wrecked the Fairchild today

Small but yet big ray of good news - no one hurt or killed.

Sad to see the damage, but as you said, it's wood, metal and fabric. Stuff your hands can work wonders with again.
 
FWIW, ~10 years ago I researched numerous years' NTSB accident reports for Cessna 180 taildraggers. The common thread that emerged in ground-loop events, without respect to the level of pilot or CFI experience and expertise, was that once the excursion started they understood what was happening but simply did not have time to recover.

It's a good lesson for all, and Tom clearly recognizes and takes responsibility for the circumstances that caused it. He's OK, the plane can be fixed (by him or somebody else) and we should all be wiser from reading about his experience.
 
Jeezalou, awful lot of FAA oversight for a basic ground loop.
 
docmirror said:
Jeezalou, awful lot of FAA oversight for a basic ground loop.
Click to expand...
Given that loss of control on landing is the #1 cause of aircraft damage, the FAA feels pretty strongly that should be a high priority. Included in that is the feeling that any pilot who busts an airplane should be checked to see if they're really up to standards in that task, i.e., to see if this was one of those one-time "it just got away too fast" situations or a case of a pilot who needs to improve his/her skills lest it happen again, and that later time result in someone getting hurt or someone else's plane getting hit.
 
Ron Levy said:
Given that loss of control on landing is the #1 cause of aircraft damage, the FAA feels pretty strongly that should be a high priority. Included in that is the feeling that any pilot who busts an airplane should be checked to see if they're really up to standards in that task, i.e., to see if this was one of those one-time "it just got away too fast" situations or a case of a pilot who needs to improve his/her skills lest it happen again, and that later time result in someone getting hurt or someone else's plane getting hit.
Click to expand...

Talking to the ops guy from FSDO today, he indicated he thought I did every thing that any pilot could do. and said he saw no sense in advising to have me checked for proficiency. All he wanted to see was my PPL certificate, last BFR, and my medical (which they had already looked up) I think he just wanted to see If I carried it, It is always taped inside the rear cover of my pilots log. when I handed it to him, he looked at it, looked at my last entry smiled and handed the log back to me.

now we will see what happens when they get back to FSDO and file the report with NTSB.

The airworthiness inspector made the statement that he though the materials to repair wouldn't meet accident requirement costs.

So again, we will see what happens.

Making blanket statements as to what the FAA will do does not carry over to all FSDOs.

They have a lot of leeway in what they can do as accident investigators.

I also learned today, that the inspectors are not allowed to enter your hangar until they are asked to. They were very straight forward about that, and made the point to ask if the could enter and inspect the aircraft. next the airworthiness guy made a point to ask me to remove the AWC and registration and hand it to him, because he was not allowed to remove any thing from the aircraft.

They also advised me of the "Pilot's bill of rights" and wanted me to sign a sheet saying I had been informed, but they had brought the wrong form. ( so I refused to sign it)
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Talking to the ops guy from FSDO today, he indicated he thought I did every thing that any pilot could do. and said he saw no sense in advising to have me checked for proficiency.
Click to expand...
That's quite something.

now we will see what happens when they get back to FSDO and file the report with NTSB.
Click to expand...
The NTSB isn't involved in the process of deciding what to do with the pilot in such a case.

Making blanket statements as to what the FAA will do does not carry over to all FSDOs.

They have a lot of leeway in what they can do as accident investigators.
Click to expand...
What they do as designated accident investigators for the NTSB has nothing to do with what they do as Inspectors for the FAA regarding pilot certification issues. However, they do have considerable leeway in what they do as Inspectors, and if they are satisfied that there is no issue of pilot competence, they can certainly close the FAA book on the matter. It just doesn't happen often with taildragger landing accidents.
 
