Fatal Crash at Sport Aviation Expo

[SteveinIndy]

I almost made a comment about giving the local medical examiner at heads up about the high likelihood of a crash given the presence of a sport aviation fly-in after reading the the thread on this event in the "Cool Places to Fly" forum, but decided against it. However, it looks like I did not miss the mark in my assessment that someone would likely get killed this weekend.

My condolences go out to the family of the deceased and my best wishes for a speedy recovery and lessons learned go out to the survivor.
===================

SOURCE: http://www2.highlandstoday.com/cont...ng-news-1-killed-1-injured-sebring-plane-cra/
BREAKING NEWS: 1 Killed, 1 Injured In Sebring Plane Crash

PLANE WAS PART OF AVIATION EXPO AT SEBRING REGIONAL AIRPORT


A plane believed to be a part of the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo at the Sebring Regional Airport crashed in the early hours of the mroning, killing the passenger and injuring the pilot.


The Light Sport Aviation aircraft, manufactured by Remos, crashed around 7:45 a.m. in the airport's south ramp.


The identity of the passenger and the pilot will be released after their families are notified, said Lt. Tim Lethbridge, with the Highlands County Sheriff's Office. The pilot was flown to Tampa General Hospital. The two involved are not from Highlands County.


An official from the Federal Aviation Administration is on the scene right now. Officials from the National Safety Board are expected to arrive Monday, Lethbridge added.


The plane's wreckage lay on the south ramp, cordoned off until authorities had the chance to assess the damage.


Traffic was being rerouted, said the airport's Executive Director Mike Willingham.


The fifth annual aviation expo ends today.


"Unfortunately accidents happen,' he said. "Our hearts and prayers go to the family."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I almost made a comment about giving the local medical examiner at heads up about the high likelihood of a crash given the presence of a sport aviation fly-in after reading the the thread on this event in the "Cool Places to Fly" forum, but decided against it.

Oh sheesh, here we go again.

Should we just ban them all so they stop falling out of the sky?

 

[Diana]

I just called my friend who is a Remos demo pilot and confirmed it wasn't him. He sounded really down.

 

[bullwinkle]

Oh sheesh, here we go again.

Should we just ban them all so they stop falling out of the sky?

Really, all those hack sport pilots should really go get a "real" certificate, so they're not a danger to everyone around them.

 

[TMetzinger]

Really, all those hack sport pilots should really go get a "real" certificate, so they're not a danger to everyone around them.

Yeah, that way they can crash "real" airplanes with a lot more energy.

 

[Chairboy]

So, ah, why did you predict the crash? And what caused this crash?

 

[SteveinIndy]

So, ah, why did you predict the crash? And what caused this crash?

I figured a fly-in of pilots of sport or experimental aircraft is likely to produce a fatality. It's like AirVenture kills at least one person per year on average. From what I've been told, the coroner's office actually keeps someone at AirVenture annually because of this.

The reason I figured this had an extremely good chance of killing someone because of the following. Just to frame my opinion: This is speaking solely of those who are new to aviation and not those who are PPLs who lost their medicals whom I don't believe are "really" sport pilots. My stance is that just turning people loose with less training in less sturdy aircraft is a bad idea.

 

[brcase]

It think the issue is two fold and not so much a training issue.
The little secret the FAA fairly has successfully hidden is that the PTS for the Sport Pilot and Private Pilot are certificates are nearly identical. Off the top of my head the only thing I can recall that is different is the Flight by reference to instruments. Of course the night and cross country requirements are less for sport pilots but this portion of flight does not contribute significantly to the sport pilot accidents.

One reason for a signficant number of sport pilot accidents is that it has been successful and we have quite a few low hour sport pilots flying.

The second reason is that many sport aircraft do not fly like the certified airplanes we are used to. I know two CFI's that refused to instruct in a Challenger II after flying it because they insisted on landing with full flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The second reason is that many sport aircraft do not fly like the certified airplanes we are used to. I know two CFI's that refused to instruct in a Challenger II after flying it because they insisted on landing with full flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Who insisted? What's the POH say?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I know two CFI's that refused to instruct in a Challenger II after flying it because they insisted on landing with full flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

That statement needs an explanation.

