T-34A

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 47 November 21, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------


SAFETY INSTRUCTOR, STUDENT DIE IN TEXAS CRASH
The owner of Texas-based Aviation Safety Training, 64-year-old Don
Wylie, died Wednesday with his student, William Eisenhauer of
Centerville, Ohio, after a wing separated from the 1965 Beech T-34 the
two men were flying. Wylie and Eisenhauer had just completed a lesson
in the school's upset recovery course and had rejoined with another
T-34 that had given the same instruction to another student. That
aircraft returned safely. A company official said there was no contact
between the two aircraft. The course introduces pilots to accelerated
flight conditions and recovery from those conditions. Another branch
of the company, located at David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport north of
Houston, is Texas Air Aces, an air combat company that allows
participants to engage in simulated aerial combat using lasers to
determine when the other aircraft is hit. However, the aircraft were
not engaging in air combat maneuvers, a company official said. Wylie,
whose pilot customers included actor Harrison Ford, had given 8,500
hours of instruction since 1990 and flew 251 missions as a fighter
pilot in Vietnam. He earned the Silver Star, Distinguished Flying
Cross, and 16 Air Medals


On 21 Nov 2003 07:58:52 -0800, (Rich Stowell)
wrote in Message-Id:
:

---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
From: "T-34 Association, Inc."
To:
Subject: Texas T-34 Crash
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:36:04 -0600

Main stream news outlets in the Houston area, excerpted in previous
posting in this news group, could lead to a couple of misconceptions
regarding the circumstances of this accident.

1) we understand from informed and knowledgeable sources that the
accident was NOT the result of a mid air collision. Eyewitness
reports from a pilot on the ground and examination of both the
wreckage and the second T-34 give no credence to the theory that one
T-34 made contact with the other. These sources also indicate that
the wing separation appears to be very similar to the Sky Warriors
accident which was ultimately pinned on metal fatigue within the spar
assembly.

2) the airplane that crashed DID NOT have the "Baron spar"
modification. In fact, it appears that the airplane's spar had not
been inspected as required by the A.D. nor had any of the available
AMOCs been applied. This information was inaccurately stated in the
Aviation Safety Training company website.

As most readers will know, the A.D. (air worthiness directive)
significantly limited the hours and the flight envelope of every
T-34 aircraft until they had complied with the testing or
modification requirements of the A.D. These requirements were
designed to protect against another occurrence, such as this.

FAA and NTSB investigators will be trying to determine the cause of
the accident and whether or not the aircraft was being operated in
compliance with the A.D. If it was in compliance with either the
inspection /modification requirements (which does not appear to be
likely at this time), or the flight hour limitation and flight
envelope limitations, then the T-34 fleet can expect more action and
restrictions from the FAA.

We know that the results of the investigation will be of keen
interest to all T-34 owners and operators, so we will keep you
informed. In the mean time, we grieve for the loss of our fellow
T-34 Association member, and friend, Don Wylie, and his
passenger/student, William Eisenhauer Jr.

------------------------------------------------------



Big John wrote in message . ..
Kevin

Some more data.

Yesterday talk was that mission was "upset' training. I had my doubts
about that media report since was a flight of two ships. You don't
need two birds for upset training.

Today they are talking about simulated combat which takes two ships
and would track with what has been put out.

On front page there is a map of the area and the point of crash is
marked with a quote:

"One plane crashes after collision, killing two."

There is nothing in the 20 or so column inches on accident that talks
about a collision.

Data from morning Chronicle

Donald L Wyle 64 was the owner of Air Aces Inc
William Eisenhauer, Jr, 39, of Centerville, OH was second individual.
He had been a pilot for 15 years and worked for Airborne Express.

Retired corporate pilot on ground said, "Two planes were spiraling
around each other, like in mock combat

----clip----

"The whole wing came off," he said. "I just looked at it in
disbelief."

The wing that came off, fell about 1/2 mile from rest of wreckage.
.
It's a shame. Lots of people got to experience simulated combat type
flying that they never would have without this program.

My condolences to both families.

Big John


On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:04:48 -0500, "Kevin Chandler"
wrote:

Bill Eisenhower was the name of the other pilot. He use to be a member of
the club that I am trustee for. Although I did not know the man personally,
many members have said that he was a good guy and a great pilot. He got
most of his ratings with our club. He was a commercial airline pilot.



"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
21:00 Tuesday night TV news

Don Wiley pilot.

Ohio man second individual (said identified but didn' t give name).

One wing found a mile from wreckage (image on screen looks like about
3/5 of wing including tip). Supports structural failure in air as said
other aircraft landed with no damage.

Other mish mash one hears on TV following an accident.

Big John


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0600, Big John
wrote:

Texas Air Aces, T-34A out of Hooks Airport north of Houston, crashed
this morning (Tuesday). Both in aircraft deceased.

Flight (two A/C) had not started air combat maneuvers per media and
did not have a mid air????? if you can believe the media. Other A/C
retured to Hooks and landed safely.

