NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The NTSB has released the factual report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA016& akey=1


This is the usual precursor to the final report, which usually contains
the same information with the addition of the NTSB's Probable Cause.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks, Ron.

Well, kids, there you have it.
That man had no business being on the flight deck.

But no way he would ever stop.


Richard

.... the tox report says it all... along with the phrase "acute mixed
drug intoxication."

I have to agree with Richard; Bill may (or may not) have been a good
pilot, but he wasn't a smart one.

S McF

cavelamb wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The NTSB has released the factual report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA016& akey=1

Well, kids, there you have it.

Well... not COMPLETELY cut and dried.

We've still got the issue about the main driver of the accident
sequence...whether the canopy was open, and how difficult an open-canopy
situation is to handle.

A number of Lancair owners have encountered open canopies and reported
that control was no big deal. However, there have been three recent
Lancair accidents that involved open canopies. The pilot survived the
most latest one, and gives a rather hair-raising report of what the
plane was like to fly.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA207& akey=1

From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
catching the NTSB's notice.

When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
circumstances. You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been
able to force-land safely.

Works the other way, too. If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
cause.

From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy
*was* open. The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the
hinges forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if
the canopy was properly latched.

It all boils down to whether the NTSB concludes that the flight could
have been safely completed had Phillips not been impaired. My guess is
that the impairment won't be listed as the Primary Cause, but as a
contributor.

One thing interesting, though, is that Phillips' accident differs from
the other two canopy-open cases. In those instances, pitch control
became difficult, but neither pilot had trouble with roll. The SnF
plane continued to fly straight out, the pilot in Colorado actually
brought the plane back around the pattern and crashed on short final.

In contrast, once the canopy opened, Phillips' Lancair started turning
left and descended into the group.

Do you know what this reminds me of? John Denver's accident. The main
theory there was that Denver trying to turn a stiff fuel valve to switch
tanks after the engine quit on takeoff. He turned to the left to try
twist the valve...and his right foot applied pressure to the rudder,
turning the plane in the opposite direction from where he was looking.

Imagine Phillips' canopy coming open soon after takeoff. He turns
towards the handle on the canopy to try pull the canopy down...which is
probably mounted on the center section, above and to his right. This
naturally extends his left leg, which pushes the rudder pedal and starts
a turn to the left. The plane begins to descend, and goes into the
ground while the pilot is fiddling with the canopy. The passenger, too,
is looking up and behind at the canopy bow and doesn't notice the change
in attitude.

One of the things I've heard about the impact of drugs and alcohol is
that the first thing to go is the ability to multitask. I wonder if
that's what we're looking at, here....an unimpaired pilot would have
detected the roll, while Phillips became too focused on closing the canopy.

Ron Wanttaja

On Sep 21, 11:52*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
cavelamb wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The NTSB has released the factual report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...5&ntsbno=WPR09...

Well, kids, there you have it.

Well... not COMPLETELY cut and dried.

We've still got the issue about the main driver of the accident
sequence...whether the canopy was open, and how difficult an open-canopy
situation is to handle.

A number of Lancair owners have encountered open canopies and reported
that control was no big deal. *However, there have been three recent
Lancair accidents that involved open canopies. *The pilot survived the
most latest one, and gives a rather hair-raising report of what the
plane was like to fly.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...9&ntsbno=CEN09....

*From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
catching the NTSB's notice.

When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
circumstances. *You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been
able to force-land safely.

Works the other way, too. *If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
cause.

*From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy
*was* open. *The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the
hinges forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if
the canopy was properly latched.

It all boils down to whether the NTSB concludes that the flight could
have been safely completed had Phillips not been impaired. *My guess is
that the impairment won't be listed as the Primary Cause, but as a
contributor.

One thing interesting, though, is that Phillips' accident differs from
the other two canopy-open cases. *In those instances, pitch control
became difficult, but neither pilot had trouble with roll. *The SnF
plane continued to fly straight out, the pilot in Colorado actually
brought the plane back around the pattern and crashed on short final.

In contrast, once the canopy opened, Phillips' Lancair started turning
left and descended into the group.

Do you know what this reminds me of? *John Denver's accident. *The main
theory there was that Denver trying to turn a stiff fuel valve to switch
tanks after the engine quit on takeoff. *He turned to the left to try
twist the valve...and his right foot applied pressure to the rudder,
turning the plane in the opposite direction from where he was looking.