 

[brcase]

Who insisted? What's the POH say?

POH? it is homebuilt (kit) aircraft that qualifies for sport pilot. As are many sport aircraft. The POH is very limited and only says that the flaps may be used to trim the aircraft. It says nothing about landing with flaps.

The other light sport aircraft I have flown is the Flight Design CT. At least this is a factory built aircraft with a decent POH. However I don't recommend just getting in it and flying it without a checkout. It has sight picture like nothing else I have flown.

Brian

 

[Dean]

I know two CFI's that refused to instruct in a Challenger II after flying it because they insisted on landing with full flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Why do they need flaps in an airplane that lands at 30 MPH?

 

[SteveinIndy]

One reason for a signficant number of sport pilot accidents is that it has been successful and we have quite a few low hour sport pilots flying.

What is the rate per # of hours flown for PPL vs Sport Pilot? I don't believe there has been sufficient research to back up your statement (nor mine, but I openly admit that mine is a concern, rather than a fact). Also how does the rate of crashes change as level of experience changes? What is the case fatality rate (% of crashes that are fatal vs. non-fatal vs. no injury at all)? This latter point is the area that most concerns me as it is where my research is most focused.

The second reason is that many sport aircraft do not fly like the certified airplanes we are used to.

On this we agree.

 

[KennyFlys]

An aircraft should be flyable in all configurations save short of power. If it has flaps, it should be able to perform on some level with flaps fully extended and fully retracted. How else is the pilot going to learn what not only the plane is capable of but how he remains in safe flight in such configurations?

 

[JoeSelch]

I figured a fly-in of pilots of sport or experimental aircraft is likely to produce a fatality. It's like AirVenture kills at least one person per year on average.

Ooohhh... NOW I get it; it's all the fly-ins' fault. Silly me. I thought it might have something to do with the pilots, the planes, or other contributing factors.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I was at the expo yesterday, and I felt it was really good. After seeing the "traffic pattern" they were having the LSA/Demo aircraft fly, I'm going to say this is a spin related accident. If your familiar with the airport, they were using 18/36 for general arrivals. Then, using the portion of 14/32 which was northwest of the main runway for the light sport demo's. In the afternoon, they were having the aircraft take off, and turn immediately to a 180 heading, which, would put the aircraft just off the west side of 18/36. After seeing the angle of climb, combined with the bank angle some of the guys were taking, I wouldn't be surprised to see a spin.

However, I'm going to have to agree with brcase. I've flown a Remos, and it has a sight picture unlike anything else I've been it. It sits lower than most planes, plus has a different shaped cowling. My first landing, I tried to flare where I "normally" saw the flare in a 172. I think we were still about 50 ft AGL. Much different, but much more fun, once you've figured it out.

I'd like to know which Remos this was, because, I think I took some pictures of everyone of them yesterday afternoon.

My prayers are with the families, as this has to be a very tough time for them.

 

[rottydaddy]

I figured a fly-in of pilots of sport or experimental aircraft is likely to produce a fatality. It's like AirVenture kills at least one person per year on average. From what I've been told, the coroner's office actually keeps someone at AirVenture annually because of this.

I can't see why, except to allow the coroner to enjoy the show. Maybe forensic findings need to be extra-fast in the event of an FAA investigation on the grounds so that event can continue without much interruption? At any rate, it's not like they will be busier there than at the county office.

I'm sure plenty of people die due to non-aviation mishaps in Wisconsin every year during the same week, and most fatals at Airventure have involved non-LSAs (and not just homebuilts, either) with "real" pilots at the controls... often very experienced pilots.

