Student Fell Out Of Plane

tinerj said:
The N number is 999NA (visible in one of the videos) and it was a 601XL kit from Zenith (Mexico, Missouri.) The year of manufacture is 2009, before the upgrade kit became available.

How does that work if the plane is grounded, and then an upgrade kit is installed, does that get reflected in the FAA registry? An upgraded 601XL is called a 601XLB.
Click to expand...

It's E-AB. The manufacturer and model are whatever the manufacturer (the homebuilder, not the parts supplier) call it. Some builders use the kit name some don't. It could have just as easily been registered as a Belchfire 2000 instead of ZODIAC 601XL.
 
Fast Dude said:
This was a good man who lost his life. Some of the comments, accusations, and speculations here are way out of line.

Thoughts and prayers to Mr. Richardson's family.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but so many people get killed that you'll go crazy feeling sorry for all of them. We try to analyze it, learn what we can, and move on.
 
What is a divergent stick force? The only plane I have flown with a stick so far is a Zlin 242. Beautiful flying plane!

Henning said:
The canopy part, they can pop open, the negative G part, someone mentioned these planes have a slightly divergent stick force, I've dealt with that before, it's ugly, the guy who flew the plane after me crashed it, I only took it around the pattern once and knew the tail needed to be redesigned (which we started on that day). I can't imagine the 601 being as bad, but if they were in a maneuver that add some Gs, or an excessive push in a stall recovery, and exasperated the problem I can see getting negative accidentally quite easily. However what is inexcusable is unfastening the belt, WTF, who flys without being strapped in?

I'll be very interested in reading the NTSB report with accurate information as to the surrounding circumstances, I don't ever believe the veracity of media reporting in these events.
Click to expand...
 
MachFly said:
I'm sorry if this offends anyone but so many people get killed that you'll go crazy feeling sorry for all of them. We try to analyze it, learn what we can, and move on.
Click to expand...

I don't think the analysis is the problem. There have been some comments that could be construed as insensitive, but I won't be anybody's judge here. People respond to tragedy in different ways. Some cope by not acknowledging the loss. Some cope by joking about it. To read about the loss of life and then go out to your own hangar and continue to do what we do takes different things for different people. One thing's for sure, the internet is not for the thin skinned. If I personally lost someone to a tragedy such as this, the web would be the last place I'd go to cope, at least for a while.
 
Just a thought and not sure if it is even possible, but could have the plane enter an unusual attitude and flipped over or even an extreme angle, and the seat belt failed (for whatever reason) causing Mr Richardson to fall out of his seat and fall into the canopy causing it to open and he fell out. They only reason I ask is I have seen reports that neither occupant of the plane was wearing seatbelts and so why did only one fall out?
 
douglas393 said:
Just a thought and not sure if it is even possible, but could have the plane enter an unusual attitude and flipped over or even an extreme angle, and the seat belt failed (for whatever reason) causing Mr Richardson to fall out of his seat and fall into the canopy causing it to open and he fell out. They only reason I ask is I have seen reports that neither occupant of the plane was wearing seatbelts and so why did only one fall out?
Click to expand...

If the attitude of the plane was vertical, nose up and it stalled tail down, if the canopy wasn't latched properly, theoretically, the force of the falling passenger hitting the canopy could force it open. Maybe the loss of the weight of the passenger leaving the plane caused the plane to stall to one side or the other and enabled the Pilot to regain control? :dunno:
 
KeithASanford said:
If the attitude of the plane was vertical, nose up and it stalled tail down, if the canopy wasn't latched properly, theoretically, the force of the falling passenger hitting the canopy could force it open. Maybe the loss of the weight of the passenger leaving the plane caused the plane to stall to one side or the other and enabled the Pilot to regain control? :dunno:
Click to expand...

It will be REAL interesting what the CFI/ surviving pilot says about the incident....:redface:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
It's E-AB. The manufacturer and model are whatever the manufacturer (the homebuilder, not the parts supplier) call it. Some builders use the kit name some don't. It could have just as easily been registered as a Belchfire 2000 instead of ZODIAC 601XL.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't. It was registered as a 601xl. If the upgrade had been done AFTER the initial registration where would that be recorded.

The upgrade could not have been done during the initial build because it was not available in 2009.
 
tinerj said:
But it wasn't. It was registered as a 601xl. If the upgrade had been done AFTER the initial registration where would that be recorded.

The upgrade could not have been done during the initial build because it was not available in 2009.
Click to expand...

Is there any close up pics of the plane :dunno:..

The upgrade /wing mod is pretty visible by the plate and rivets mounted on the outside of the fuselage...
 
us AAirways said:
What is a divergent stick force? The only plane I have flown with a stick so far is a Zlin 242. Beautiful flying plane!
Click to expand...

