Team AeroDynamix Collision

B

BamaPilot

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
BamaPilot
10406779_10153111904757931_7070849889467422922_n.jpg


I hope I embedded the photo correctly.

Collision in the Team AeroDynamix show today at the Tuscaloosa Regional Airshow. The pilot did a hell of a job getting it back down to the taxiway away from the crowds.
 
The article online doesn't say anything about a collision, just says the propeller failed.
 
It happened in tight formation. The second plane involved landed immediately as well. I suppose it could have been a prop failure, and the second aircraft was simply struck with prop shrapnel. But his fuselage took some damage.
 
That's more than a simple prop strike. You don't grind one in half, they stop quickly on pavement.
 
That appears to be Danny Kight's RV-6. He calls himself "Speedy".
 
Touchy subject on the VAF RV forum. :eek:
 
Nope. Threads shut down and deleted on the VAF yet again. That used to be a good site to go get information from but it seems to be dying a slow death due to all the over moderation.

Keith
 
IMGP4460 (2).JPG IMGP4543.JPG IMGP4592 (2).JPG I was there on Saturday. Cloudy, cold and horrible seating arrangements. Team Aerodynamix put on a good show but I can't help to wonder what a challenge that would be to operate in a formation that large. Lots of moving parts going on.
 
Last edited:
From the FAA:

IDENTIFICATION
Date: 29-MAR-15
Time: 18:30:00Z
Regis#: N8JL
Aircraft Make: VANS
Aircraft Model: RV8
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Aircraft Missing:
Damage: Minor
LOCATION
City: TUSCALOOSA
State: Alabama
Country: United States
DESCRIPTION
Description: AIRCRAFT STRUCK AN RV-6 IN FLIGHT. TUSCALOOSA, AL
INJURY DATA
Total Fatal: 0
 
BamaPilot said:
It happened in tight formation. The second plane involved landed immediately as well.
Click to expand...

Did the second plane land at Tuscaloosa or divert to another field? I watched the RV6 put it down on the taxiway, never saw the second plane land, but did see the Maroon RV8 from their group come in and land after the Blues finished, while we were taxiing out to depart. Thought maybe he was the other involved plane and coming back from his divert airport after verifying what damage there was, but that was just a hunch.

Velocity173 said:
I was there on Saturday. Cloudy, cold and horrible seating arrangements. Team Aerodynamix put on a good show but I can't help to wonder what a challenge that would be to operate in a formation that large. Lots of moving parts going on.
Click to expand...

Saturday's weather definitely sucked, Sunday was a huge improvement. Great pics though!
 
wanttaja said:
Out of curiosity, what made it touchy? A non-fatal collision between participants in what was apparently a formal group.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

VAF doesn't seem to allow any discussion on

1) Accidents
2) Anything negative about someone who ($$) advertises with them.

The site has been a great resource as I've been building my 9A, but it was extremely frustrating when I had an issue with AeroLED (a VAF advertiser). My thread got shut down, and when I sent a message questioning why I was told (in so many words) that they didn't allow anything negative against an advertiser.

-Dan
 
Even the vans Air Force ,can make a mistake,glad there where no injuries. Too bad they don't allow discussion ,so every one can learn from the incident .
 
You learn real fast that if you step on certain people's toes, read that the upper echelon of posters, on VAF forums that you will have posts deleted. I once poked fun of one of the formation groups with a hilarious video of "the red sparrows". It was classic British humor with guys running around in formation with mock biplanes strapped to them. It apparently got someone's nose bent out of joint and was deleted.

This being one of the more well known formation groups, I assume that it is a major "don't go there" as well.

Needless to say, I'm not heard from on that site these days....
 
Pretty much why I quit posting to VAF a couple of years ago. There are some good folks there, but also a serious clique! Easier to just move along.
 
It's his site, and the VAF owner can run it like he wants, however wound up tight he may be. The safety orgy a few years was a little over the top and self-important, led by the site owner. I'm all for real safety, but the site seems to cultivate safety police/Nazi types. I'll never forget one of the douche regulars who said he would call the FAA if he saw anyone do a simple aileron roll at 1,000 AGL' over an airpark. And I had to laugh a few years back after the site owner was in a fit of rule and safety preaching and someone posted a video of said VAF site owner doing aerobatics in his RV-6 clearly over a densely developed neighborhood. That video lasted mere seconds.
 