I can't find a comprehensive list, but at the Airventures I've attended, I recall a Europa going down on approach, a warbird running over a RV while taxiing, a Lancair (?) crashing on final, and two Mustangs colliding on final.
None of the above aircraft are LSAs. All of the above accidents resulted in fatalities. I also question the "one a year" average, but again I can't prove otherwise. It's been 50 years or so, though, in which case 50 deaths over 50 years ain't too bad, really. And it doesn't mean somebody's going to buy the farm every year.

It could be argued that the density of aircraft ops into, out of, and at Wittman during the event contributes to the probability of accidents (duh), but I don't think there's much correlation between fatal (and non-fatal)accidents at Airventure and the certification of aircraft or pilots.

"Real" pilots seem just as likely, to me, to have "real' accidents in "real" airplanes as "the other guys".

It's a mostly subjective prejudice, I think...

-Some military pilots think all other pilots and aircraft are inferior
-Some civil transport pilots think nobody without an ATP should be allowed to fly
-Some IFR-rated pilots think VFR-only pilots have a death wish
-Some from all of the above groups think "Experimental" means "unproven" or "unsafe"
-Some pilots think all new-rule Sport pilots, including old-timers who once held ratings up to and including ATP, are poorly-trained noobs who are a hazard to us all, and the aircraft deemed appropriate for them by the FAA, including production aircraft that have been in use for all kinds of flying for many decades, are dangerous toys.

 

[Dale Young]

Why do they need flaps on a plane that lands at 30 mph?

To steepen the approach without increasing speed.

 

[Dale Young]

Local ultralight guys are a menace around these parts, I know... I used to be one. After I liscensed up, I became aware of the seriousness of the STUPIUD stuff that I used to do.

 

[TMetzinger]

It think the issue is two fold and not so much a training issue.
The little secret the FAA fairly has successfully hidden is that the PTS for the Sport Pilot and Private Pilot are certificates are nearly identical. Off the top of my head the only thing I can recall that is different is the Flight by reference to instruments. Of course the night and cross country requirements are less for sport pilots but this portion of flight does not contribute significantly to the sport pilot accidents.

One reason for a signficant number of sport pilot accidents is that it has been successful and we have quite a few low hour sport pilots flying.

The second reason is that many sport aircraft do not fly like the certified airplanes we are used to. I know two CFI's that refused to instruct in a Challenger II after flying it because they insisted on landing with full flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

I've a friend who is a very experienced LSA instructor (and has the full "Real" CFI ratings and such too). What she has told me tracks with the message AVEMCO was supposed to announce at Sebring. LSAs are different aircraft, and they fly differently than the aircraft you are used to. My friend cites a lack of rudder proficiency in pilots transitioning to LSAs, and a completely different sight picture.

Avemco was supposed to announce that they were requiring five hours of dual for insurance purposes. These are not "just like your 172, only smaller" aircraft.

Have no idea about the cause of this accident, but my info is that the majority of accidents in LSAs are in the final approach and landing phase where control isn't maintained.

 

[JoeSelch]

Local ultralight guys are a menace around these parts, I know... I used to be one. After I liscensed up, I became aware of the seriousness of the STUPIUD stuff that I used to do.

At the risk of thread creep, would you be willing to tell more?
I've had long had a yen for flying lawnchairs (CT gyrocopters and 3-axis ultralights) and would like to know more about
1) the kinds of folks I might be befriending
2) stupid stuff a PP-ASEL might run into in an ultralight-type bird

 

[jmaynard]

My stance is that just turning people loose with less training in less sturdy aircraft is a bad idea.

We've debunked this one before. There are exactly two differences in the requirements for sport pilot vs. private pilot: no night flying, and no hood flying. The first is because sport pilots aren't allowed to fly at night. The second is an oversight, IMAO, and there's an NPRM out about changes to the sport pilot rule that would add such a requirement.

Anyone should get a good, thorough checkout when transitioning into any aircraft, and an LSA is no different. That's the biggest cause of LSA accidents - and it's due to pilots with thousands of hours jumping into the LSA and assuming they can fly it right away. When those accidents are removed, LSAs and sport pilots have a similar safety record to the rest of general aviation.

