RV6 Down in Oregon

A highly modified RV-6. It has an RV-4 wing, smaller shorter..... and a home made spar.

The whole wing came off, not just a part of the wing. The spar apears to have failed.

This plane has been the subject of many discussions. Clearly, those discussion had validity.

I hurt for the family of the victims.
 
Last edited:
Saw this in the news the other night. Location of debris and reports from witnesses indicates some sort of failure of the wing occurred in flight.

There is also a thread about this on Van's Airforce; someone there had suggested the wing spar was different than what Van's ships because the airplane allegedly was built entirely from plans. I don't know if that is possible or plausible and haven't checked that forum for followups.
 
Saw this in the news the other night. Location of debris and reports from witnesses indicates some sort of failure of the wing occurred in flight.

There is also a thread about this on Van's Airforce; someone there had suggested the wing spar was different than what Van's ships because the airplane allegedly was built entirely from plans. I don't know if that is possible or plausible and haven't checked that forum for followups.

Apparently, the airplane was well known in local circles. The poster on VAF who stated that this airplane was far from a stock airframe is Mike Segar, the gentleman who is Van's factory sponsored transition instructor. He indicated that the wing and its attachment method were substantially different from stock.

Supposedly, the facts will show that this was an RV-6 in name only.
 
Apparently, the airplane was well known in local circles. The poster on VAF who stated that this airplane was far from a stock airframe is Mike Segar, the gentleman who is Van's factory sponsored transition instructor. He indicated that the wing and its attachment method were substantially different from stock.

Supposedly, the facts will show that this was an RV-6 in name only.

Does make you wonder though if the Feds are going to get up in arms over how the rules allow someone to take a kit like the RV-6 and make such a mess of it.
 
Does make you wonder though if the Feds are going to get up in arms over how the rules allow someone to take a kit like the RV-6 and make such a mess of it.

I believe the airplane was built in 1996. Unless it was modified since then, it took quite a few years for it to show problems.
 
Does make you wonder though if the Feds are going to get up in arms over how the rules allow someone to take a kit like the RV-6 and make such a mess of it.

With experimental you can build or modify the kit or the plane as you see fit. There is nothing stating you must build it to the plans unless it is LSA like the RV-12, but even the RV-12 can be modified after the AW Cert is issued.... legally. Vans is VERY adamant about modifications to their designs, and go to great lengths to discourage it, and the vast majority of builders adhere to the plans ... hence a good safety record.

I would lean more towards the problem home builders have with doing their own annuals. I know I'm gonna start a firestorm, but it makes zero sense to me to be able to build a plane and do the annuals yourself. There should be a regulation that if you built an RV-6 you can inspect someone else's RV-6, but not your own. I cannot tell you how many issues I have seen looking at someone else's experimental that they just built and inspected. IMHO the spar issue MAY have been found in this instance. These things just don't fail in one day.

Until we have honest condition inspections (by another set of eyes) we will continue to have issues where parts fail that could have been caught.

Yes, I am a experimental aircraft owner / builder, and an EAA Tech counselor. just my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
That's horrible. I'm guessing the guy was in my old man's EAA chapter, so I'll be interested to hear more.
 
Very sad. The fact the plane was out there for 10 years doesn't necessarily mean much - how many hours were put on it in that time frame?

While I understand Geico's concerns with owners doing their own inspections, this is also part of the appeal of experimental, and really a requirement to keep it appealing to me. What's to say another builder has an equal or better clue than me about the plane? The fact that Geico has found lots of problems with the planes of others indicates that clearly a lot of them don't know what they're doing.

More productive in my mind would be a recommendation to have an expert look at the plane at some interval. Personally, I'd go for at build completion, 100 hours, and then probably 500, 1000, etc. But if it's a requirement I let another builder do my inspections? No way, I'll stick to certified.
 
Very sad. The fact the plane was out there for 10 years doesn't necessarily mean much - how many hours were put on it in that time frame?

