NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident

Peter Dohm wrote:

Really, all of this is still just speculation whether there is some sound
reason that the canopy might not have been fully latched and on how BWB's
condition might have progressed during the flight if the takeoff and climb
had been uneventfull.

...I am willing to speculate that pilot incapacitation was not the root
cause of this accident.

Which brings back to the issue of the canopy...

I don't think pilot incapacitation is the root cause of the accident,
either. However, pilot *impairment* may well have been a contributing
cause.

Let's play NTSB here, and step through the known facts.

1. Was the canopy open at time of impact?

A. No damage to the canopy latches, and significant sideways impact
damage to the canopy hinges. Canopy was probably open at the time of
impact.

2. Had the canopy been properly latched at the time of takeoff?

Nothing overt, here. No detected damage to the latching mechanism. No
previous problems noted with the latch on the accident airplane.
Aircraft equipped with a pressurized seal that may have held the canopy
in place until the airspeed rose to the point where lift forces on the
canopy may have overcome the friction of the seal.

3. Would an unlatched canopy cause the airplane to be uncontrollable?

A. The kit manufacturer says no. Several owners of that aircraft type
have reported open canopies in flight with varying effects of control of
the aircraft.

There were two other accidents involving open Lancair canopies within
six months of Phillips'. In the first case, witnesses reported that the
pilot had trouble closing the canopy before takeoff. The canopy opened
after takeoff, and witnesses report seeing the canopy bob up and down
like the pilot was trying to close it. Engine power was lost, but as
there was no reaction, it's possible the pilot killed the throttle to
try to reduce the airflow over the canopy to assist in closing it. The
airplane pitched nose down and descended in a left-hand turn. No
mechanical cause was found for the reduction in power.

In the second case, the pilot apparently failed to latch the canopy. He
reports the canopy oscillated on its own, and that pitch control of
the aircraft became very difficult. The pilot brought the plane around,
but wasn't able to maintain the approach path and landed short.

In short, everyone who experienced an open canopy and lived reported
that the airplane was at least somewhat controllable. There is only one
other instance of a fatality after a Lancair open canopy, and that case
exhibited a simple stall with no outward signs of control trouble.

(More discussion at:

http://98.192.103.179/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=296

4. Was the pilot qualified to fly the aircraft?

A. Yes. ATP with 4,500 hours, including 150 in type.

5. Were there factors that may have affected the pilot's ability to
control the aircraft?

Evidence of use of sedatives, painkillers, and muscle relaxants. Side
effects of Vicodin can include dizziness, lightheadedness, drowsiness,
euphoria, changes in mood, and mental fogginess.


I suspect the NTSB probable cause will be similar to that of the April
2008 fatality: "The pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control.
Contributing to the accident was the pilot's distraction with the canopy
during takeoff." They'll probably add a comment about pilot impairment,
as well.

I don't think the heart trouble or the lying on the medical will even
gain a mention, in the Probable Cause. However, since Phillips gained
his medical by fraud, the insurance company has grounds to deny any claim.

Ron Wanttaja

tom c wrote:

Acute in a clinicians realm is either a new sudden onset such as AMI (Acute
Myocardial Infarction) or a sudden flare up of an old condition such as
Acute Exacerbation of COPD.

Chronic is an ongoing but currently stable problem. Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease. Chronic conditions over the course of time cause
deterioration and for many mortality. Example would be Pulmonary Fibrosis.

In another post a "doctor" from POA said Bill's "Vicodin Level" was near
lethal. There is no such thing as a Vicodin Level. Vicodin (Lortab, Norco
etc) is a combination of acetaminophen (Tylenol) and hydrocodone. In the
report Bill's acetaminophen level was barely at the low end of therapeutic
and the hydrocodone and metabolites were sub therapeutic.

Thanks, Tommy. I'm yust an engineer; I don't have any medical
background, and the wide variety of opinion on this is making my head
spin. Some people say he would have been unaffected by the levels found
in the autopsy; others claim they are near-fatal doses.

BTW, in the interest of clarity, here's the link to the post from the
doctor on POA:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum...6&postcount=16

I figured his reference to "Vicodin level" was an attempt to simplify
things for the layman. When I first read the NTSB report, I had to Wiki
the drug terms to find out what that stuff is.