 

[jmaynard]

Avemco was supposed to announce that they were requiring five hours of dual for insurance purposes.

This is nothing new for them; I had such a requirement last June when I insured my Zodiac.

 

[Geico266]

Just to frame my opinion: This is speaking solely of those who are new to aviation and not those who are PPLs who lost their medicals whom I don't believe are "really" sport pilots.

Did you mean if you loose your medical you can fly sport pilot? If a pilot looses his medical he cannot exercise his sport pilot privileges without clearing it with the FAA. The medical reason for deigning the medical must be cleared before the pilot can operate as sport pilot. This is difficult to do.

 

[jmaynard]

If a pilot looses his medical he cannot exercise his sport pilot privileges without clearing it with the FAA. The medical reason for deigning the medical must be cleared before the pilot can operate as sport pilot.

This assumes that the medical was explicitly revoked or denied. Lots of pilots, including me, are flying without medicals without ever "losing" one in that sense.

 

[Geico266]

Anyone should get a good, thorough checkout when transitioning into any aircraft, and an LSA is no different. That's the biggest cause of LSA accidents - and it's due to pilots with thousands of hours jumping into the LSA and assuming they can fly it right away. When those accidents are removed, LSAs and sport pilots have a similar safety record to the rest of general aviation.

We saw this alot in ultra lights. Pilots that thought "these rag & tube aircraft can't be hard to fly" were the ones that bent up airplanes. If you land a UL like a Cessna your gonna leave parts on the runway. They are not difficult to fly, but like jmaynard says you need transition training into any aircraft. Approach, drag, stalls, site picture, are all different.


************************


My heart felt condolences to those involved, and to the family members left behind.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Ooohhh... NOW I get it; it's all the fly-ins' fault. Silly me. I thought it might have something to do with the pilots, the planes, or other contributing factors.

I never stated that it was the fault of the fly-in at all. It is simply that if you increase the number of aircraft or personnel engaged in what may be risky activities even by aviation standards in a given area, you have an increased chance of one of those aircraft or pilots causing there to be a need to involve the medical examiner's office.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Did you mean if you loose your medical you can fly sport pilot? If a pilot looses his medical he cannot exercise his sport pilot privileges without clearing it with the FAA. The medical reason for deigning the medical must be cleared before the pilot can operate as sport pilot. This is difficult to do.

During the last thread about sport pilots I was part of, there were several people who claimed that the sport pilot was the answer for a lot of the senior pilots who lost their medical for "minor" medical issues. This was in response to my concerns that most of the sport pilots out there were new pilots who had few hours which could contribute to a lot of accidents.

I would like to point out that I agree that there are a lot of transition issues.

 

[Clark1961]

We've debunked this one before. There are exactly two differences in the requirements for sport pilot vs. private pilot: no night flying, and no hood flying.

This statement is not correct. Sport pilots have limitations on airspace, altitude, and airspeed. Now some of those limitations can be overcome with training and sign-offs but not all.

Perhaps the limitations should be examined further. I noticed a significant improvement in skills after night flight training. Just how much is night training worth to a day VFR pilot? I'm thinking it's much more than one might suspect. Along the same lines, instrument navigation is a skill and confidence builder and the value shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[TMetzinger]

This is nothing new for them; I had such a requirement last June when I insured my Zodiac.

I think what's new is that if you already own a certificated aircraft, and you want to fly an LSA (even if you're not owning it) and be covered under your policy, you gotta get 5 hours make and model instruction.

 

[jmaynard]

We've debunked this one before. There are exactly two differences in the requirements for sport pilot vs. private pilot: no night flying, and no hood flying.

This statement is not correct. Sport pilots have limitations on airspace, altitude, and airspeed. Now some of those limitations can be overcome with training and sign-offs but not all.