Ron Levy said:
What they do as designated accident investigators for the NTSB has nothing to do with what they do as Inspectors for the FAA regarding pilot certification issues. However, they do have considerable leeway in what they do as Inspectors, and if they are satisfied that there is no issue of pilot competence, they can certainly close the FAA book on the matter. It just doesn't happen often with taildragger landing accidents.
Click to expand...
At the SEA FSDO they work hand in hand with NTSB, and what they tell the NTSB carries a lot of weight, But don't get me wrong, I don't know if I will get to re-test or not yet, I simply don't trust the FEDs when they put their heads together.

as far as frequency of the 709 ride being issued, I know the pilot who destroyed the aztec with a full load of pax at Harvey field didn't get a ride issued, and I know for a fact that the CFI that landed the Twin Bee gear up at Oak Harbor didn't get a ride issued, but the CFI that signed off the pilot who ran the citabria off the end of Concrete's runway did get a ride to certify he was teaching correct procedures. plus the CFI who signed off the pilot that crashed the PA-28R-201T into the bluff of the west side of Whidbey did get a re-test and failed the ride and lost his CFI certificates.
So, I believe it matters who you are and what level of competency they will apply to you.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
At the SEA FSDO they work hand in hand with NTSB, and what they tell the NTSB carries a lot of weight,
Click to expand...
The NTSB is simply not involved in the FAA's decision whether or not to order a reexamination. No input, no authority, no nothing. They are just not in the loop on that. It is entirely a matter for the FAA, which gathers the pertinent data and makes all the decisions on that issue without either informing or obtaining input from the NTSB. Where FAA input to the NTSB is important is in the NTSB's determination of the probable cause of an accident investigated by the FAA for the NTSB, but that's a totally separate matter.
 
Ron Levy said:
The NTSB is simply not involved in the FAA's decision whether or not to order a reexamination. No input, no authority, no nothing. They are just not in the loop on that. It is entirely a matter for the FAA, which gathers the pertinent data and makes all the decisions on that issue without either informing or obtaining input from the NTSB. Where FAA input to the NTSB is important is in the NTSB's determination of the probable cause of an accident investigated by the FAA for the NTSB, but that's a totally separate matter.
Click to expand...

Here, in reality they all talk to one an other, it really doesn't matter who is responsible to make the decision it's made with every ones input.

but once again you have taken the thread on a tangent to the subject, to prove what?
 
Ron Levy said:
Given that loss of control on landing is the #1 cause of aircraft damage, the FAA feels pretty strongly that should be a high priority. Included in that is the feeling that any pilot who busts an airplane should be checked to see if they're really up to standards in that task, i.e., to see if this was one of those one-time "it just got away too fast" situations or a case of a pilot who needs to improve his/her skills lest it happen again, and that later time result in someone getting hurt or someone else's plane getting hit.
Click to expand...

So they can copy Tom's logbook, see if the hours on the airplane tach match, and download a couple of his YouTube videos, and move on. :)
 
Tom-D said:
Here, in reality they all talk to one an other, it really doesn't matter who is responsible to make the decision it's made with every ones input.

but once again you have taken the thread on a tangent to the subject, to prove what?
Click to expand...

Obviously Ron speaks for the entire FAA...how dare you ask!
 
Tom-D said:
Here, in reality they all talk to one an other, it really doesn't matter who is responsible to make the decision it's made with every ones input.

but once again you have taken the thread on a tangent to the subject, to prove what?
Click to expand...

He want's to insure that each anal matches each retentive, and that the FAA and all other fed agencies really are here for our benefit. I ground looped a Stinson in 1980 and not only did no one come out and look, no one from the FAA even knew about it. It was at a controlled field, on a breezy Monday afternoon in a major metropolitan area.

I apologize for commenting on the irrational interest the FAA is showing for a single plane indecent.
 
Guernica said:
First things first, I'm sorry to see your plane like that.:( It was a true testament to your craftsmanship skills.:yes:

...

Tom's is a non event in the big picture really. If a 44709 comes out of it, don't sweat it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detail. I nominate that post for a sticky.


Looks like Tom made it into print already.

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/A_0928_N.txt


********************************************************************************
** Notice created 9/28/2012 Notice 4 **
********************************************************************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 19143 Make/Model: FA24 Description: F-24 (UC-61, JK, FORWARDER, ARGUS)
Date: 09/28/2012 Time: 0030

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: BURLINGTON State: WA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT GROUND LOOPED WHILE DOING TOUCH AND GOES. BURLINGTON, WA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:​


OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: SEATTLE, WA (NM01) Entry date: 09/28/2012
 
Clark1961 said:
Obviously Ron speaks for the entire FAA...how dare you ask!
Click to expand...

That is the problem with one person speaking for the whole FAA. They may, in theory, follow the same regulations, but no two FSDOs seem to interpret those regulations the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I think Ron has a pretty good handle on what the guys in DC have written about the way things are to be done. And even has some case law to support his position and prediction of how it will play in Peoria. His grasp of the way they are actually done by people outside of DC (at least those in the middle of the country) isn't nearly as profound.

