Dennis Fetters Mini 500

I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa
a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually bought a
kit as a project for the department.

I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually construct
the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was never
a question of who was going to fly the bird.

According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
with the ground and burst into flames."

This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that day...

The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov



"Jay" wrote in message
om...
I don't have a dog in this fight but...

Read the news story, and one of the main themes was "we got to do
something to change this." My response, don't buy this aircraft.
More regulation and lawyers will put the last nail in the coffin of
experimental aviation. Living life is not without risk; it's the
price of freedom. Its like all this money we're spending on post 9/11
security, whether or not you're safer is questionable, but the amount
of your life your will have to sell to your boss(freedom you have been
denied) to pay those taxes is certainly greater. And isn't this whole
thing about loss of "life"?

So condolences to the families of those lost pursuing their dreams.
Think carefully, choose wisely in everything you do especially
building and flying aircraft.

BTW, a single 2 stroke motor is really best on aircraft and airports
that allow a safe landing anywhere any time.

Regards

(EmailMe) wrote in message
om...
I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500
debacle.

I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started
reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this
helicopter.

All I can say is unbelievable....

I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all
encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually
took the time to look into things.

http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html

I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the
Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their
homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be
deemed experimental.

My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that
unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured
or lost there lives.

I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the
employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the
Mini 500 from 1990 forward.

Brad Mallard wrote:
I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa
a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually bought a
kit as a project for the department.

I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually construct
the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was never
a question of who was going to fly the bird.

According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
with the ground and burst into flames."

This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that day...

The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
"Jay" wrote in message
om...


Fetters wrote:
This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:

************
On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. cut

According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
****************


Fetters wrote:
Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
returned a single AD notice as required.


***************
cut
According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
cut
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
control during the emergency descent.
*******************


Fetters wrote:
OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
error, who could disagree?

I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
partial information.

Dennis Fetters

Fetters wrote:


Your answers are well rehearsed.

I'll summarize:

1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible.

2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not
responsible.


Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know
the truth.

C.D.Damron wrote:
Fetters wrote:



Your answers are well rehearsed.


But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
imply something else?


I'll summarize:

1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible.

2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not
responsible.


Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know
the truth.


Nor do I want it from you or anyone else here. Honestly, you don't
deserve to give it. I know the truth, that's all that matters.

A few of you say you know the truth? Well, what is that? Was this last
accident talked about without the full facts the "truth" you say you
know about? The real truth is that there still has been no deaths in a
Mini-500 that was the fault of the design or flight characteristics. For
some reason you may not like that answer, but it is the truth!

I will adjust that statement. Now that there is no factory support, I do
fear that there will someday be accidents due to the lack of sustained
testing that occurred on a daily bases at the factory to stay ahead of
unforeseen problems, thus why we came out with a few AD's in the past.
That is why I recommend all Mini-500 activity be stopped.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

The guy is dead from a Mini 500.



"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
m...
Brad Mallard wrote:
I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in
Tuscaloosa
a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually
bought a
kit as a project for the department.

I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually
construct
the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was
never
a question of who was going to fly the bird.

According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
with the ground and burst into flames."

This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that
day...

The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
"Jay" wrote in message
om...


Fetters wrote:
This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:

************
On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. cut

According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
****************


Fetters wrote:
Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
returned a single AD notice as required.


***************
cut
According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
cut
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
control during the emergency descent.
*******************


Fetters wrote:
OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
error, who could disagree?

I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
partial information.

Dennis Fetters

Brad Mallard wrote:
The guy is dead from a Mini 500.


Brad, That's really putting it in a way that makes it sound like it was
the helicopters fault when it was not. We're all adults, is it to much
to be fair here?

The man is dead because he was attempting to fly a "helicopter" that was
not correctly built, not correctly jetted, and had been modified in a
manner that could have adversely affected it's flight characteristics,
and he did not properly autorotate after he had an engine failure due to
his own failure to follow simple instructions.

That is the proper and fair description. It's sad to see someone die in
a completely preventable accident.

Couldn't that happen in any helicopter design with the same scenario, right?

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters



"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
m...

Brad Mallard wrote:

I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in

Tuscaloosa

a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually

bought a

kit as a project for the department.

I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually

construct

the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was

never

a question of who was going to fly the bird.

According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
with the ground and burst into flames."

This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that

day...

The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
"Jay" wrote in message
e.com...


Fetters wrote:
This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:

************
On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. cut

According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
****************


Fetters wrote:
Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
returned a single AD notice as required.


***************
cut
According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
cut
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
control during the emergency descent.
*******************


Fetters wrote:
OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
error, who could disagree?

I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
partial information.

Dennis Fetters

Brad Mallard wrote:

The guy is dead from a Mini 500.

Really? Sounds like he is dead from not following the manufacturer's
recommendations. It is sad that he is dead, but stupidity can be fatal,
especially when it occurs in relation to aviation.


Matt