last occurred just a couple of months ago. The preliminary indicates a post-crash fire in the cabin area, but it is not known at this time whether the crash was survivable.

A tank *behind* the seats should be pretty well protected.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[mscard88]

don't you HMMM me! I will not be 'hmmmd' !

He said hmmm , not hummer....

 

[DaleB]

The first one (non fatal) was short landing that hit a berm. The report says the gear collapsed. No details as to the status of the tank.

That's the airplane vs. berm accident I mentioned above. My understanding is that the impact caused the carrythrough (a large AL extrusion to which the landing gear legs, wing spars and tank are all bolted or pinned) to twist. That caused a fuel tank breach. Van's issued a service bulletin (maybe more than one, I don't remember for sure) with reinforcement to the side skins and fuel tank, plus frangible bolts to mount the fuel tank to the carrythrough.

 

[FastEddieB]

If anyone is curious, this shows the location of the 18 gal fuel tank in my Sky Arrow:

The seats and interior are stripped for an Annual Condition Inspection.

Makes fuel management very, very simple. With the added techniques sometime required to get even flow from two wing tanks in CT’s, for instance, the simplicity is welcome.

This shows with the seats in place, that tank is right behind the passenger’s head:

Is it possible to conjure up a situation where the tank ruptured, dousing the occupants with fuel? Sure. But it would take a pretty severe impact and a specific set of circumstances for that to happen, with it nestled away in a pretty strong part of the fuselage.

But I understand the concerns, and if that makes it a deal-breaker for some, along with the RV12, so be it.

As a side note, current Sky Arrows carry the fuel in the wings, allowing a fair bit more capacity (29.5 gals). http://www.usaero.com/pdf/Sky Arrow 14x21,5 luglio 2012 (Me-Res).pdf

 

[mscard88]

If
As a side note, current Sky Arrows carry the fuel in the wings, allowing a fair bit more capacity (29.5 gals). http://www.usaero.com/pdf/Sky Arrow 14x21,5 luglio 2012 (Me-Res).pdf

About how much does one cost Eddie?

 

[FastEddieB]

About how much does one cost Eddie?

I was recently shocked to see a new one going for in excess of $150k*. Since my 2007 was $75.5k nicely equipped, that's about a doubling in 10 years. With only minor improvements - more fuel, allegedly more robust brakes, larger Dynon (I think). Pretty crazy pricing, but not too out of line compared to CT's and Bristell's and the like.

*Found it:

 

[mscard88]

Wow! Thanks @FastEddieB, I think lol.

 

[NoHeat]

Are you less than 3,500 AGL? Ain’t no IFR (or VFR) altitudes there.

Are you off by 500’, for where the hemispheric rules for VFR kick in?

§ 91.159 – VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

... each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC ...

 

[Clark1961]

Are you off by 500’, for where the hemispheric rules for VFR kick in?

§ 91.159 – VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

... each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC ...

Thus the less than...

 

[mscard88]

Thus the less than...

He got ya there NoHeat.

 

[NoHeat]

He got ya there NoHeat.

I asked a question. Did not enter a contest.

Another question:

Suppose the terrain is 50’ MSL. Can I choose to fly VFR at 2800 MSL, or at 3200 MSL?

It was my understanding that the former is allowed because the hemispheric rule is not in effect, but not so for the latter. Did I misunderstand the rule?

 

[mscard88]

I asked a question. Did not enter a contest.

Another question:

Suppose the terrain is 50’ MSL. Can I choose to fly VFR at 2800 MSL, or at 3200 MSL?

It was my understanding that the former is allowed because the hemispheric rule is not in effect, but not so for the latter. Did I misunderstand the rule?

No. We're just a bunch of jokesters here, playing around on a Saturday night. Below 3000'agl doesn't apply as you say.

https://www.gleim.com/aviation/faraim/?leafNum=91.159

 

[Clark1961]

I asked a question. Did not enter a contest.

Another question:

Suppose the terrain is 50’ MSL. Can I choose to fly VFR at 2800 MSL, or at 3200 MSL?

It was my understanding that the former is allowed because the hemispheric rule is not in effect, but not so for the latter. Did I misunderstand the rule?

Did I say anything about a rule? The post to which I responded claimed he was assigned IFR altitude while VFR under a Bravo. I asked if that altitude was less than 3,500 feet because that wouldn’t be just an IFR altitude. Now you’re going off about VFR altitude rules. Context.

 

[hotprops]

African or European?

There's *licensed* gross weight, and there's what pilots fly them at. All SLSAs and ELSAs should have a placarded gross weight of 1320 pounds or less. The placarded gross weight of Experimental Amateur-Built RV-12s is whatever the builder declares them to be, however, if they wish them to be Sport Pilot elligible, they should, again, be placarded at no more than 1320 pounds.

But, of course, no one is weighing these airplanes, fully-loaded. So we don't know what they're actually being flown at.