Sone media talk on tonights news is that wing failed but nothing
official from TAA or FAA.

Other than deaths, aircraft type and organization have nothing else at
this time.

If/when more data is released, will post.

Big John

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:48:56 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Big John
wrote:

Ground witinesses say wing broke and came off (not mid air).

The big question will be: "Did it have the spar mod per the AD?"

That question seems to have been answered.

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

Larry Dighera wrote

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what
prevented the pilot and student from employing their parachutes
as would be expected?

Getting out of an airplane with a parachute was difficult enough
that the Navy required us to complete a "bailout" training program
using a T-34 bailout trainer. It consisted of the fuselage and
no wings but a lot of foam stuff to land on. The engine was running.
Not a simple task even considering that the trainer was static.
I have a hard time imagining someone (trained, or not) getting out
of an airplane with one wing missing doing it's death gyrations.
If you track the survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft, you will
find very few who successfully bailed out even though they were
wearing parachutes. I know of only one airshow pilot in recent years
that completed a successful bailout.
FAR 91.307 is nothing but a big farce. I strap a parachute on my 70
year old neighbor and go out to enjoy some acro in a YAK-52, now we
are perfectly legal, but what are his chances of using that parachute
if required?...I'm not even required to instruct him on the location
of the rip cord! I'm not sure that I could get out of an airplane
gyrating with one wing missing, the forces encountered might even
prevent one from raising his arms to open the canopy.

Bob Moore

In article ,
EDR wrote:

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:

Then how the heck did those guys claw their way out of Mustangs, 109s,
Hamps, B-17s, etc, etc.

They didn't get out of them when a wing came off.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:38:22 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :


Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what prevented the
pilot and student from employing their parachutes as would be
expected?

When a wing comes off, the resulting centrifigal forces become to great
for a person to claw their way out.

Of course we don't know the forces experienced by those pilots during
their final moments with most of one wing missing. But I would guess,
that with only one wing generating lift, the aircraft entered a rapid
roll and dove for the ground. If that was indeed the final flight
mode, and the CG were not centered on the pilots(s), then they would
indeed experience G forces.

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:03:35 GMT, Robert Moore
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote

Another question that no one seems to be asking is, what
prevented the pilot and student from employing their parachutes
as would be expected?

Getting out of an airplane with a parachute was difficult enough
that the Navy required us to complete a "bailout" training program
using a T-34 bailout trainer. It consisted of the fuselage and
no wings but a lot of foam stuff to land on. The engine was running.
Not a simple task even considering that the trainer was static.

In your experience, specifically what did you find hindered your
egress?

I have a hard time imagining someone (trained, or not) getting out
of an airplane with one wing missing doing it's death gyrations.

Thankfully, I have no firsthand experience bailing out of a damaged
aircraft, but I can imagine the difficulty accomplishing egress under
hi-g.

If you track the survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft, you will
find very few who successfully bailed out even though they were
wearing parachutes.

I'm having difficulty parsing that sentence. Are you saying those
survivors rode their damaged aerobatic aircraft to the ground, because
they couldn't manage egress, and yet they survived?! Or are you
saying, that many survivors of damaged aerobatic aircraft successfully
bailed out without waring parachutes? :-)

I know of only one airshow pilot in recent years
that completed a successful bailout.

How many do you know of that were unsuccessful?

FAR 91.307 is nothing but a big farce. I strap a parachute on my 70
year old neighbor and go out to enjoy some acro in a YAK-52, now we
are perfectly legal, but what are his chances of using that parachute
if required?...I'm not even required to instruct him on the location
of the rip cord!

I have no idea what his chances might be.

I'm not sure that I could get out of an airplane
gyrating with one wing missing, the forces encountered might even
prevent one from raising his arms to open the canopy.

With only one wing generating lift, I would expect the aircraft to
roll rapidly (something like a snap roll) in the direction of the
missing wing in a near vertical, nose-down attitude. If the pilot
were positioned above the CG, it would seem that centrifugal force
would act to force him toward the canopy. However, if the roll was
not occurring centered on the longitudinal axis (as in a barrel roll),
that wouldn't be the case. It's difficult to predict.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:03 GMT, EDR wrote in
Message-Id: :

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

In my estimation, it is likely the pilot(s) were positioned above the
CG, and would have experienced centrifugal force in the direction
toward the canopy. Perhaps the severed portion of the wing hit the
cabin when it separated and frustrated their egress.

Why do you think the force vector is vertical and not lateral?

I wouldn't expect the force vector to be acting in a vertical (as in
away from the Earth) direction, but in a direction away from the axis
of the roll. If the roll were centered on the aircraft's longitudinal
axis (as a snap roll is) and the pilot were positioned off that axis
toward the canopy, I would expect the force to act toward the canopy
if/when it stabilized.

The twisting moment of the roll might have initially induced some
lateral deflection of the victor, but once (if) it stabilized, there
would no longer be any lateral acceleration resulting from the roll,
only the centrifugal force would remain.

This is difficult to discuss without graphics.