wow, Lake Elmo crash survivor

Good for Lycoming. It's a shame they even had to defend them selves. The guy new his fuel pump was leaking but flew anyway??? People like this is why our hobby has gotten so expensive.
 
Just a bad deal all around.

How can the victim prove that it wasn't something from the airplane that caused "the leak" anyway? Metal sliver from a crossthreaded fuel line? Sand? Dirt? Why didn't the standby pump breath life into it if that was the issue?
 
The NTSB report indicates the engine was producing power at the time of impact. NTSB cites gusty winds. So, could we have a departure stall scenario?
 
Ken Ibold said:
The NTSB report indicates the engine was producing power at the time of impact. NTSB cites gusty winds. So, could we have a departure stall scenario?
Click to expand...

I'm curious if it had a recording engine monitor.
 
Man, I was trying not to say anything, but I see I'm not alone in thinking that this was all about the money.

Not sure what I would do. Pretty sure what I'd like to think I'd do.
 
Anonymous said...

Did the airplane not have an electric boost pump installed? The aircraft construction manual specifically requires the installation of an electric boost pump. The electric boost pump should have been running during the takeoff, per the Glasair Pilot Operating Handbook. This is clearly pilot error. The pilot has nobody but himself to blame. This is a prime example of our broken legal system.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/03/extreme-injuries-result-in-extreme.html

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

At 1553, the recorded weather at the St. Paul Downtown Airport / Holman Field, near St Paul, Minnesota, about 240 degrees and 10 miles from the accident site, was: Wind 300 degrees at 19 knots gusting to 28 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, sky condition broken 3,400 feet, overcast 4,300 feet, temperature 16 degrees C, dew point 9 degrees C, altimeter 29.94 inches of mercury.
 
It's called 'experimental' for a reason. Sometimes the experiment works, sometimes it doesn't.
 
27.7 million....wouldn't that be almost 10 million for the attorneys?

One thing I do not understand is that the injured man states he remembers nothing about the crash, yet states that the first thing he said when first responders arrived is...the fuel pumped had failed...

Why did the plane fall out of the air? If the engine quit running and at proper airspeed why did he not just do an off airport landing?

I guess that is why I am not a lawyer...
 
Mistake Not... said:
Man, I was trying not to say anything, but I see I'm not alone in thinking that this was all about the money.
Click to expand...

Last winter I had a bad hang glider landing in iffy wind conditions, and I broke my humerus, badly. My out of pocket for the surgery to put it back together was ~$6k. I could have found a lawyer who would have happily sued the flight park for me, but I didn't. It wasn't their fault. I screwed the pooch and bought the farm, so i sucked it up.
 
The Kathrine report seems to indicate they found issues with the valves in the pump, I would assume that would mean molding marks in rubber diaphragms or similar. If so why couldn’t they put the pump on a test stand and verify without a doubt the pump was bad. Next, why couldn’t they put an electric boost pump behind it and verify without a doubt that a bad mechanical pump didn’t cause the crash.



The Kathrine report seems to indicate they found issues with the valves in the pump, I would assume that would mean molding marks in rubber diaphragms or similar. If so why couldn’t they put the pump on a test stand and verify without a doubt the pump was bad. Next, why couldn’t they put an electric boost pump behind it and verify without a doubt that a bad mechanical pump didn’t cause the crash.


Or did the NTSB do all that and concluded that the pump didn't do it?


"Should have been rejected" says the assemblers, there are quality escapes in just about every aspect of aircraft manufacturing that don't cause accidents.
 
Sounds to me like another accident in which the the injured party goes after the 'deep pockets'. Remember another famous case also from Minnesota when two families wanted to get over $30 mln from Cirrus? This thing dragged in courts for almost a decade.
 
bnt83 said:
At 1553, the recorded weather at the St. Paul Downtown Airport / Holman Field, near St Paul, Minnesota, about 240 degrees and 10 miles from the accident site, was: Wind 300 degrees at 19 knots gusting to 28 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, sky condition broken 3,400 feet, overcast 4,300 feet, temperature 16 degrees C, dew point 9 degrees C, altimeter 29.94 inches of mercury.
Click to expand...

19G28.. that's... breezy.

I'm guessing he didn't make the impossible turn. Unless the terrain straight ahead was just not going to work.
 
rbridges said:
I wouldn't wish that trauma on anyone. That was awful.
Click to expand...