RoscoeT said:
It's his site, and the VAF owner can run it like he wants, however wound up tight he may be. The safety orgy a few years was a little over the top and self-important, led by the site owner. I'm all for real safety, but the site seems to cultivate safety police/Nazi types. I'll never forget one of the douche regulars who said he would call the FAA if he saw anyone do a simple aileron roll at 1,000 AGL' over an airpark. And I had to laugh a few years back after the site owner was in a fit of rule and safety preaching and someone posted a video of said VAF site owner doing aerobatics in his RV-6 clearly over a densely developed neighborhood. That video lasted mere seconds.
Click to expand...

I remember that too. I was banned and deleted when I started RVairspace.com I guess he thought I was going to be a threat. Some people are really insecure. I won't even mention that some of my advertisers were.....nevermind. I started the site on the urging of people who wanted a non-moderated site. I don't get too many people posting, just reading. You are all welcome there if you have not heard of it. Glenn
 
This thread seems to be evolving from the incident in the OP to a discussion on the VAF forum. I too have noticed the VAF forum has a set of regulars who seem to pray at the altar RV and any discussion of design weaknesses will not be tolerated. I started a thread on there once about the nosewheel failures/flipovers in the "A" model RV's; that thread didn't last long either.

It is no surprise to me this collision would be a touchy subject though it really should not be. Seems like the incident was handled well.
 
Kahuna- Team AD guy posted earlier on VAF that they are in a stand down due to the incident. Thread is locked, of course.

He said it kind of weird and making light of the reports of "touching". Well that's what's its called when one aircrafts propeller TOUCHES another aircrafts stabilizer and proceeds to loose several inches of length. That is the definition of touching, but I went to public school so maybe I am wrong on this.
 
I was there on Saturday as well. Flew in actually. It got cold and cloudy early and rained on me on the flight home. I mean it was horribly cold! They put on a great show Saturday though!.Sucks that happened.
 
Not surprised Mike has put it on stand down. He is extremely safety conscious and will work hard to make sure it does not happen again. They do have a lot of moving pieces and they practice hard to get it right.
 
EppyGA said:
Not surprised Mike has put it on stand down. He is extremely safety conscious and will work hard to make sure it does not happen again.
Click to expand...

It's SOP, not really a choice. Very fortunate outcome. Fraction of a second difference in timing and we'd be reading about a real tragedy.
 
retpd2001 said:
I remember that too. I was banned and deleted when I started RVairspace.com
Click to expand...
Hey did I 'borrow' some rivets from you a long time ago, facilitated through VAF? If so I owe you a tiny bit of flight test swag, PM me your address.

Nauga,
who isn't done with them yet
 
This is the RV-8, N8JL that was involved in the mid-air collision at Tuscaloosa, Al on March 29.

2rwome0.jpg
 
Wowzers. Though I still have to say, I never saw that plane land, at least not right away. Granted I was off to the north side in the static display area and watched the RV-6 land with the prop damage, so if the above RV-8 landed on the main runway I may not have seen it. But to have that much damage and no one from the static crowd even knew about the second plane until Monday, I don't know where the heck he went after he landed.
 
Geico266 said:
First and foremost my heart goes out to both pilots for doing a great job getting back on the ground. Well done Team Aerodynamics! :yes:

IMHO, VAF is actually adding to their liability exposure by NOT allowing discussions of these types. They are culpable in HIDING issues of formation flying, accidents, etc. They allow NO discussion of these subjects what so ever. A real shame, and a disservice to experimental aviation and specifically RV's.

Safety issues in airplanes are best explored and dealt with openly and freely. Hiding from them and not allowing discussion only adds to the problem and makes VAF vulnerable to litigation IMHO.
Click to expand...

Huge pet peave of mine, and something Doug and I have butted heads on.

I do a lot of cave diving. As you can imagine we have fatalities from time to time. For the most part when they are open circuit divers (re-breathers are another really sore subject for me) we do a really good job of getting the data out as quickly as possible so that if the diver screwed up we can learn something from it.

