U.S. - 3 killer in Lancair 4 takeoff - Albany GA

[Guest SrPilot]

Police: 3 dead in plane crash at Georgia airport

 

Published January 31, 2016

 

Associated Press

 

Authorities say three people are dead after a small plane crashed on takeoff from the Southwest Georgia Regional Airport in the city of Albany.

 

Albany Police spokeswoman Phyllis Banks told the Albany Herald that the crash occurred near the main runway Saturday afternoon and emergency crews went immediately to the site. She didn't identify the dead.

 

A phone message left by The Associated Press wasn't immediately returned by Banks late Saturday.

 

Arlene Salac, with the Federal Aviation Administration, said in an FAA statement emailed to AP that the Lancair 4 aircraft crashed at 2:35 p.m. The statement didn't give the plane's intended destination or other crash details. It said the FAA would investigate and the National Transportation Safety Board would determine the probable cause.

 

TV coverage at:

 

http://wfxl.com/news/local/albany-officials-respond-to-plan-crash

 

 

[kaz3g]

From Wikipedia...

 

Unpressurized four seat kit-plane, powered by a 350 hp (261 kW) Continental TSIO-550 engine[1][3]

 

As of June 2014, the NTSB Aviation Accident Database records 20 crashes involving 18 fatalities across all IV variants.[7]

 

On February 3, 2012, Steve Appleton, CEO of Micron Technology, Inc., was killed while attempting an emergency landing in a Lancair IV-PT turboprop at the Boise Airport in Boise, Idaho, moments after takeoff. He had aborted a take off a few minutes earlier.[8][9]

 

On Saturday, January 30, 2016, Arlene Salac of the Federal Aviation Administration said in an emailed statement that a Lancair 4 aircraft crashed at 2:35 p.m. at the Albany, Georgia airport. Three people died.[10]

 

 

[Teckair]

Apparently very few people survive an engine failure in the Lancair.

 

 

[DWF]

Looks like they might warrant a CASA Instrument.

 

 

[facthunter]

Been done before. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

High performance, fast, slippery single engine homebuilt aeroplane often bought and flown by people who should be aiming at something a bit less demanding........a common cause of high accident rates in these types.

 

The Lancair 4 in particular is a bit of a handful at the edges of its flight envelope. "Challenging" stall characteristics, etc. Also if you attempt a turn back following EFATO in a Lancair 4 as in the Appleton accident, you will die.

 

** I believe the stall characteristics of the later models are vastly improved

 

 

[facthunter]

ALL stalls are caused by the pilot. The Lancair is pretty good in the L/D department, and plenty of other aircraft are just as fast over the fence. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah that's technically correct Nev, but we already know pilots are imperfect creatures, and bad stall characteristics coupled with a pretty tight flight envelope in a homebuilt aircraft, well........someone needs to make it clear that has consequences.

 

It's not a plane for beginners. Yet beginners with a lot of money like to buy them.

 

The IV has been criticised for its flight envelope characteristics by some very experienced pilots. One former U2 pilot was shocked by its stall characteristics, another likened it to flying a P-40 Warhawk, and Doug Rozendaal of the Commemorative Air Force said after flying it that he wouldn't recommend it to anyone!

 

The company has made substantial improvements to the later variants however.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it's characteristics have been extensively reviewed by the FAA and by CASA. The AOPA (aus ) Chap had 1,700 hours approx. It's not suited for Off Field landings. Small wheels and small sized brakes and it will be touching down too fast in all but longer well surfaced runways. It probably handles icing not at all. One friend of mine had a pressurised Turbo prop version that flew at well over FL 310. It's no doubt a critical wing section with small radius leading edge and laminar wing so the stall break will be sudden. I personally don't wish to fly one, but another friend flew his around Australia not long ago, and an american who flew circumnavigating the world via both poles is going to be giving a talk I will attend next thursday. I would want M/E in those circumstances, but I'm probably more of a chicken than some. I don't fly over what I can't land on in a single, mostly. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

It's not a plane for beginners. Yet beginners with a lot of money like to buy them.

Yep I reckon that's right on the money. I was tempted to buy one 10 or 12 years ago as it looked great, went like the clappers & was very affordable (2nd hand) till I started doing a bit of research. I was the first but not the second type of person but I had a bit of common sense too.