I guess I still step back to the "acute drug intoxication" comment on
the NTSB factual. Stealth and you have explained the medical meaning.
But when I do a Google search on the term, the hits seem to imply that
this is a fairly dire condition.

Let me try to put it simpler. If I get pulled over by the cops and my
blood test shows "... 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g) diazepam, 0.031 (ug/mL, ug/g)
dihydrocodeine, doxazosin, 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g) hydrocodone, and 0.094
(ug/ml, ug/g) nordiazepam," is this a level at which the courts would
consider me impaired?

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...


Let me try to put it simpler. If I get pulled over by the cops and my
blood test shows "... 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g) diazepam, 0.031 (ug/mL, ug/g)
dihydrocodeine, doxazosin, 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g) hydrocodone, and 0.094
(ug/ml, ug/g) nordiazepam," is this a level at which the courts would
consider me impaired?

Ron Wanttaja


It would vary by state but the sub therapeutic levels would weigh at trial.
Utah has a statute - driving while impaired - meaning that a hard limit
isn't necessary for conviction. There is a second statute for driving over
the limit RE alcohol. Most state don't enumerate a fixed limit on drugs.
Mere presence with evidence of impairment is significant for arrest. In
Utah's case being under the 0.08% isn't a guarantee of acquittal in a DWI
case. If the prosecutor can show evidence that the driver was impaired they
can still obtain a conviction. Likewise with drugs. The key is often the
dash camera.

The flip side of the coin is how long drugs remain in the system even after
the effects may no longer be present. THC remains detectable for a very long
period of time. Its presence can be found in hair for weeks. Certain drugs
can give false positives for others in quantity. I had a 78 year old lady as
a patient a few years ago. She essentially overdosed herself on
dextromethphorothan. Her Urine tox came back positive for PCP! We sent a
second specimen to verify and it was positive again. Called poison control
and they verified that the cough syrup gives a false positive for PCP. This
raises question regarding when the meds were taken.

Guess in the long run we'll need to wait for the NTSB final. The dissection
of the chain of events will be a lesson.

tom c

Clark wrote:
Here's a listing of various drug levels. I believe it indicates that the
hydrocondone level was in the therapeutic range.

http://fscimage.fishersci.com/webima...oads/winek.pdf

Outstanding. Here's a comparison of the NTSB Factual Report level vs.
the table.

Acetaminophen (Tylenol): 10.01 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 10-20 ug/ml is therapeutic.
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range

Diazepam (Valium): 0.055 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 0.02-4.00 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range

Dihydrocodeine (Codine derivative): 0.031 (ug/mL, ug/g)
Table: 0.03-0.25 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range

Hydrocodone (Vicodin): 0.152 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 0.03-0.25 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Mid therapeutic range

Nordiazepam: 0.094 (ug/ml, ug/g)
Table: 0.1-2.6 is therapeutic
Conclusion: Low therapeutic range (Wikipedia says that this is
a metabolite of Valim)

Everything looks in the therapeutic range, to this layman. I looked for
a list online of which are banned by the FAA, but didn't find one that
addressed anything other than general classes (AOPA has one, but I'm not
a member).

Ron Wanttaja

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:30:52 +0000 (UTC), Clark
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
m:

[snip]

Ron
Acute in the medical sense is quite different from our usual meaning.
typically we laymen use acute to mean serious.
In medical terms acute just means 'of short duration'
[snip]

Nope. It means of severe and short duration so far.

Don't minimize this one. Bill was obviously way over the line to be flying
a
plane. If we try to hide it behind fancy words then we are doing ourselves
a
disfavor.

that's the problem. bill wasnt obviously anything. he could have had a
pair of knickers over his face or have been blinded by something in
his eyes. you leap to the drugs aspect as the cause.
the stupid canopy design used on the aircraft was a greater factor in
the accident than his blood chemistry.

ymmv
Stealth Pilot


Exactly, a safety catch that would only let the rear edge of the canopy to
rise a small amount would almost certainly have prevented this accident; and
a fixed windshield with sliding canopy would be safer still.

Peter