This is one of the basic, fundamental tenants of cave diving. Accident analysis (along with much better training) has caused the fatality rate to drop to an incredibly low level from what was an astounding number in the 70's -80's.

We try very hard to keep the discussions impersonal, and fact based. But if someone screwed up we don't hesitate to discuss that. It can be quite brutal at times, but it also saves lives. I've made it very clear to the folks I dive with that I would expect nothing less if it was ever me involved in an accident.

I find it very unfortunate that we are being deprived of what could be a tremendous opportunity to save lives in aviation by someones misguided attempt to make the sport seem safer than it really is.

-Dan
 
dweyant said:
We try very hard to keep the discussions impersonal, and fact based. But if someone screwed up we don't hesitate to discuss that. It can be quite brutal at times, but it also saves lives.
Click to expand...
Facts are few and far between in the *aviation* mishap discussions going on here and the ones that occasionally sneak through on VAF. Even scarcer is valid analysis based on what few facts exist. "Safety" conclusions based on bad data or flawed analysis are pointless. I don't know if administrative moderation is the best solution but self-moderation sure doesn't work here.

Nauga,
forensically
 
nauga said:
Facts are few and far between in the *aviation* mishap discussions going on here and the ones that occasionally sneak through on VAF. Even scarcer is valid analysis based on what few facts exist. "Safety" conclusions based on bad data or flawed analysis are pointless. I don't know if administrative moderation is the best solution but self-moderation sure doesn't work here.

Nauga,
forensically
Click to expand...


Funny, they say the same thing on every scuba forum I am on when we start trying to dissect a diving accident.

While many of he facts aren't know when the discussion starts, I have always felt the "what ifs" helped in raising awareness of all the different things that could go wrong as what the immediate action drill would be.

While I just a student pilot, I find these types of discussions in aviation to be helpful in solidifying the importance of what we should be doing as pilots.

Having already witnessed a fatal accident (the day I was scheduled to solo, in the plane I was supposed to solo in), I believe the post-crash discussions to be of critical importance to the community in general.

All of the "what ifs" that did (and still are) being thrown about regarding the local accident here have certainly focused my mind on the plethora of little things that can align to ones detriment.

Just my 2¢
 
Tflhndn said:
Funny, they say the same thing on every scuba forum I am on when we start trying to dissect a diving accident.

While many of he facts aren't know when the discussion starts, I have always felt the "what ifs" helped in raising awareness of all the different things that could go wrong as what the immediate action drill would be.

While I just a student pilot, I find these types of discussions in aviation to be helpful in solidifying the importance of what we should be doing as pilots.

Having already witnessed a fatal accident (the day I was scheduled to solo, in the plane I was supposed to solo in), I believe the post-crash discussions to be of critical importance to the community in general.

All of the "what ifs" that did (and still are) being thrown about regarding the local accident here have certainly focused my mind on the plethora of little things that can align to ones detriment.

Just my 2¢
Click to expand...

Sound advice.
 
dweyant said:
Huge pet peave of mine, and something Doug and I have butted heads on.

I do a lot of cave diving. As you can imagine we have fatalities from time to time. For the most part when they are open circuit divers (re-breathers are another really sore subject for me) we do a really good job of getting the data out as quickly as possible so that if the diver screwed up we can learn something from it.

This is one of the basic, fundamental tenants of cave diving. Accident analysis (along with much better training) has caused the fatality rate to drop to an incredibly low level from what was an astounding number in the 70's -80's.

We try very hard to keep the discussions impersonal, and fact based. But if someone screwed up we don't hesitate to discuss that. It can be quite brutal at times, but it also saves lives. I've made it very clear to the folks I dive with that I would expect nothing less if it was ever me involved in an accident.

I find it very unfortunate that we are being deprived of what could be a tremendous opportunity to save lives in aviation by someones misguided attempt to make the sport seem safer than it really is.

-Dan
Click to expand...

Agreed..... I don't visit the Vans site very often at all.... On 9-11-2013 I did witness the fatal crash of N820RV.... I was the first one at the scene, was hired by the National Park service to clean up the mess off their sagebrush... Then hired by the NTSB to assist in the investigation.... I spend several days digging through a ugly mess.... Then, the insurance company refused to recover the wreckage from the hangar I had it stored in during the investigation, they released the mess to me so it ended up in my yard for a couple of months till they came and got it..