While I understand Geico's concerns with owners doing their own inspections, this is also part of the appeal of experimental, and really a requirement to keep it appealing to me. What's to say another builder has an equal or better clue than me about the plane? The fact that Geico has found lots of problems with the planes of others indicates that clearly a lot of them don't know what they're doing.

More productive in my mind would be a recommendation to have an expert look at the plane at some interval. Personally, I'd go for at build completion, 100 hours, and then probably 500, 1000, etc. But if it's a requirement I let another builder do my inspections? No way, I'll stick to certified.

I think most of the planes I have found issues with had good, competent builders. The problem comes in when doing annual condition inspections. People are people. After you inspect the plane for the 10th time and find nothing there is a tendency to stop looking.

Certified aircraft are not exempt from this either. We all have heard of planes being sold and having a new A&P find mucho problems with planes that just came out of annual. One man's "watch and see" issue is another man's "gotta fix it" issue.

All I am saying is another set of eyes looking at the airplanes is always a good thing. :yes:

My heart breaks for the victims and their families this holiday season. Instead of planning family get togeathers and parties, they are planning funerals.
 
Last edited:
I think most of the planes I have found issues with had good, competent builders. The problem comes in when doing annual condition inspections. People are people. After you inspect the plane for the 10th time and find nothing there is a tendency to stop looking.

Certified aircraft are not exempt from this either. We all have heard of planes being sold and having a new A&P find mucho problems with planes that just came out of annual. One man's "watch and see" issue is another man's "gotta fix it" issue.

All I am saying is another set of eyes looking at the airplanes is always a good thing. :yes:

In principle I agree, and these issues do come up in the certified world as well. Yet, you don't see a requirement to change who you go to for annuals with certified planes, and you'd get tremendous argument and lots of problems if you did.

The idea of requiring a different set of eyes at annual gets rid of 90% of the experimental appeal to me. Now realistically, I'd probably ask for someone to help anyway, especially if something caught my eye. It's that bit about being forced - you know, like what you always complain about with certified planes. ;)
 
Saw this in the news the other night. Location of debris and reports from witnesses indicates some sort of failure of the wing occurred in flight.

There is also a thread about this on Van's Airforce; someone there had suggested the wing spar was different than what Van's ships because the airplane allegedly was built entirely from plans. I don't know if that is possible or plausible and haven't checked that forum for followups.

Do you guys have links to the discussions on VAF? I'm curious to see what was said about the spar beforehand, as well as now that the accident has happened.

I haven't been able to find it though... any help would be appreciated :)
 
Do you guys have links to the discussions on VAF? I'm curious to see what was said about the spar beforehand, as well as now that the accident has happened.

I haven't been able to find it though... any help would be appreciated :)

I only saw the post-crash thread here (looks to have been locked since I last looked - they hate speculation on that forum): http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=93535

The site http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=150887 indicates it is a "McDaniel RV-6-CH, (AKA: Chard 6)". So searching for some combination of words in that text string (e.g. "Chard 6") might help locate pre-crash discussions.
 
Just found the following story, with this in it:

"Knox said Knopf mounted a camera on the plane before it took off a little before 3:30 p.m. in crisp, sunny weather. The plane crashed about 10 minutes later. A large chunk of the wing landed on Highway 226, nearly 2,000 feet from the fuselage."

If the camera and the images on it can be recovered, that might provide some clues.

Link:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/11/experimental_rv6_airplane_in_f.html
 
Do you guys have links to the discussions on VAF? I'm curious to see what was said about the spar beforehand, as well as now that the accident has happened.

I haven't been able to find it though... any help would be appreciated :)

I can't provide a link, but I can tell you that Mike Segar, the transition training instructor for Vans commented in the thread that he was familiar with the aircraft and that its wing was far different from a stock RV-6 wing. In other words, this problem does not translate to the normal RV-4 or RV-6 wings.

For what it is worth, my understanding is that the wings on the RV-4 RV-6 have a bigger structural margin than the wings on the rest of the RV fleet, when flown within design limits.
 