Your statement about the restrictions to which sport pilots are subject is correct...but I was speaking about the training requirements. For that, you should compare 61.107(b) to 61.311; you will find my statement to be correct. I was addressing the original comment that sport pilot training is insufficient.

Perhaps the limitations should be examined further. I noticed a significant improvement in skills after night flight training. Just how much is night training worth to a day VFR pilot? I'm thinking it's much more than one might suspect. Along the same lines, instrument navigation is a skill and confidence builder and the value shouldn't be overlooked.

The current NPRM for changes to the sport pilot rules does add a requirement for an hour of hood time, and I think that's a good thing. I've always thought the sport pilot should be able to get a signoff for night ops, as well. There is a minor issue in that, as far as I'm aware, no state tests drivers for color vision; that could be addressed by only allowing night ops if the pilot has ever had a medical with no restrictions based on color vision or a statement of demonstrated ability.

 

[SteveinIndy]

I can't see why, except to allow the coroner to enjoy the show. Maybe forensic findings need to be extra-fast in the event of an FAA investigation on the grounds so that event can continue without much interruption? At any rate, it's not like they will be busier there than at the county office.

I work in a coroner's office that has responsibility over a metropolitan area with far more residents than Oshkosh and we only handle a 6-8 deaths that we actually investigate in a given day. In a smaller jurisdiction, adding one or two deaths per day in addition to what results from the additional car accidents, medical deaths, etc from a large event bringing in persons from outside the community can increase the number of deaths by 50-100% or more.

That can explain why they might put a deputy on the airport grounds. The same reason explains why we provide additional staffing on the site of the largest sporting event in our area annually.

most fatals at Airventure have involved non-LSAs (and not just homebuilts, either) with "real" pilots at the controls... often very experienced pilots.

Right, I was just using it as an example of airshows that have produced a history of regularly resulting in fatalities.

And it doesn't mean somebody's going to buy the farm every year.

Not saying that it does either. But you have to admit that a lot of the crashes (9 that I am aware of about 15 crashes) involved experimental designs. BTW, the "one fatality per year" average was quoted to me by an FAA official I know. According to the NTSB database, there were fatalities in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2001, 1998, 1992, 1990, and 1988 so what I was told was incorrect.

It could be argued that the density of aircraft ops into, out of, and at Wittman during the event contributes to the probability of accidents (duh), but I don't think there's much correlation between fatal (and non-fatal)accidents at Airventure and the certification of aircraft or pilots.

Right, and I don't disagree. I am actually often amazed there aren't MORE crashes. The problem is that the % of crashes that are fatal seems to be pretty high as opposed to crashes occurring not in other circumstances (although this assessment is based upon relatively limited review done in the past few minutes).

"Real" pilots seem just as likely, to me, to have "real' accidents in "real" airplanes as "the other guys".

-Some from all of the above groups think "Experimental" means "unproven" or "unsafe"

I don't believe that the entire category are unsafe, but I do think there are some serious issues with many of the more popular designs that need to be addressed, especially in regards to survivability in the event of a crash.

-Some pilots think all new-rule Sport pilots, including old-timers who once held ratings up to and including ATP, are poorly-trained noobs who are a hazard to us all, and the aircraft deemed appropriate for them by the FAA, including production aircraft that have been in use for all kinds of flying for many decades, are dangerous toys.

My concern is for the truly new pilots and some of the newer designs marketed for sport pilots.

 

[Juliett]

How about everyone learn to fly safely in the airplane they're flying... no matter what type of certificate they hold?

 

[ScottM]

How about everyone learn to fly safely in the airplane they're flying... no matter what type of certificate they hold?

Oh the voice of reason among a throng of hysteria.

You're right of course.

 

[TMetzinger]

How about everyone learn to fly safely in the airplane they're flying... no matter what type of certificate they hold?

TWWWEEEEEETTTT! Injecting Reason and Logic into Internet Discussion... Ten yard penalty, repeat 4th down!