Being a fellow experimental guy I was VERY curious as to exactly what caused the problem, so I reconstructed the entire deal and found out the reason for the crash and deaths of those people......

I did post a detailed analysis on Vans site and it was VERY quickly pulled down......Seems counter productive to me to not let facts out to all the other RV owners..... But, it is Doug's sandbox and he calls the shots...:mad2::mad::redface:
 
N801BH said:
Agreed..... I don't visit the Vans site very often at all.... On 9-11-2013 I did witness the fatal crash of N820RV.... I was the first one at the scene, was hired by the National Park service to clean up the mess off their sagebrush... Then hired by the NTSB to assist in the investigation.... I spend several days digging through a ugly mess.... Then, the insurance company refused to recover the wreckage from the hangar I had it stored in during the investigation, they released the mess to me so it ended up in my yard for a couple of months till they came and got it..

Being a fellow experimental guy I was VERY curious as to exactly what caused the problem, so I reconstructed the entire deal and found out the reason for the crash and deaths of those people......

I did post a detailed analysis on Vans site and it was VERY quickly pulled down......Seems counter productive to me to not let facts out to all the other RV owners..... But, it is Doug's sandbox and he calls the shots...:mad2::mad::redface:
Click to expand...

Can we see the reconstruction here, in the experimental forum? Or did I miss it?

I, for one, am naturally curious about EVERY mishap that involves an RV.
 
nauga said:
Facts are few and far between in the *aviation* mishap discussions going on here and the ones that occasionally sneak through on VAF. Even scarcer is valid analysis based on what few facts exist. "Safety" conclusions based on bad data or flawed analysis are pointless. I don't know if administrative moderation is the best solution but self-moderation sure doesn't work here.
Click to expand...
Those involved in this mishap are thankfully alive and well, but apparently not talking about it. Hopefully that is a temporary condition. While the cause will probably be given as something like "failure to maintain adequate seperate during formation flight," I am certain the accident pilots could provide some helpful context. I see absolutely no benefit in moderating away speculation, and even less in moderating away the facts.
 
Tflhndn said:
Funny, they say the same thing on every scuba forum I am on when we start trying to dissect a diving accident.
Click to expand...
I may be on some of those forums as well, but I don't participate in the accident dissection because I have no experience investigating or analyzing diving accidents and don't have the experience necessary to pass judgement in the absence of facts. I do here. All too often the what-ifs that come out of amateur analysis here and on other aviation forums is laughable. Not long ago posters on POA were speculating on the cause of an accident based on a single photograph *of a different crash*. If you think that type of discussion is useful then we're probably not going to reach common ground in this discussion.

Nauga,
carpe data
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
I did post a detailed analysis on Vans site and it was VERY quickly pulled down......Seems counter productive to me to not let facts out to all the other RV owners..... But, it is Doug's sandbox and he calls the shots...
Click to expand...
Looking at the site, there is no apparent connection to Vans' Aircraft itself; it appears to be a privately-owned forum.

Therefore, if I may gently chide, it shouldn't be described as "Vans site". It would give the appearance that the company is suppressing discussion on accidents, which I do not believe is the case.

If I am wrong, please correct me....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
I, for one, am naturally curious about EVERY mishap that involves an RV.
Click to expand...
In the interim, chew on the attached.

I've rigged up my accident database to be able to enter an aircraft manufacturer and type and generate a set of standard statistics. It also generates the stats to compare the percentages to the overall homebuilt fleet.

Note this is a working product, so there's some casual notes there as well as statistics that don't really lead anywhere. But it might give you an idea what to expect.

The RV-8 listing includes both -8 and -8A models.

Ron Wanttaja
 

Attachments

  • Vans April 2015.pdf
    14.7 KB · Views: 23
  • Vans RV-8.pdf
    14.4 KB · Views: 17
wanttaja said:
Looking at the site, there is no apparent connection to Vans' Aircraft itself; it appears to be a privately-owned forum.

Therefore, if I may gently chide, it shouldn't be described as "Vans site". It would give the appearance that the company is suppressing discussion on accidents, which I do not believe is the case.

If I am wrong, please correct me....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


You are correct..... The site is called Vans Airforce...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top