When I first started to think seriously about becoming a pilot and started researching it, this kind of the accident was the one that really put chills down my spine. I know it's probably pretty rare, but the thought of falling all the way down like that, knowing the outcome and knowing you can't do anything about it is just about the most disturbing though I can think of. Those poor souls :(

When I someday get my own, likely all metal production aircraft is there anything that can be done to prevent this other than finding a good shop familiar with that specific model to do the annual?
 
Spar failures, and airframe failures are very, very rare in production aircraft. Dunno about experimentals.
 
When I first started to think seriously about becoming a pilot and started researching it, this kind of the accident was the one that really put chills down my spine. I know it's probably pretty rare, but the thought of falling all the way down like that, knowing the outcome and knowing you can't do anything about it is just about the most disturbing though I can think of. Those poor souls :(

When I someday get my own, likely all metal production aircraft is there anything that can be done to prevent this other than finding a good shop familiar with that specific model to do the annual?

It's worth noting first off just how extremely, extremely rare it is for wings to fall off in flight, or other major catastrophic structural failures that occur. And, in the vast majority of cases, there was something happening that wasn't supposed to. For a while, T-34s were having this issue, because people were operating them beyond their design intent. Dumb move. Lancair IV-Ps have had wings fall off when the pilot flies into a thunderstorm at FL250 (which seems to be intentional) at high rates of speed. Very dumb move. In this case, it appears the person intentionally put the wrong wings on the plane with odd spar attachments. We'll see how it comes out in the end, but this is a dumb move, as well.

If you're noticing a pattern here, it's that the failures are typically caused by pilots mistreating the airplane. Yes, there are occasional instances where planes break up in flight. But you have the best way of preventing this from ever happening - don't do stupid things.

Beyond that, buy a good example of a plane that's structurally sound and inspected by someone who knows what to look for (which is most A&Ps). You'll do just fine.
 
Spar failures, and airframe failures are very, very rare in production aircraft. Dunno about experimentals.
They do happen. My homebuilt accident database lists about 47 accidents in the category "Mechanical Failure- Airframe." From a quick scan, it looks like 28 of them involved the wing or wing support structures.

That's out of about 2,700 accidents over a 12-year period. So wing failure is involved in about 1% of homebuilt accidents. Only three of the accidents were RVs, and two of them were related to the known RV-3 problem.

Ron Wanttaja
 
When I first started to think seriously about becoming a pilot and started researching it, this kind of the accident was the one that really put chills down my spine. I know it's probably pretty rare, but the thought of falling all the way down like that, knowing the outcome and knowing you can't do anything about it is just about the most disturbing though I can think of. Those poor souls :(

I use to worry about it, but don't so much anymore. I collided with a large deer at freeway speed on my motorcycle. I might have only had 20' to think about it..............but I thought that was the end, during that last millisecond. By all right's, it should have been. But, it turned into a sur-real experience. I was conscious throughout the event. I felt the impact, hit the highway on my head, and felt nothing. Time seemed to extend, and my only thought was "would I ever decelerate". The world just went around and around, and around. No sense of pain at all.

As it turns out, I traveled 150' (off the cycle) from point of impact. A full face helmet prevented my neck from being instantly broke, as well as no head injuries. My left side, didn't do nearly as well (most bones broken). But after that, I just don't fear it, not much at all.

L.Adamson -- Van's RV6 (much different spar, than this one)
 
If you're noticing a pattern here, it's that the failures are typically caused by pilots mistreating the airplane. Yes, there are occasional instances where planes break up in flight. But you have the best way of preventing this from ever happening - don't do stupid things.
Well... wing failures due to builder or maintainer error occur at about the same rate as the pilot overstressing the airframe. It's surprising how long some really bad mistakes will still hold together.

Ron Wanttaja
 
When I someday get my own, likely all metal production aircraft is there anything that can be done to prevent this other than finding a good shop familiar with that specific model to do the annual?