Imagine Phillips' canopy coming open soon after takeoff. *He turns
towards the handle on the canopy to try pull the canopy down...which is
probably mounted on the center section, above and to his right. *This
naturally extends his left leg, which pushes the rudder pedal and starts
a turn to the left. *The plane begins to descend, and goes into the
ground while the pilot is fiddling with the canopy. *The passenger, too,
is looking up and behind at the canopy bow and doesn't notice the change
in attitude.

One of the things I've heard about the impact of drugs and alcohol is
that the first thing to go is the ability to multitask. *I wonder if
that's what we're looking at, here....an unimpaired pilot would have
detected the roll, while Phillips became too focused on closing the canopy.

Ron Wanttaja

The problem with trying to diagnose what ultimately caused an accident
where something unusual occured with the aircraft is determining the
subsequent events which might have contributed. Many of the major
aircraft accidents over the years have all been traced to a series of
events that combined to cause the accident.

One of the first KIS Cruisers to be finished by a homebuilder was
destroyed when the pilot side door opened during climbout following
takeoff. The pilot reacted by trying to reach up, grab the door and
either close or hold on to it. That action caused the pilots seat
cushion to shift and jam against the stick pushing it forward and to
the right. The plane took a nose dive and hit the ground before the
pilot could recover. In that case, the pilot was very lucky and
survived with major but recoverable injuries.

Something of that very nature could have occured in this instance.
Bill was a good pilot but a distraction of trying to get the canopy
closed may have led to some other problem that he was unable to
recover from in time.

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
cavelamb wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The NTSB has released the factual report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA016& akey=1

Well, kids, there you have it.

Well... not COMPLETELY cut and dried.

We've still got the issue about the main driver of the accident
sequence...whether the canopy was open, and how difficult an open-canopy
situation is to handle.

A number of Lancair owners have encountered open canopies and reported
that control was no big deal. However, there have been three recent
Lancair accidents that involved open canopies. The pilot survived the
most latest one, and gives a rather hair-raising report of what the plane
was like to fly.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA207& akey=1

From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
catching the NTSB's notice.

When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
circumstances. You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been able
to force-land safely.

Works the other way, too. If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
cause.

From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy *was*
open. The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the hinges
forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if the
canopy was properly latched.

--------much snipped----------
I reached the same conclusion, that the canopy was open; and also that the
remarks about the boarding stairs were poorly phrased and more likely should
have read that the stairs wuld retract as the canopy was lowered to be
latched.

In any case, despite BWB's quirks and medications we do keep coming bach to
the matter of the canopy, and perhaps to the matter of hinged forward
canopies in general. It is certainly worrysome, although not surprising,
that two documented cases of canopies opening at or after takeoff had such
radically different symptoms. From the little that I have read about boat
hulls and the use of a slight "spoon area near the transome to prevent
oscillation, I am inclined to infer that the difference between a canopy
that might simply open slightly in trail and one which might oscillate
wildly could be a nearly imperceptable difference near the upper trailing
edge--and could easily be less than the thickness of the paint on the canopy
frame.

Peter
My conclusion does not please me!

Peter Dohm wrote:


--------much snipped----------
I reached the same conclusion, that the canopy was open; and also that the
remarks about the boarding stairs were poorly phrased and more likely should
have read that the stairs wuld retract as the canopy was lowered to be
latched.

In any case, despite BWB's quirks and medications we do keep coming bach to
the matter of the canopy, and perhaps to the matter of hinged forward
canopies in general. It is certainly worrysome, although not surprising,
that two documented cases of canopies opening at or after takeoff had such
radically different symptoms. From the little that I have read about boat
hulls and the use of a slight "spoon area near the transome to prevent
oscillation, I am inclined to infer that the difference between a canopy
that might simply open slightly in trail and one which might oscillate
wildly could be a nearly imperceptable difference near the upper trailing
edge--and could easily be less than the thickness of the paint on the canopy
frame.

Peter
My conclusion does not please me!


However an open canopy would effect handling (and I can see nightmares there),
there is one point we've kind of skipped over...

If the canopy latches were not damaged,
then I would surmise that it was not latched.