I don't know why things don't always go like the books says, only that it happens frequently in situations where I'm on the inside with a front-row seat.

As Hertz likes to say with respect to the outcomes that Ron predicts, the answer is "not exactly."
 
wabower said:
I don't know why things don't always go like the books says, only that it happens frequently in situations where I'm on the inside with a front-row seat.
Click to expand...
Have you ever, from that front-row seat, seen anyone from the NTSB make an input to a FSDO on a pilot certification action or otherwise become involved in that area?
 
Better question, has anyone with a front row seat ever seen an Inspector held to accountability for the "book".
 
wabower said:
I think Ron has a pretty good handle on what the guys in DC have written about the way things are to be done. And even has some case law to support his position and prediction of how it will play in Peoria. His grasp of the way they are actually done by people outside of DC (at least those in the middle of the country) isn't nearly as profound.

I don't know why things don't always go like the books says, only that it happens frequently in situations where I'm on the inside with a front-row seat.

As Hertz likes to say with respect to the outcomes that Ron predicts, the answer is "not exactly."
Click to expand...
Problem is that the FAA is just like so many other bureaucracies. As the organization spreads out, the personalities within the individual entities color how policy is implemented.

I learned the same thing as a young Ensign in the Navy - You would think there would be some uniformity in a 'uniformed' service with Navy Regulations....but the Navy is far from uniform. Every ship in the Fleet operates just a little different from the others.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes. And I didn't need a front-row seat, either. Plenty of cases in the papers and NTSB Opinions & Orders action files.
Click to expand...

Being written up in a paper like that leads to what? I don't see that as accountability. What are the repercussions?
 
Oh no ... sorry Tom. I just remember the pics you'd post when you were restoring it. That sucks.
 
I was sleeping last night and I had a dream about my plane not being operational, due to the prop being broken and landing gear snapped. I struggled to interpret my dream, maybe chalking it up to that fact that in my dream I was about to fly at night and I knew I'd never done that before so subconsciously my brain shut down my attempt to fly. But then when I thought deeper, I remember I viewed this thread.

Sorry to see your plane this way, it was a great looking plane.
 
Ron Levy said:
Losing your tickets, getting fired, going to jail -- stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Inspectors going to jail over not following internal documentation when dealing with an investigation of a GA incident?

When? Where? I've never seen that.
 
Guernica said:
Not that I agree with the handling of the whole affair, and it gave the FAA a black eye. The actions of the Agency were upheld by the US District Court of Appeals. This took 5 seconds to find.

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...gnee_types/ame/fasmb/editorials_jj/bobhoover/

Whether it is a rogue Inspector or incompetent DPE or just wanting to shout to the wind for having a hard on for "the system", there is always more to the story.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Read the book . http://www.judgenap.com/2011/it-is-dangerous-to-be-right-when-the-government-is-wrong/ It is Dangerous to be right when the government is WRONG !!!!!.

Giving us a link to a website from the people who trashed Bob Hoover is like having the fox, coyotes and wolves guarding the hen house... You can predict the outcome and the spin they will put on it... Geez..:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Yes. And I didn't need a front-row seat, either. Plenty of cases in the papers and NTSB Opinions & Orders action files.
Click to expand...

When I see a FSDO inspector on the phone talking to the NTSB I believe there is a communication link in both directions.

Who is influencing who? I don't give a rats ____, who decision it is to do what? I don't really care there either.

If I get the letter, I get the letter, and I don't really care who's return address is in the corner.

Right now I have a bigger problem than the Federal government.
 
Sorry about the plane, good luck with the insurance company.

My tailwheel instructor mentioned that guys can go thousands of hours without a ground loop and get caught off guard by a light quartering tailwind.
 
It's a crappy feeling when, all of sudden the rudder reaches the stop, the brake is applied but the landscape continues to rotate. Helpless.
 
docmirror said:
It's a crappy feeling when, all of sudden the rudder reaches the stop, the brake is applied but the landscape continues to rotate. Helpless.
Click to expand...

