If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
"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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 I skimmed it - bwb weighed in at 246 lb & 5ft 11 1/2 in Anterior artery from heart almost blocked. Toxic cocktail of painkillers etc. None disclosed on medical. Three plugs oiled up. The lid might have opened, scattering stuff..... Brian W |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:14:31 -0500, brian whatcott
wrote: 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 I skimmed it - bwb weighed in at 246 lb & 5ft 11 1/2 in Anterior artery from heart almost blocked. Toxic cocktail of painkillers etc. None disclosed on medical. Three plugs oiled up. The lid might have opened, scattering stuff..... Brian W on my last annual I found 3 plugs oiled up. effect on the engine performance was nil. I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed. was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery? stealth pilot |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message ... was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery? I ain't no doctor, but diagnosing that takes some pretty $pecific and sometimes very invasive tests that are not done without very good reason. I also tend to focus on the canopy. In that scenario the "real failure" was: 1) An improper (probably rushed) preflight check. (On any canopy plane, you need to double and triple check that the canopy is secure.) 2) A failure to ignore the noise, wind, and swirling debris caused by the open canopy and concentrate on flying the perfectly controllable airplane. The drugs and the pilot's general health were probably certainly factors, but even without the drugs, the same could have happened to many of us. Vaughn |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
Stealth Pilot wrote:
I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed. was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery? Certainly, I'd say the drugs were prescribed. As far as failure to diagnose the problem, check the NTSB report again: "The pilot’s most recent application for airman medical certificate in May 2007 noted a “precautionary” coronary angiogram in 2006 which “showed no blockage.” ... Records obtained from the pilot’s cardiologist regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006) noted a “totally occluded” small left anterior descending coronary artery with “good collaterals” and otherwise normal coronary arteries." So the diagnosis had been made. Phillips knew he had a problem; this angiogram was performed over a year before his death. We don't know if there had been any treatment other than drugs. I suspect not; his cardiologist would probably have noted it on his records and it would have been mentioned in the NTSB report. There could have been many reasons why Phillips didn't have surgery to alleviate the problem. Denial is common enough... "I feel fine...there isn't a problem!" Another factor is that surgery is hard to hide. Your friends know, your enemies find out, and there's always that fear that one of the latter will inform the FAA and get your medical canceled. All of us know friends who have gone through the tremendous hoops necessary to get their medicals back after heart surgery. btw if you have been taking medications for some time the body adapts. it is possible to have high levels of medications in the blood stream that have next to no cognitive effect on the individual. Certainly the body adapts, when exposed to large doses of drugs or alcohol over a long period. We've heard stories of drunk drivers with BACs above the line that would put most people unconscious. These people can outwardly seem normal. But this isn't just an issue of "Monkey Skills," as Phillips called them. This is an issue of reaction time and decision making, especially decision-making under stress with a less-than-nominal. cardiovascular system. The NTSB didn't just note high levels of a cocktail of drugs (vicodin, valium, paracodine, cardura, morphine derivatives, etc.)...the term used was "acute mixed drug intoxication". This indicates to me that the NTSB feels that the amount passed the line where normal functioning was possible. The NTSB is likely to view the decision to take off with a 20-knot gusting tailwind as an erosion of decision-making skills due to the "drug intoxication." Ron Wanttaja |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Report on Bill Phillips' Accident
In article ,
Ron Wanttaja wrote: Stealth Pilot wrote: I could be jaundiced here but surely the drugs were prescribed. was the real failure a failure of the american medical system to diagnose and correctly treat his blocked anterior artery? Certainly, I'd say the drugs were prescribed. As far as failure to diagnose the problem, check the NTSB report again: "The pilot¹s most recent application for airman medical certificate in May 2007 noted a ³precautionary² coronary angiogram in 2006 which ³showed no blockage.² ... Records obtained from the pilot¹s cardiologist regarding the angiogram (performed September 25, 2006) noted a ³totally occluded² small left anterior descending coronary artery with ³good collaterals² and otherwise normal coronary arteries." So the diagnosis had been made. Phillips knew he had a problem; this angiogram was performed over a year before his death. We don't know if there had been any treatment other than drugs. I suspect not; his cardiologist would probably have noted it on his records and it would have been mentioned in the NTSB report. There could have been many reasons why Phillips didn't have surgery to alleviate the problem. Denial is common enough... "I feel fine...there isn't a problem!" Exactly. The doctor would not have been likely to prescribe surgery, but keep an eye peeled for further developments. Even something are relatively simple as installing a stent has some risk associated with it, and you're looking at a year or three of follow up medications, lifestyle changes. Just installing a stent, with nothing else done, can increase the risk of inducing a coronary by generating blood clots. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Badwater Bill - Janice Phillips contact | BobR | Home Built | 1 | October 24th 08 02:46 PM |
NTSB report - ILS and ATC. How does it all come together? | Montblack | Piloting | 1 | June 19th 06 11:26 PM |
NTSB report - ILS and ATC. How does it all come together? | Montblack | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | June 19th 06 11:26 PM |
Preliminary NTSB report on Walton accident | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 11 | July 12th 05 04:23 PM |
Prelim NTSB report, Pilatus accident in PA | vincent p. norris | Piloting | 15 | April 11th 05 02:52 PM |