 

 

[apm]

Not all engine failures are fatal in Lancairs as proven by Fred Moreno who proved it with a dead stick landing into Jabiru airport. 4 pob.

 

http://lancair.net/lists/lml/Message/55678-04-B/YFM%20Jabiru%20recovery%20activity%20log.pdf

 

Fred and his plane has just recieved world record status for his Aus-NZ flights.

 

Andrew

 

 

[facthunter]

If you feathered the prop it would probably glide quite well. Planes don't crash when the engine stops., but your options become more limited quickly, and good decisions of the utmost importance. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

If the engine was a Continental (Latest type ), It's not the first rocker to fail that I know of, and the engine fails as a result. They are a cast item I believe. Nev

 

 

[ben87r]

Was just reading the POH for the current 540/550 model and best glide speed is 120KN CAS and recommend approach speed of 100KN CAS, that does move it a fair way out of the C210 type world. I did like the sound of the 240kn TAS at 8000' tho

 

 

[facthunter]

Totally away from the Cessna Wing characteristics. (Another world). If you have the room it's only a number although the scenery goes past quick low down.. Most commercial jets clean stall at around 200 knots. In training once I did a landing at 170 knots over the fence. (Flaps 5 degrees). That's quick. Good experience. Very close to tire limit speed..Nev

 

 

[ben87r]

Which AC was that out of interest Nev?

 

Speaking of tire limits, I was completely unaware that the C210 tire (may have been just the brand fitted, Goodyear from memory) has a limit of 160kph (86Kn ) until I had to change one a few months back, there isn't anything listed in the POH and I would have exceeded that many times if not every time as I assume it's ground speed and with a high DA and a few KN TW you are well over by VR.

 

 

[facthunter]

B 727 (276). Nev

 

 

[Chris SS]

There have been at least 2 fatal Lancair crashes after take off. A chance photo taken by an observer provided the most likely clue to the cause of the second crash, which was then found to be the cause of the first.

 

In both cases they had found the canopy unlatched.

 

I had a similar experience in my RV7 and it is quite amazing how the canopy shape causes the airflow to 'suck' it open by a few inches as the airspeed increases. In the RV there was not much effect barring the noise.

 

In the Lancair though they found that this was enough to block airflow over the horizontal stabiliser leaving the pilot with no pitch control.

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=fa83ba9b-011c-4bf7-a67f-faeac3acaca9

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

There have been at least 2 fatal Lancair crashes after take off. A chance photo taken by an observer provided the most likely clue to the cause of the second crash, which was then found to be the cause of the first. In both cases they had found the canopy unlatched. I had a similar experience in my RV7 and it is quite amazing how the canopy shape causes the airflow to 'suck' it open by a few inches as the airspeed increases. In the RV there was not much effect barring the noise. In the Lancair though they found that this was enough to block airflow over the horizontal stabiliser leaving the pilot with no pitch control. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=fa83ba9b-011c-4bf7-a67f-faeac3acaca9

Chris, the airplane you linked to was not a Lancair 4. The 4 is a 3-4 place airplane with doors. Here is a picture of the plane you referenced; it's the 2-seat Lancair.

 

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000195267.html

 

The photo was taken just before the crash and the canopy can be seen unlatched and lifted. I have been informed of a real event in an RV that had a latch come undone at full cruise. I used to own and fly an RV-3A with a tilt-over canopy. I really, really checked to be sure the canopy was locked before takeoff. I checked it at runup and again before applying power on takeoff. I always thought that it the buggar wasn't latched it was just gone. A local Pitts S2B with a tilt over canopy proved me right on takeoff just behind my hangar one day. Expensive but at least he was on the runway when it went. It would have been more problematic at altitude.

 

A tilt back or tilt forward canopy might do more than just "pop up" if it becomes unlatched at cruise under power.

 

Airflow disruption because of a missing or lifted canopy can disturb the airflow to the horizontal stabilizer thereby unloading the down force, thereby causing a nose down pitch I believe. I've never experienced that, but I had a friend who has and he said he had to pull out of a sudden very scary dive. I had another friend lose a cockpit overhead window; he said control of the airplane was definitely affected by the disturbance in the airflow.

 

Y'all be careful out there now, you see. (an old Southern U.S. expression that means "be careful").