Normal stick force the further you deflect the control surface, the more force is required. With divergent stick force the further you deflect the control surface less force is required. I read somewhere in regards to this thread that that is a characteristic of the 601 type. If so, it is possible to run into a situation as with the plane I was referring to where if you move the stick far enough it can run away and you have to force it to neutral. This is a very bad design problem and there is more than one Exp with the potential to have this issue.
 
Henning said:
.....This is a very bad design problem and there is more than one Exp with the potential to have this issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed.... the 601 XL series had a quirk in the controls that exibited that... The 801 series is downright predictable... ..
 
douglas393 said:
Just a thought and not sure if it is even possible, but could have the plane enter an unusual attitude and flipped over or even an extreme angle, and the seat belt failed (for whatever reason) causing Mr Richardson to fall out of his seat and fall into the canopy causing it to open and he fell out. They only reason I ask is I have seen reports that neither occupant of the plane was wearing seatbelts and so why did only one fall out?
Click to expand...

Never assume any piece of information from general media is correct.
 
tinerj said:
But it wasn't. It was registered as a 601xl. If the upgrade had been done AFTER the initial registration where would that be recorded.

The upgrade could not have been done during the initial build because it was not available in 2009.
Click to expand...

In the log book for the plane.
 
Henning said:
Never assume any piece of information from general media is correct.
Click to expand...
True, but even if we take the position that the media has all their reporting incorrect, we do know he fell out of the plane, and assuming it was not a contract killing, could the scenario I propose explain what happened.
 
FWIW, the controls in a Zodiac are very light in comparison to a Cherokee or other similar GA Aircraft. If this was transition training, I would not surprise me at all for the "student" to over control the airplane during stalls or other maneuvers. Of course, with no seatbelt /harness during these types of maneuvers is just plain dumb.

Cheers
 
douglas393 said:
True, but even if we take the position that the media has all their reporting incorrect, we do know he fell out of the plane, and assuming it was not a contract killing, could the scenario I propose explain what happened.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a contract killing would make more sense. It would take a perfect storm of circumstances for your idea or my idea to even be likely. Something's fishy and if that poor survivor is not talking, I completely get it.
 
douglas393 said:
True, but even if we take the position that the media has all their reporting incorrect, we do know he fell out of the plane, and assuming it was not a contract killing, could the scenario I propose explain what happened.
Click to expand...

The scenario sure, heck, if it had divergent stick force the guy could have done it to himself in an enthusiastic first attempt at a stall recovery. My point was don't necessarily believe that both pilots were unbelted when the reality is it could have meant that both belts, lap and chest, of the one man were undone.
 
Yes, the 601XL has the lightest controls I've ever encountered (but, then, I've not flow a lot of different types.) To make a left turn in a 601XL, merely *think* about turning left and it will do so.

If the aircraft did not have the upgrade mod then it may be subject to flutter. Ah, why speculate. This is already so bizarre nothing makes sense, yet, almost anything is possible.

I'm still hung up on the fact that the canopy looks entirely all right in the photos taken after the accident.
 
tinerj said:
But it wasn't. It was registered as a 601xl. If the upgrade had been done AFTER the initial registration where would that be recorded.

The upgrade could not have been done during the initial build because it was not available in 2009.
Click to expand...

If it was done according to what is likely in the operating limitations, then there should be a record with the FAA when the builder reported the "not minor modification" and the FAA issued new operating limitations to cover the new test period.

Or, someone might have just done the work and may or may not have logged the information.

But there were some years that the operating limitations just said to log the change and fly a few hours on your own. So, without digging into details, it's hard to say what SHOULD have been done. And without looking at the logs or physically inspecting the aircraft there is no way to know what really was done.
 
KeithASanford said:
Unfortunately, a contract killing would make more sense. It would take a perfect storm of circumstances for your idea or my idea to even be likely. Something's fishy and if that poor survivor is not talking, I completely get it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever flown a non certified aircraft? Certified aircraft all meet a minimum standard of stability and testing. That is not true for experimentals, nor LSA for that matter the best I can tell because the standards are a mystery it takes a bunch of money to read. In a plane with marginal stability characteristics it's pretty easy to get into some serious trouble.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
What about the rest of aircraft?:dunno: I'm always strapped in, no belt is a great way to end up with a broken neck. Just because you're in clear smooth air one moment is no guaranty that you won't be in severe CAT the next. We learned that one day in my buddy's Duke, it ended up with a bent wing.:eek:
Click to expand...

Wow, I'd like to read about that. Have a link to the NTSB report?
 
Henning said:
Have you ever flown a non certified aircraft? Certified aircraft all meet a minimum standard of stability and testing. That is not true for experimentals, nor LSA for that matter the best I can tell because the standards are a mystery it takes a bunch of money to read. In a plane with marginal stability characteristics it's pretty easy to get into some serious trouble.
Click to expand...