N262WS has an interesting certification history. The FAA records show a blank for the EditCertification category, so we don't know if it was SLSA, ELSA, or Experimental Amateur-Built. This isn't that rare...almost 10% of the aircraft in the US registry don't list the certification including ~6,000 probable homebuilts.

N262WS's serial number was 120262. This doesn't give us much help, as the RV-12s in the immediate range have a variety of certifications.

N262WS has a "Manufacturer/Model" Code of 0690009. Since each EAB is, technically, a unique airplane, each EAB RV-12 should have a unique Man/Model code. 385 RV-12s have that code....including, it must be admitted, eight EAB RV-12s. The majority of those with that model codes are licensed as an ELSA kit-built. So that's the best guess for N262WS. Which is a long way towards saying its legal gross weight was no more than 1320 pounds.

N262WS was added to the registry in 2011, best guess September, and was originally registered to Wesley Shierman of Everett, Washington. It was transferred to Bernath in 2014, though the registry shows it owned by a Nicole Bernath (with Oi-En-Wong as a trustee). Not sure who Ms. Bernath is...wife, daughter, or other. The fact that there's a trustee involved hints of someone underage, but Bernath was 58 years old...more likely any children were adults. The report of Bernath being convicted of stalking and violating a protective order does put an interesting fillip to this question. Ownership went to "World Adventure Series" in 2017. AFTER the protective order was issued. One might speculate of the existence of a community property issue.

Finally, the FAA web page showing this registry a pending N-Number change, to 183RV.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks Ron I guess you know were I was going as the pilot was not a big rule follower,but it looks like he might have this time.thanks again for your excellent post.

 

[zaitcev]

Off topic of the thread, but I am wondering about the fuel tank behind the passenger seat. For me that would be a deal breaker building and flying the RV-12.

I think the fuselage is the best location, as long as the tank is structurally sound, so I don't understand the concern. Can you imagine a crash in which you smack hard enough to rupture that tank but not hard enough to die from impact? That seems hardly possible. Contrary to that, having tanks in wings will get you roasted in an otherwise survivable crash (unless you're in a Diamond).

Is it a concern about being crushed by the tank entering the cockpit area?

 

[AKBill]

I think it's the best location, so I don't understand the concern. Can you imagine a crash in which you smack hard enough to rupture that tank but not hard enough to die from impact? That seems hardly possible. Contrary to that, having tanks in wings will get you roasted in an otherwise survivable crash (unless you're in a Diamond).

I can certainly see the point you bring to the table. To me it brings a discomfort factor, fuel inside the cabin. I have put out a few fires that very easily could have turned out badly for me and the property I was trying to protect. Uncontrolled fire scares the heck out of me..

 

[murphey]

CFI and DPE errors. This guy should never have been issued a certificate. (I wonder if he threatened a lawsuit to get it...)

Did he even have a cert? Or was he flying on his own?

Wait, just checked....SP cert as per FAA website.

 

[murphey]

question, what is the gross weight of the average rv12? is it under the required 1320 lbs ?

As per Van's website, max is 1320, hence it's an SP.

 

[murphey]

the reason i have not repeated what i have been told is that I have a lot of respect for the NTSB, i have worked with them in the past. I know for a fact that the press has been reading these forums no reason to give the press any information to mis-quote and twist. one station here quoted a posts from the forums. lets just say the first part of the investigation is mapping the wreckage field, that may give them a good Idea where to look. what i have been told could be part of the cause or a result of the sequence, but I am leaning toward it not being Pilot error.

Fuel exhaustion would be karma.

 

[tsts4]

As per Van's website, max is 1320, hence it's an SP.

Just a nit--the RV-12 is normally certified as an LSA, not an SP. As an LSA it is eligible to flown by an SP. I say normally because the 12 can be certified in one of 3 flavors: factory built S-LSA, and kit built E-LSA or E-AB. If built as an E-AB, the builder could set the GW higher than 1320 thus taking it out of LSA parameters which means it can never be flown as an LSA or by an SP (without at least a private pilot in the other seat).

 

[mulligan]

19 pages in and not a single mention that if he had installed an AOA he would be here today to have this debate with us? Please, everyone, go out today and get your AOA installed.

 

[FastEddieB]

19 pages in and not a single mention that if he had installed an AOA he would be here today to have this debate with us?

Or a 99¢ AOA iPad app!

 

[Bill]

19 pages in and not a single mention that if he had installed an AOA he would be here today

I suspect that if he had installed fuel he would be here today.

 

[mulligan]

I suspect that if he had installed fuel he would be here today.

Even with no fuel, at 8,000ft the proper use of an AOA would assure safe landing with proper traffic pattern at 30 miles with the proper 45 minute reserve.

 

[Half Fast]

I suspect that if he had installed fuel he would be here today.

I'm surprised he didn't get a glider rating, since he seemed to think fuel was optional at best.

Of course, we still don't know his final flight had a fuel issue, unless there's news I haven't seen yet.

