Giles-202 Inflight Break Up USA

[Rotorwork]

Sadly no Ballistic Chute

 

RIP

 

Fly Safe

 

R W

 

From ASN

 

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=179079

 

Actual accident footage

 

http://abc7ny.com/news/plane-practicing-for-ny-air-show-crashes-killing-pilot/960733/

 

The aircraft, an experimental Cornell/Sahakian built Giles G-202, experienced an inflight breakup during aerobatic flight and impacted the terrain at Stewart International Airport (KSWF), Newburgh, New York. The airplane was destroyed and the sole pilot onboard received fatal injuries.

 

[MEDIA=vimeo]87300503[/MEDIA]

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Was the pilot wearing one. Standard practice to do so. There is a Giles based at Rutherford. Wonder if an AD will come out of this.

 

 

[pylon500]

They probably all do, but timing the video, he only had about 7 seconds from breakup to impact.

 

Take out the 'What the hell?' time, doesn't give him much left...

 

RIP.

 

 

[facthunter]

The structural failure is the significant event. Once that happens it's all over. I can't recall the fuselage separating like this in any other occasion I am aware of. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

taildragger landings????

 

 

[Rotorwork]

Looks like he had the aircraft fully kitted for go pro's or similar.

 

So close ups of the failure will be on the memory cards in the wreckage.

 

 

[pylon500]

After more review, there appear to be parts separating on the way down, canopy?

 

Maybe he was trying to get out...

 

 

[Robbo]

Must be an awful feeling on the ride down knowing that your life is about to end and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

I sense a lot of the pro aerobatic guys will be using chutes soon.

 

Dave your thoughts?

 

 

[djpacro]

1. About 18 years ago a CAP 222, French built version of the Giles 202, lost its tail in a similar fashion. As far as I know it was not the same problem.

 

2. All the local (and I daresay all in the world) drivers of Giles wear chutes. As do many Pitts and Extra etc pilots.

 

3. Need enough time/height to exit with a chute high enough above the ground for it to be useful. As mentioned, it takes time. Gyrations following a structural failure can make it extremely difficult to exit. (I can only hope that focussing on the chute takes one's mind off other things).

 

4. Discussion today with a Giles driver about how to inspect the structure in that area. Hhhm. (Incidentally, the previous day we'd been talking about 787 ground damage and inspections.)

 

5. The Giles is an orphan - not certified so never going to be any ADs and the manufacturer no longer exists so only individual owners with a keen interest. The MX was developed from the Giles and also not certified with the manufacturer also out of business.

 

6. I've heard that we'll get an investigation of the MX structural failure at the recent World AerobaticChampionships.

 

7. Many of us like the Pitts structure. I also like certified airplanes.

 

 

[nong]

Poor bugger might have been over-flying it. Even these new super planes have limits.

 

 

[nong]

I like the Zvesda SKS-94 escape system. Weighing 18kg, it is far from inexpensive, but, it will get you out quickly and at low level. Designed for the job and fitted to some Sukhoi radial engined aerobatic aircraft.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Even competition Pitts want to twist their tails off when flown aggressively over a season of unlimited arerobatics requiring extensive inspections.

 

This appears to have been a simple monocoque carbon fibre fuselage shell structure, where radial loads would be high. I don't see any evidence of longitudinal strengthing at all, so you would need to have some cloth layers orientated rotationally in this area for the required strength.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think they are a steel tube truss, Maj like most of those things. Truncated Triangular Pyramid. Only going from memory. Aerobatic aircraft need constant inspections. Even things like seat frames.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Same with these high tech yachts. The material they are making them from is so inflexible the hulls end up shattering over time. Unlike the old epoxy glass layups that can flex under pounding.

 

 

[Rotorwork]

The aircraft was manufactured in 1998

 

Must have taken some punishment over the years.

 

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=18FJ

 

 

[Ultralights]

also, competition aero pilots sometimes like to take G limits a little to far, repeatedly.

 

 

[facthunter]

G limits mainly relate to to things like wing spars etc. Having the fuselage fail and actually separate may have little to do with "G" loading. I feel it is a fairly rare happening. Many structures are not redundant in so much as the failure of one element of the structure means it's all over red rover. Nev

 

 

[nong]

I think they are a steel tube truss, Maj like most of those things. Truncated Triangular Pyramid. Only going from memory. Aerobatic aircraft need constant inspections. Even things like seat frames.

The Giles in my hangar had a composite monocoque fuselage.

 

 

[djpacro]

also, competition aero pilots sometimes like to take G limits a little to far, repeatedly.

I must hang out with a different crowd at competitions.Some do push the limits and those flying a Pitts S-1 usually get away with it (apart from little bits over time) as its structure does not deform until way beyond the limit load factor. Disappointingly, some S-1 owners don't actually know the limit load factors and manoeuvre speed limitations. More relevant, I hear some pilots of new-fangled monoplanes saying that their airplane has no such limits, effectively.

 

 

[facthunter]

There aren't many structures that have to tolerate the load factors these things are subject to. That's why they need constant inspections. Perhaps some strain gauges /indicators that might record overload of the structure Otherwise you only know when it happens, and it's all over. Fail safe redundancy is generally too heavy to be practical. Every bit of the structure has to work to justify being there in competition. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Certification of composite aircraft structures requires some redundancy (fail-safe is old hat) so types such as the Extra have that built-in.

 

 

[diesel]

There aren't many structures that have to tolerate the load factors these things are subject to. That's why they need constant inspections. Perhaps some strain gauges /indicators that might record overload of the structure Otherwise you only know when it happens, and it's all over. Fail safe redundancy is generally too heavy to be practical. Every bit of the structure has to work to justify being there in competition. Nev

Torsion does strange things to tails and wings. Yes pits pilots have broken feathers off back there. Every time its bent it remembers. Chas

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

This was a carbon fibre monocoque failure. Was it the Sukou-32 Russian aerobatic plane that had the failure of the carbon fibre main-spar a few years ago. If not engineered correctly even Carbon fibre and Kevlar can fail.

 

There are a lot of people out there manufacturing composit and CF structures who have no idea about the mechanics and engineering involve in correctly laying up composit structures.

 

IF layed up correctly (orientated) any composit structure and especially a CF one will be very strong for a very long time and more than capable of handling required stresses over a long period of time.

 

The empenage on that Giles should obviously have had rotational layers of cloth wrapped around it in two directions, as well as others orientated in longitudinal and lateral directions........did it ?......

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Being a tail drager i wonder if the stress of landing and taxying on rough surfaces may have added to the failure.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Being a tail drager i wonder if the stress of landing and taxying on rough surfaces may have added to the failure.

On most good tail dragger set ups Oz the tailwheel itself takes the landing loads. It is possible if the tail was slammed on ( especially sideways) there could be loads transferred to the empennage itself. Composit structurers themselves are however very good at absorbing loads and shocks in most cases.