BRS sells whole airplane parachutes for the Cessna 172 and 182: http://brsparachutes.com/certified_aircraft.aspx

A number of ASTM LSA certified airplanes are designed to be equipped with parachutes. ASTM even has standard specification for airframe emergency parachutes: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2316.htm
 
Well... wing failures due to builder or maintainer error occur at about the same rate as the pilot overstressing the airframe. It's surprising how long some really bad mistakes will still hold together.

Ron Wanttaja

Are you referring to on certified or experimental? I was looking at both combined.
 
Are you referring to on certified or experimental? I was looking at both combined.
My statistics were for Experimental Amateur-Built only. I took a look at my ten-year database of Cessna 172/210 accidents. There were three wing failures out of about 1700 accidents. Two were overstress due to flight in convective conditions. The other was maintenance error.

None were due to deliberate aerobatics. Guess the 172 is a better aerobatic plane. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
curious, what maintenance error would lead to in flight wing failure of a 172 or 210? forgetting to install the bolts?
 
curious, what maintenance error would lead to in flight wing failure of a 172 or 210? forgetting to install the bolts?

Inspecting for deformation, cracks, wear, bent bolts, failing to retorque bolts. It is exceeding rare that a catastrophic failure occurs with out signs.
 
curious, what maintenance error would lead to in flight wing failure of a 172 or 210? forgetting to install the bolts?
No, the nut.

"The right wing exhibited no damage prior to the separation in-flight. The right strut to fuselage fitting attach bolt was observed to be wedged in the lower strut attach fitting at about 15 degrees, with the threads of the bolt engaged in the forward hole of the fitting. The aft hole of the fitting and the threads of the bolt appeared to be undamaged. The nut for the attach bolt was not found in the wreckage." (FTW03FA053)

Ron Wanttaja
 
It ends up I did know one of these guys.

The owner of the plane flew into Lebanon, where I've been many times for events and cheap fuel.

The guy I knew there, Jeff Earl "Tebo" Kropf ran the place and was a country style guitar player buddy who I'd spent time with, lunches in town, music, events etc.

Each year Tebo put on a fly around Oregon event where you earned chits for landings at out of the way airports around the state with a BBQ, Music, Prizes and Flour Bombing contest at the end of the summer for the passport holders.

The last time I saw him was at this event.

Tebo was heavy. Probably 270 pounds or more.

I read on a blog that he and this other guy went up to do "some rolls" and they mounted a camera on the plane to record the adventure. They were dead 10 minutes later.

If you have full fuel (The guy had stopped there for fuel) with a 270 pounder on board, you are only 110 pounds short of gross in my RV6. I have a very light version of the 6, only 1040 pounds empty. I doubt the other pilot weighed 110 pounds so they were seriously over gross.

Two big guys in an RV6 with full fuel is NOT recommended by Vans for aerobatics.

Dick only recommends aerobatics single pilot and half fuel. And BTW, it's a hell of alot more fun to fly that way, like your own personal F16.

The RV6 is a completely different machine at gross weight. Completely. I NEVER do aerobatics with full fuel and two on board. It's dangerous and the controls get very heavy...especially in the roll with heavy breakout forces.

When I roll the six, I first pull up, let the speed bleed off to around 100 mph, neutralize the controls and initiate with full deflection held throughout the roll. You can do it from straight and level, but you'll fall out and build speed requiring a high G pullout.

The RV6 only rolls at 270 degrees per second, which is slow when your upside down in a super slick aircraft that builds speed quickly.

By pitching up and slowing down I'm able to add margin to the roll so I'm not over-speeding before getting back upright. I can do the roll this way with very little altitude loss as long as I'm pitched up pretty steep when I initiate.

With the size of Tebo's legs I'm certain the pilot was not able to get full roll deflection because the stick requires a large displacement for full deflection.

Even I have to shove the stick hard into my thigh to get near full deflection and I'm still not quite there. But the plane has deep chord aileron's that provide good authority even in partial deflection.

This is a wild guess, but I think the pilot initiated from straight and level at a less than optimal altitude (it was only 10 minutes later) fell out of the maneuver because of partial deflection, saw the ground coming up fast, then pulled way too hard, way too fast in a plane that was well over gross.