 

[mscard88]

Whew, tough crowd. C'mon, the man died. Regardless if he were an ass.

 

[DaleB]

19 pages in and not a single mention that if he had installed an AOA he would be here today to have this debate with us? Please, everyone, go out today and get your AOA installed.

And, adding AoA in the RV-12 requires not much more than a single blind rivet. You can do more; Van's put out a kit and SB that adds a nice automatic connect/disconnect at the wing root since the wings are removable. I installed mine before they did that, so I just have a quick disconnect tubing fitting that gets used once a year when we de-wing.

I don't know if AoA would have helped Mr. Bernath or not, but it is a lot nicer than the normal vane-type stall warning. Even the older D-180 like I have gives you a progressive visual and audio tone. If you're flown an RV-12, though... stall/spin accidents just simply baffle me. You have to really work at it to get into trouble with a 12. I mean, you CAN do it, but it's pretty obvious you're getting into trouble well before you're actually in trouble.

 

[Clark1961]

Even with no fuel, at 8,000ft the proper use of an AOA would assure safe landing with proper traffic pattern at 30 miles with the proper 45 minute reserve.

An AoA and a metal landing calculator are required for that particular feat of airmanship.

 

[Pilawt]

An AoA and a metal landing calculator are required for that particular feat of airmanship.

Nooo, I think it has to be run through the GPS on the iPad.

 

[Clark1961]

Nooo, I think it has to be run through the GPS on the iPad.

You just try it without a metal landing calculator! Can’t be done!

 

[murphey]

Just a nit--the RV-12 is normally certified as an LSA, not an SP. As an LSA it is eligible to flown by an SP. I say normally because the 12 can be certified in one of 3 flavors: factory built S-LSA, and kit built E-LSA or E-AB. If built as an E-AB, the builder could set the GW higher than 1320 thus taking it out of LSA parameters which means it can never be flown as an LSA or by an SP (without at least a private pilot in the other seat).

it's twoo, it's twoo!

 

[murphey]

Whew, tough crowd. C'mon, the man died. Regardless if he were an ass.

He was past that description. He was found guilty of stalking, did not show any remorse at trial. Was stripped of privs in two states to practice law and tried to work as an advocate, got stripped of that, too. Seemed to spend most of his time making trouble both local and legal for people who really couldn't afford to go against him until the judges threw the cases out. Even at that point, the defendants probably wasted a great deal of money trying to defend themselves. Again, reading summaries of many of the cases as well as comments from other sources, he never appeared to be remorseful about any of the problems he caused.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

For those who are new to this guy, there's a thread (I believe on this board) from 2013 where he was justifying suing the manufacturer of his airplane because:

• He ran into unexpected headwinds and rightly decided he was low on fuel.
• So he landed, but at an airport that didn't have fuel.
• So, he sticked his tanks and determined one was empty and the other had 3 gallons in it, so he was safe to fly.
• The engine stopped running, and of course that wasn't his fault. Sued the manufacturer, his CFI, etc.
• Because common sense and knowing the systems on one's plane don't apply.

Then there's photo-shopping his head onto someone else's photo in uniform to pretend he once had a rank he never earned. And a long thread on another forum where he advocated buying an app on your iPad that showed ground speed in huge numbers and using that in lieu of airspeed for pattern work (no, I'm not kidding.) And the pages and pages of arguments with people explaining why airspeed and ground speed weren't equivalent. And his promises that no NTSB report would ever contain his name in it.

This guy....well, let's say this wasn't a huge surprise to people who had interacted with him. It's a shame, but it was predictable.

It's worth learning from though. Don't be that guy.

 

[Half Fast]

For those who are new to this guy, there's a thread (I believe on this board) from 2013 where he was justifying suing the manufacturer of his airplane because:

• He ran into unexpected headwinds and rightly decided he was low on fuel.
• So he landed, but at an airport that didn't have fuel.
• So, he sticked his tanks and determined one was empty and the other had 3 gallons in it, so he was safe to fly.
• The engine stopped running, and of course that wasn't his fault. Sued the manufacturer, his CFI, etc.
• Because common sense and knowing the systems on one's plane don't apply.

Then there's photo-shopping his head onto someone else's photo in uniform to pretend he once had a rank he never earned. And a long thread on another forum where he advocated buying an app on your iPad that showed ground speed in huge numbers and using that in lieu of airspeed for pattern work (no, I'm not kidding.) And the pages and pages of arguments with people explaining why airspeed and ground speed weren't equivalent. And his promises that no NTSB report would ever contain his name in it.

This guy....well, let's say this wasn't a huge surprise to people who had interacted with him. It's a shame, but it was predictable.

It's worth learning from though. Don't be that guy.

Some years ago, when I was cave diving regularly, Underwater Speleology magazine occasionally ran a column highlighting the ridiculous things untrained divers did to get themselves drowned in a cave. The column was titled "Beyond Maximum Stupid."

For some reason, this guy made me think of that....