I'm just a student so I've only flown Cessnas and Pipers but correct me if I'm wrong: Certificated aircraft have tested limits, but that doesn't mean they're any safer than an experimental if flown beyond those performance limits, right? I'm not saying this happened but if I do something stupid in a Piper it can kill me. Other than maybe an Ercoupe, I'm not aware of a plane that, by design, is impossible to fly into such a dangerous attitude as to meet our speculated, but unlikely conditions.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Wow, I'd like to read about that. Have a link to the NTSB report?
Click to expand...

Wow, apparently not! I tried to pull it up but the NTSB looks like they are changing up the website and nothing before 1996 is available and I don't see how to search it anyway. If I'm not going to the right place at NTSB.gov then send me a link to the old database search web page I've used over the last decade. Otherwise look mid to late 80s, early 90s. Cental California Valley between SAC and Hollister.
 
KeithASanford said:
I'm just a student so I've only flown Cessnas and Pipers but correct me if I'm wrong: Certificated aircraft have tested limits, but that doesn't mean they're any safer than an experimental if flown beyond those performance limits, right? I'm not saying this happened but if I do something stupid in a Piper it can kill me. Other than maybe an Ercoupe, I'm not aware of a plane that, by design, is impossible to fly into such a dangerous attitude as to meet our speculated, but unlikely conditions.
Click to expand...

Correct, you screw the pooch hard enough that Piper will kill you, but you have to screw the pooch to begin with. That is what certified aircraft get you. That is not necessarily true of an experimental, it can actively bite you and fight you in certain corners of the envelope.
 
You might want to add Grumman, Swift and a few others to your list.

KeithASanford said:
I'm just a student so I've only flown Cessnas and Pipers but correct me if I'm wrong: Certificated aircraft have tested limits, but that doesn't mean they're any safer than an experimental if flown beyond those performance limits, right? I'm not saying this happened but if I do something stupid in a Piper it can kill me. Other than maybe an Ercoupe, I'm not aware of a plane that, by design, is impossible to fly into such a dangerous attitude as to meet our speculated, but unlikely conditions.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Wow, apparently not! I tried to pull it up but the NTSB looks like they are changing up the website and nothing before 1996 is available and I don't see how to search it anyway. If I'm not going to the right place at NTSB.gov then send me a link to the old database search web page I've used over the last decade. Otherwise look mid to late 80s, early 90s. Cental California Valley between SAC and Hollister.
Click to expand...

Give me the registration number and I'll have one of my friends pull it up.
 
Henning said:
If you have database access, hook me up or search Duke, California, Clear Air Turbulence in that date range and it'll be there, can't be that bloody many, nothing more I can say or do.
Click to expand...

Need more info than that. We'll just chalk this one up with the rest of your tales.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Need more info than that. We'll just chalk this one up with the rest of your tales.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused: If I had access to the old query page I could find it in 5 minutes, there can't be that many Dukes that bent a wing in CAT in Central CA!:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Henning said:
Normal stick force the further you deflect the control surface, the more force is required. With divergent stick force the further you deflect the control surface less force is required. I read somewhere in regards to this thread that that is a characteristic of the 601 type. If so, it is possible to run into a situation as with the plane I was referring to where if you move the stick far enough it can run away and you have to force it to neutral. This is a very bad design problem and there is more than one Exp with the potential to have this issue.
Click to expand...

Here is the FAA Special Review Team Report of the 601XL that was produced in response to the anomalous wing failures; stick forces were of interest:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac.pdf

So long as operated within the POH CG limits, section 4.4 states:

A manufacturer’s flight test report dated November 2005 was used as the primary source of data for the FAA to evaluate the stick-force characteristics of the CH 601 XL against the FAA accepted version of the ASTM International, F 2245-07a, 4.5.2.2. The results were also compared to 14 CFR Part 23 § 23.155. The FAA found the manufacturer’s Flight Test Report data is compliant with the ASTM standard. Although not required to comply with 14 CFR part 23, we found the data also meets the standards of 14 CFR Part 23 § 23.155(a) and (c).

ASTM 4.5.2.2 states, “Longitudinal control forces shall increase with increasing load factors.” For reference, 14 CFR Part 23 § 23.155(c) states, “There must be no excessive decrease in the gradient of the curve of stick force versus maneuvering load factor with increasing load factor.”​

So while the stick forces may be light, they don't appear to be divergent.
 
The other ones that I know about with light or divergent stick forces are Wittman W10 Tailwind, Falco F.8L and Lanceair IV-P.
 
comanchepilot said:
Has anyone mentioned 91.107????
Click to expand...

No, but I did mention 91.105 after the last time you spouted the seat belt requirement incorrectly here. 91.105 applies to the flightcrew during flight. 91.107 talks about everybody during taxi/takeoff/landing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top