He may not have made it full upright, pulling him into a John Kennedy "Death Spiral," because I also read an eyewitness comment that the plane was in a steep bank when the wing shed.

But even the above scenario wouldn't break a six. They have an extremely robust web spar that's been failure tested to 9G's and no RV6 has ever lost a wing...Ever.

There are so many of these flying, there must be hundreds of thousands of hours flown in them by now.

I'm certain there are plenty of guys out there who have tried their damnedest to break these planes and no one has succeeded yet. But they sure have broken fully certified Bonanza's!

So I kept looking around and found a comment about this particular aircraft:

"A highly modified RV-6. It has an RV-4 wing, smaller shorter..... and a home made spar.

The whole wing came off, not just a part of the wing. The spar appears to have failed.

This plane has been the subject of many discussions. Clearly, those discussion had validity."

So this guy builds a plane for speed and maneuverability using a shorter wing, but weaker spar, then fell out of an aerobatic maneuver loaded well over gross.

You really have to want to kill yourself to do **** like this.

There are guys in this game who have no respect for the hazards and you can't weed them out. We still live in a free country...so far.

I was in the San Juan's awhile back and chatted with an experimental amphibian driver who told me he'd dead sticked his plane 8 or 10 times with all his engine and other mods screwing up on him. You should have seen this plane. A bailing wire, Rube Goldberg jukebox.

He said, you want to see my ballast?

I said...Sure.

He opens up the nose and its filled with big rocks.

The NTSB will ferret this out with Dick's help.

I'll miss Tebo. He was a genuinely great and talented guy. This is really bad news all the way around.
 
Does make you wonder though if the Feds are going to get up in arms over how the rules allow someone to take a kit like the RV-6 and make such a mess of it.

The beauty of the EAB world is that you can do what you want. The flexibility is a great thing. Styrofoam, epoxy and glass cloth were for surfboards until Rutan came along. All of the certified guys envy us EAB guys for the airframe, engine, and panel options we have that let us build a better mousetrap.

I believe this aircraft was a one-off side by side airplane built before the RV6 was kitted, so the builder modified RV4 wings and constructed a unique fuselage. Time will tell if there was a design or construction problem, or if this airplane was brought down by something else. Either way, it is unfortunate.
 
A long long time ago, two well known aviators here went out and did something similar in the Eastern Plains... Over grossed an RV or similar and didn't make it out the bottom of a loop started too low.

Assuming your weight assumptions are correct, the accidents sound similar.
 
Tim and Jeff did not do any rolls or abuse the plane. They had only been in the air ten minutes and witnesses say that they were approximately 1000 feet AGL and were making a gentle left bank when the wing folded up onto the plane. Also, when Tim bought the plane from the McDaniels, it had been inspected. We were told it was an RV-6. Nothing about it being one "in name only". He had only had it a few months. Tim and Jeff both were excellent and careful pilots. Tim never broke any rules. We are still waiting for the NTSB to finish their investigation, but he was never reckless. By the way, the camera was never found. Jeff's brother continues to look for it.
 
When I someday get my own, likely all metal production aircraft is there anything that can be done to prevent this other than finding a good shop familiar with that specific model to do the annual?

Buy a Mooney. There has never been a spar failure, or wing separation ever. Not one, even though there is a well known case of a Mooney flying into and surviving a severe thunderstorm where the pilot lost complete control of the aircraft, blacked out from the intense Gs only to regain consciousness a few thousand feet AGL and recover the plane. Result- a bent, but not broken spar and a plane that was still capable of normal maneuver and landing.

If you can't bear to buy a Mooney, then careful inspection and flying within design parameters is your friend. If you build a plane, buy a reputable kit, or plans and then stick to the plan.

This horrible crash illustrates graphically the experiment part of the "experimental". Never forget that you are part of the experiment.
 
I certainly never will forget it. I lost my husband of 27 years. The father of our five children. I want to find out what really happened. I want to find out why this RV-6 wasn't an Rv-6.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top