Thing is, I have learned that if the rudder is to the stop, the ONLY thing that has a chance of saving it from a ground loop is power. The center of gravity is already outside the main gear and applying brake will only exacerbate the situation.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Thing is, I have learned that if the rudder is to the stop, the ONLY thing that has a chance of saving it from a ground loop is power. The center of gravity is already outside the main gear and applying brake will only exacerbate the situation.
Click to expand...

YMMV. I'm no expert on TW landings, having got my ASEL in a Citabria, and quite a few hours in a S2A, but there is just no way I'm stabbing the throttle in a ground loop. If you do get it to straighten out from over-center, I can't imagine what comes next....:yikes:
 
My two incidents the first one in 1991 and the second one in 2010. In the first I was going to do a 609 ride on floats but the pond froze up so The FAA and I sat down and talked about water flying. They filled out the paper work work same form as a new rating. I had made an effort to get a 609 ride done in a T-crate on floats. The FAA gave the Designated examiner that was listed on the insurance a letter authorizing him for this one time. Went out with an instructor twice in the T-crate then the morning of the 609 ride the pond froze over hard they and to bust the ice to get the T-crate out. The second one a nose up in the mud off airport. I made an appointment and was proactive in getting the 709 accomplished like I had done 19 years before. Made an appointment with an ops guy and a maintenance guy, we had a meeting at the FSDO. BY the time we where done they where both satisfied with my attitude and paper work. No 709 required. To Quote the Ops Guy " what are we going to do rent a plane and land in the mud?" In both of my incidents I put no one else or anyones property at risk. If I had, had a passenger in either case I would not have made the decision to screw the pooch.:redface:

Tom: at least it isn't sitting out in the bush somewhere and you are trying to figure out how to get it home.:mad2: I'm still kicking myself over both of these incidents!

A friend of mine is now dealing with the FAA on a ground loop. He is probably going to have to do a 709 ride. But he is very low time tail dragger pilot. Now where can you get a plane that the FAA can use to do a ride?:dunno:
 
docmirror said:
YMMV. I'm no expert on TW landings, having got my ASEL in a Citabria, and quite a few hours in a S2A, but there is just no way I'm stabbing the throttle in a ground loop. If you do get it to straighten out from over-center, I can't imagine what comes next....:yikes:
Click to expand...

Well, you get more airflow over the rudder so it is more effective.

I watched a stearman ground loop once. If he had added power and gone around we wouldn't have had to tug him out of the mud in a golf cart.
 
docmirror said:
YMMV. I'm no expert on TW landings, having got my ASEL in a Citabria, and quite a few hours in a S2A, but there is just no way I'm stabbing the throttle in a ground loop. If you do get it to straighten out from over-center, I can't imagine what comes next....:yikes:
Click to expand...

Well, as I said, "chance". If you are out of rudder, and all you have left is brake, chances are real good that you are already past the point of no return. If you are out of rudder, chances are that the CG is already outside of the gear track and adding brake is just going to accelerate the groundloop.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, as I said, "chance". If you are out of rudder, and all you have left is brake, chances are real good that you are already past the point of no return. If you are out of rudder, chances are that the CG is already outside of the gear track and adding brake is just going to accelerate the groundloop.
Click to expand...
... and that's when it truly becomes a ground loop, and not just a mere swerve. You're basically along for the ride when it goes that far. All you can do is hang on and pay attention, because it is time to learn a lesson. :D

As my TW instructor put it (regarding Champs), "once she goes past 30 degrees or so, it's all over."
He advised adding power only to go around, and only before the tail started swinging, when it seemed like it might start doing so (bounced or side-loaded touchdown).
I was "lucky" enough during my time with him and that Champ to learn the difference firsthand. :D We wound up 90 degrees to the runway, in the dirt, on one landing when a the rudder became disconnected from the tailwheel on one side... fortunately, it got away from me before I had a chance to think of adding power. As it headed for the runway edge, both of us stood on our opposite rudder and brake pedals but the Champ completely ignored us. Had I cobbed it during that episode, we would probably have only exited the runway faster. :rolleyes:
The idea of hitting the rudder with propwash seems logical, until you consider the energy of all the mass aft of the center of mass forcing the whole airplane to pivot around one main wheel. The mass of the accelerating outside wing suddenly gets added to the mix... you have to counteract that, too.
If the airplane also happens to be weathervaning at that moment, you'll have to fight the wind, too. You would need a very high power-to-weight ratio and a very large rudder to recover from an actual groundloop-in-progress with thrust.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top