It is very awful. I just hope there isn't another tragedy that occurs from it. Hopefully whoever is actually responsible is forced to accept it. Unfortunately it may not be clear who that is.
 
Mistake Not... said:
19G28.. that's... breezy.

I'm guessing he didn't make the impossible turn. Unless the terrain straight ahead was just not going to work.
Click to expand...
Not sure what I would have done, but I'd hope that I would have pointed her into the wind, and landed as best I could on one of the open fields NW of the airport. With that wind, the groundspeed on landing would have been 32-40kts.

But I guess that's easy to say when you're not in the plane with a quiet engine at 500'.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Last winter I had a bad hang glider landing in iffy wind conditions, and I broke my humerus, badly. My out of pocket for the surgery to put it back together was ~$6k. I could have found a lawyer who would have happily sued the flight park for me, but I didn't. It wasn't their fault. I screwed the pooch and bought the farm, so i sucked it up.
Click to expand...
Ouch! Glad you're alright man. You still doing any soaring out there or did that cap it for ya?
 
Ryanb said:
Ouch! Glad you're alright man. You still doing any soaring out there or did that cap it for ya?
Click to expand...

I'm on hold, waiting to see the results of my medical application. Bruce says I will get it mid-November, and if that happens, I'll return to powered flight and most likely get out of HG.

Landing a HG in anything other than calm conditions is difficult, much harder than landing airplanes, and if you hose up, pain.
 
donjohnston said:
Not sure what I would have done, but I'd hope that I would have pointed her into the wind, and landed as best I could on one of the open fields NW of the airport. With that wind, the groundspeed on landing would have been 32-40kts.

But I guess that's easy to say when you're not in the plane with a quiet engine at 500'.
Click to expand...

The NTSB report states "A postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airframe or engine". The Glasair II RG has a wing loading of almost 26 pounds per square foot, which is significantly higher than what most piston singles have (higher than an A-36, a T210, or even a Malibu). No mechanical malfunction combined with a descending turn to the left supports the NTSB's conclusion that the cause of the accident was "the pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during takeoff with gusty wind conditions, which resulted in a collision with terrain." Not saying he stalled it in an uncoordinated fashion which resulted in an incipient spin close to the ground - that would be speculation. Rather, I am suggesting that the NTSB report doesn't support the notion that it was an off-field landing attempt due to power failure.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20100907X44212&ntsbno=CEN10FA519&akey=1
 
ChiefPilot said:
Not saying he stalled it in an uncoordinated fashion which resulted in an incipient spin close to the ground - that would be speculation. Rather, I am suggesting that the NTSB report doesn't support the notion that it was an off-field landing attempt due to power failure.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20100907X44212&ntsbno=CEN10FA519&akey=1
Click to expand...
It also says "The propeller had chordwise abrasion and leading edge nicks on its blades." This indicates the propeller was under some kind of power. If it had been full takeoff power, a more typical description would be that it showed S bending. That's not to say the wreckage DID NOT indicate full power, only that the NTSB description did not describe it as such. Once upon a time I maybe would have ordered the full docket and read through the lab reports, but this isn't one of those times. But there was at least partial power.
 
And the wings and control surfaces remained attached. Why did he not pilot the plane through a controlled, off-airport landing?
 
Ken Ibold said:
It also says "The propeller had chordwise abrasion and leading edge nicks on its blades." This indicates the propeller was under some kind of power. If it had been full takeoff power, a more typical description would be that it showed S bending. That's not to say the wreckage DID NOT indicate full power, only that the NTSB description did not describe it as such. Once upon a time I maybe would have ordered the full docket and read through the lab reports, but this isn't one of those times. But there was at least partial power.
Click to expand...

This accident didn't get much of an investigation by the NTSB. Rather than an engine teardown they just ran it on the test-stand at a local FBO. No full report in the docket, just a photo:

Test_run.jpg
 
weilke said:
This accident didn't get much of an investigation by the NTSB. Rather than an engine teardown they just ran it on the test-stand at a local FBO. No full report in the docket, just a photo:
View attachment 56642
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure that's at Lake Elmo. I learned to fly there, knew the pilot, and saw the plane both before and after the accident.
 
ChiefPilot said:
I'm not even sure that's at Lake Elmo. I learned to fly there, knew the pilot, and saw the plane both before and after the accident.
Click to expand...

I understand 'local' to mean 'somewhere the FSDO inspector could drive to with the engine in his pickup bed'.
 
19 gusting to 28, why take off? Doesn't sound like fun in a little plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top