 

[brcase]

An aircraft should be flyable in all configurations save short of power. If it has flaps, it should be able to perform on some level with flaps fully extended and fully retracted. How else is the pilot going to learn what not only the plane is capable of but how he remains in safe flight in such configurations?

After flying the ChallenegrII I quickly figured out that the flap, actually flaperons, control is only used for trim. I later verified this from the owners of other Challengers. So effective what the pilots that were trying to do when landing with full flaps was trying to land with the trim full forward. It is flyable, just no pleasant to do.

Brian

 

[brcase]

What is the rate per # of hours flown for PPL vs Sport Pilot? I don't believe there has been sufficient research to back up your statement (nor mine, but I openly admit that mine is a concern, rather than a fact). Also how does the rate of crashes change as level of experience changes? What is the case fatality rate (% of crashes that are fatal vs. non-fatal vs. no injury at all)? This latter point is the area that most concerns me as it is where my research is most focused.

I agree/admit that this is just my my observation here locally. We had large number of ultralight pilots flying out our local airports and nearly 100% of them have transitioned to a Sport Pilot Certificate, They have also brought in quite a few new pilots. Unfortunately numbers are hard to come by. I do like using number to back up my observations. I didn't intend my statement to be stated as a fact. Perhaps I assumed this because I never take anything as fact without data to back it up.

 

[JoeSelch]

I never stated that it was the fault of the fly-in at all. It is simply that if you increase the number of aircraft or personnel engaged in what may be risky activities even by aviation standards in a given area, you have an increased chance of one of those aircraft or pilots causing there to be a need to involve the medical examiner's office.

Sorry.
You stated that "a fly-in of pilots of sport or experimental aircraft is likely to produce a fatality" and "AirVenture kills at least one person per year on average"... mistakenly, I read that to mean that the fly-ins causethe fatalities.

Mea culpa.

 

[Clark1961]

Your statement about the restrictions to which sport pilots are subject is correct...but I was speaking about the training requirements. For that, you should compare 61.107(b) to 61.311; you will find my statement to be correct. I was addressing the original comment that sport pilot training is insufficient.

My statement was about the requirements. Those requirements are direct results of the limitations: no nights, no Delta, no Charlie, no Bravo, no high, no fast. The regs you refer do not describe the training requirements or standards for either PP or Sport. The regs you refer to do give sort of an executive level view of the requirements. If one wishes to compare sport pilot with private pilot then I suggest they look at the entire picture not just a small subset of the requirements.

The current NPRM for changes to the sport pilot rules does add a requirement for an hour of hood time, and I think that's a good thing. I've always thought the sport pilot should be able to get a signoff for night ops, as well. There is a minor issue in that, as far as I'm aware, no state tests drivers for color vision; that could be addressed by only allowing night ops if the pilot has ever had a medical with no restrictions based on color vision or a statement of demonstrated ability.

If wishes were horses then pigs would fly and we'd all carry big umbrellas.

Sport pilot is what it is. It's a choice I investigated and declined. Other folks will make other choices. I'd rather avoid misrepresenting the requirements, privileges and limitations.

 

[gismo]

We've debunked this one before. There are exactly two differences in the requirements for sport pilot vs. private pilot: no night flying, and no hood flying. The first is because sport pilots aren't allowed to fly at night. The second is an oversight, IMAO, and there's an NPRM out about changes to the sport pilot rule that would add such a requirement.

Anyone should get a good, thorough checkout when transitioning into any aircraft, and an LSA is no different. That's the biggest cause of LSA accidents - and it's due to pilots with thousands of hours jumping into the LSA and assuming they can fly it right away. When those accidents are removed, LSAs and sport pilots have a similar safety record to the rest of general aviation.

A couple of the LSAs I've flown would hardly turn at all with aileron only input. AFaik many examples were derived from designs that fly with rudder alone.

I suspect that some of the safety issues are the result of "real" pilot's thinking they won't have any trouble flying an ultralight based LSA since they know how to fly a Cessna or Bonanza. The lack of skills transfer goes both ways.