That would be pilot error - pure and simple.

I'm going to stay with my first impression.
BWB had no business being in the left seat.


Richard

The superior pilot uses his superior judgment
to avoid having to use his superior skills.

cavelamb wrote:

However an open canopy would effect handling (and I can see nightmares
there), there is one point we've kind of skipped over...

If the canopy latches were not damaged,
then I would surmise that it was not latched.

That would be pilot error - pure and simple.

The fact that the latches weren't damaged doesn't mean the canopy hadn't
been latched when the takeoff run began. Doors/canopies do pop open.
It can sometimes be a matter of rig, so that there wouldn't necessarily
be obvious evidence on the latch hardware post-crash.

According to Phillips' geocities page, the plane had a pumped seal on
the canopy. That may have applied some opening force in a case where
latch wasn't up to snuff...or if it wasn't properly latched to start
with. Are these kinds of seals normally interlocked with the canopy
latches, so they won't inflate unless the latches are set?

The NTSB report doesn't mention any previous problems with the
latch...seems like any of Phillips' friends would have cued the NTSB
investigator in if he'd been having problems with it. The plane was
built by a "hired gun," so Phillip wouldn't have had a builder's
understanding of how the system worked.

The downwind takeoff does imply he was in a hurry, and thus more likely
to forget to latch the lid. If the seals *were* interlocked with the
latches, seems like the additional noise if the seals AREN'T filled
would quickly cue the occupants that the canopy wasn't latched. But if
the seals were able to be inflated with the canopy unlatched, there
wouldn't be any sound cues...until the difference in pressure overcame
the seal's friction and popped the canopy up.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
....
From the above report, you can see that the open-canopy accidents are
catching the NTSB's notice.

When the NTSB comes up with a "Probable Cause," they seem to factor in
what a competent pilot should have been able to accomplish, in those
circumstances. You'll see a lot of accident reports which list Pilot
Error as the cause, even though the accident began with a mechanical
failure, because the investigator thought the pilot should have been
able to force-land safely.

Works the other way, too. If the NTSB concludes that the aircraft was
uncontrollable with the canopy open, that'll be listed as the primary
cause.

From what I can tell reading the report, it appears that the canopy
*was* open. The latches were undamaged; the ground impact twisted the
hinges forward and to the left, which probably wouldn't have happened if
the canopy was properly latched.

It all boils down to whether the NTSB concludes that the flight could
have been safely completed had Phillips not been impaired. My guess is
that the impairment won't be listed as the Primary Cause, but as a
contributor.

One thing interesting, though, is that Phillips' accident differs from
the other two canopy-open cases. In those instances, pitch control
became difficult, but neither pilot had trouble with roll. The SnF
plane continued to fly straight out, the pilot in Colorado actually
brought the plane back around the pattern and crashed on short final.

In contrast, once the canopy opened, Phillips' Lancair started turning
left and descended into the group.

Do you know what this reminds me of? John Denver's accident. The main
theory there was that Denver trying to turn a stiff fuel valve to switch
tanks after the engine quit on takeoff. He turned to the left to try
twist the valve...and his right foot applied pressure to the rudder,
turning the plane in the opposite direction from where he was looking.

Imagine Phillips' canopy coming open soon after takeoff. He turns
towards the handle on the canopy to try pull the canopy down...which is
probably mounted on the center section, above and to his right. This
naturally extends his left leg, which pushes the rudder pedal and starts
a turn to the left. The plane begins to descend, and goes into the
ground while the pilot is fiddling with the canopy. The passenger, too,
is looking up and behind at the canopy bow and doesn't notice the change
in attitude.

One of the things I've heard about the impact of drugs and alcohol is
that the first thing to go is the ability to multitask. I wonder if
that's what we're looking at, here....an unimpaired pilot would have
detected the roll, while Phillips became too focused on closing the canopy.

Ron Wanttaja

I had a canopy open. Fortunately, it started flopping early in the
takeoff roll and I stopped and fixed it.
I recall it was a strong distraction - though I was still on the ground.
It was a Fornier RF-4 (or RF-5, forget which) both of which had / have a
long clear lid with a side latch.

In contrast, a door is opened only against resistance on a Cessna 150
(while the parachute jumper jumped out...)

Brian W