Student Fell Out Of Plane

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130330X85743&key=1

NTSB Identification: ERA13LA183
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, March 29, 2013 in Collegedale, TN
Aircraft: Andrews Zodiac, registration: N999NA
Injuries: 1 Fatal,1 Uninjured.
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. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On March 29, 2013, about 1530 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Zodiac 601XL, N999NA, operated by a private individual, sustained minor damage during an in-flight upset near Collegedale Municipal Airport (FGU), Collegedale, Tennessee. The flight instructor was not injured and the private pilot was fatally injured. The instructional flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the local flight that departed FGU about 1510.

According to the flight instructor's written statement, the private pilot purchased the airplane about 3 weeks before the accident and was not familiar with it. The flight instructor agreed to provide instruction in the airplane and first wanted familiarize himself with it. The flight instructor flew the airplane solo uneventfully on two occasions, for a total of approximately 2 hours, with the second flight ending just before the accident flight began. After his second solo flight, the flight instructor shut down the engine and reviewed the airplane's characteristics with the private pilot. They then returned to the airplane, took their time entering the cockpit, fastened their seatbelts and secured the canopy; however, they were unable to start the engine.

The private pilot subsequently unlatched and raised the canopy to call for assistance from ground personnel. A ground person provided a charger for the airplane's battery. As he started to attach the charger, the private pilot unbuckled his seatbelt to assist; however, the ground person stated that the private pilot did not need to get out of the airplane as he did not require any help. The private pilot then put his seatbelt back on, more hastily than the first time, and appeared to fasten it again. The flight instructor thought he heard a "click," but could not see the private pilot's seatbelt with the center console between them. The pilots lowered the canopy and latched it a second time for the planned 20-minute flight.

About 5 minutes into the flight, the flight instructor heard a wind noise from behind their heads, which he did not hear on previous flights and thought that perhaps the canopy did not have a perfect seal to the fuselage. As the flight progressed, the canopy seemed like it may have separated a little more. By that time, the flight was headed back to the airport. The canopy then pulled up enough on the latches that the flight instructor could see daylight through the openings between the canopy and fuselage. The flight instructor attempted to pull the canopy down, but it instead opened completely and the airplane entered a negative g dive. He was not sure if the change in airflow or a control input by the private pilot caused the dive. The private pilot lifted out of his seat and ejected out of the cockpit. The flight instructor was able to grab the control stick, arrest the dive, and land back at FGU uneventfully. Emergency responders later recovered the private pilot in a wooded area.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed minor damage to the fuselage. Initial examination of the canopy and the private pilot's seatbelt did not reveal any failures. The inspector was able to secure and release both the canopy and seatbelt without difficulty.
Click to expand...
 
Cockpit Resourse Management. Make sure you know who is doing what when.

A hard lesson learned too many times.

Based on what I think I know about the Zodiac, I would think the negative G came before the canopy fully opening.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
From this:

http://avstop.com/news2/ntsb_safety_recommendation_to_faa_0n_zodiac_ch601xl.htm

Data from the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency Foundation’s21 airplane performance reports show that the stick force per G on other airplanes is similar to that of the Zodiac CH-601XL except that, on the CH-601XL, the stick-force gradient lessens distinctly as loads increase above 2.5 Gs

And another quote from
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228866

I think CH [Chris Henitz] has commented several times that one of his design goals was to have excellent control authority at slow speed. Perhaps this translates to being very sensitive at high speed for the pitch.

And from
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/zenith-zodiac/

the CH-601XL's stick force gradient, or amount of force applied to the control stick, was not uniform throughout the range of motion, particularly in high vertical accelerations. At high g forces, the non-uniformity could lead to inadvertent over-controlling and stressing the aircraft beyond design limits leading to structural failure.

All of these comments together make me stand by my earlier statement, "Also the 601 elevator control is kind of strange -- the more you move it the *less* resistance you feel" which someone described as divergent stick forces. I'd like to be educated if I am wrong.

The earlier 601 was the 601HD which was not LSA. The newer one was 601XL that meets LSA criteria (which was the one that killed 11 people before it was grounded), the upgrade is a 601XLB, and the newest one in that line is the 650XL.
 
Last edited:
tinerj said:
The earlier 601 was the 601HD which was not LSA. The newer one was 601XL that meets LSA criteria (which was the one that killed 11 people before it was grounded), the upgrade is a 601XLB, and the newest one in that line is the 650XL.
Click to expand...

The newest is the 650B, AFAIK. I think the 650XL is the earlier ones with the mods to the wing structure.:dunno:

Cheers
 
Both the 601xl and 650 both got the wing mods, designating them the 601xl-b & 650xl-b respectively. The 601HD(heavy duty) had a different wing design and never had an issue.

X3 Skier said:
The newest is the 650B, AFAIK. I think the 650XL is the earlier ones with the mods to the wing structure.:dunno:

Cheers
Click to expand...
 
gismo said:
Was one of them female? Did they both have all their clothes on at the time?:D
Click to expand...

I think they were both men, but that might explain the Instructor's lack of desire to clarify the situation further.
 
We briefly discussed this at an FAA Safety Seminar this past Saturday. One tidbit mentioned by the FAA representative was that this wasn't the first student this instructor had lost. That was just another level of shock.
 
madtrader said:
We briefly discussed this at an FAA Safety Seminar this past Saturday. One tidbit mentioned by the FAA representative was that this wasn't the first student this instructor had lost. That was just another level of shock.
Click to expand...


Is this like too many failed check rides by students? What is the number of student ejects before you can expect a "talk" from the FSDO?
 
ja_user said:
Is this like too many failed check rides by students? What is the number of student ejects before you can expect a "talk" from the FSDO?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I could continue instructing after losing one, but two is beyond reason. What are the odds?
 
madtrader said:
We briefly discussed this at an FAA Safety Seminar this past Saturday. One tidbit mentioned by the FAA representative was that this wasn't the first student this instructor had lost. That was just another level of shock.
Click to expand...
Did he mention the circumstances of the first student loss. It may have been a completely different scenario and nothing to do with the instructors capability.
 
douglas393 said:
Did he mention the circumstances of the first student loss. It may have been a completely different scenario and nothing to do with the instructors capability.
Click to expand...

True, everyone who has ever balled it up had an instructor or two somewhere down the line.
 
madtrader said:
We briefly discussed this at an FAA Safety Seminar this past Saturday. One tidbit mentioned by the FAA representative was that this wasn't the first student this instructor had lost. That was just another level of shock.
Click to expand...

Maybe the students weren't tipping well? :lol:


:eek:
 
I suspect the odds of this instructor having multiple students falling out of an airplane is probably very low. My guess is that if there was a second death, it may have been more likely a situation where one of his student pilots crashed and perished. He would be on the record as the CFI signing him/her off.
 
douglas393 said:
Did he mention the circumstances of the first student loss. It may have been a completely different scenario and nothing to do with the instructors capability.
Click to expand...

Nope, no specifics, but my interpretation of what they were saying was this was the second student they had lost out of an aircraft. Maybe I got it wrong. The guys sitting around me seemed to take it the same way I did.

I generally expect anyone that instructs for long enough will probably have a former student that's at least involved in an accident, if not a fatality. Just like I expect anyone that has flown for long enough will probably have flown an aircraft that later was involved in an accident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top