 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
user9253
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1922
Location: Riley TWP Michigan
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:48 am Post subject: Lancair 235 Accident |
 |
|
In the January 2014 issue of Sport Aviation is an article, "What Went Wrong", about an accident involving N235MW, a Lancair 235. http://tinyurl.com/myzgxkv
The NTSB probable cause is , "The pilot's decision to operate the airplane with known electrical system problems . . ." Even more significant, in my view, is that the pilot took off without first filling the 11 gallon header tank. The pilot did not build the aircraft. A builder would have known how to repair the electrical system and would have been more familiar with fuel management. There is a more detailed report here: http://tinyurl.com/krf4dk9
It says, " . . .fuel pumps which received their electrical power from the main electrical bus." Since the fuel system was electrically dependent, it would have been prudent to power the fuel pumps directly from the battery or from an E-Bus. Or the main bus should have had two supply paths as in Z-0 (attached).
The accident report mentions a corroded wire between the battery and master contactor. But that does not explain why there was power to the starter but not to the main bus. I think there must have been a bad connection between the master contactor and the main bus.
Joe
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
Simple Elect System.pdf |
| Filesize: |
58.51 KB |
| Downloaded: |
354 Time(s) |
_________________
Joe Gores |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mmayfield
Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Location: NSW Central Coast, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Lancair 235 Accident |
|
|
The fact that the pilot was not the builder should not be used as an excuse for anything at all. I haven't built any of the aircraft I've flown during 30 years of professional (and recreational at other times) aviation, but I still always knew how their fuel system worked and what their system serviceability status was!
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:30 pm Post subject: Lancair 235 Accident |
|
|
At 09:48 AM 1/19/2014, you wrote:
| Quote: |
In the January 2014 issue of Sport Aviation is an article, "What
Went Wrong", about an accident involving N235MW, a Lancair 235.
http://tinyurl.com/myzgxkv
The NTSB probable cause is , "The pilot's decision to operate the
airplane with known electrical system problems . . ."
|
This is the same incident on which I published
these documents some months ago
http://tinyurl.com/mwo3f4x
Unfortunately, the SA article is typical of many
that I have dubbed "dark-n-stormy night' stories . . .
narratives long story-value, short on understanding.
If one suffers loss of oil because the drain
plug fell out, it's not an "engine problem".
If the elevator becomes disconnected from
the stick, it's not a "controls problem".
The fact that this guy diddled around on numerous
flights to craft a work-around for operating
the landing gear did not make it a "landing gear
problem" . . . or even an "electrical problem."
The issues with the 235 had foundation
in a lack of demonstrated understanding for the
physics of how things work and appreciation for the
performance limits of the components involved.
The guy was flown to another location to get
a couple of freshly charged batteries . . . say
what? The FAA probable cause narrative speaks
to the pilot willingness to initiate flight under battery-
only conditions . . . and do what? Swap
'em out in flight if the first one didn't
get him home? I'd bet he had not a clue as
to the capacity of either "freshly charged
battery."
The same conditions were evident in
the Lancair IV-P accident I cited; I.e.
not one single component of the accident
airframe was defective. Every component
performed in a manner predicted by study
of limits in design and maintenance.
Both of these incidents were "due diligence
problems" waiting to masquerade as an "accident".
You can't do an FMEA without understanding
limits to performance. Rudimentary skills
go a long way toward keeping useful components
attached to each other and performing as
intended. Preventative maintenance
rotates worn-out or abused parts before they
fail. These are but two of many examples of why
we strive for low-risk FMEA combined with
good craftsmanship and responsible operation/
ownership.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickofudall
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:10 pm Post subject: Lancair 235 Accident |
|
|
Bob, Back in the standard Rogallo days of hang gliding Chris Price of Wills Wing told me about a phone call the factory received from a fellow who was having trouble getting his new glider to take off."I get started running and the second the scoops get filled the glider tries to swap ends.", was what he told Chris.
The fellow with the two battery solution was just filling the scoops.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)>
At 09:48 AM 1/19/2014, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)>
In the January 2014 issue of Sport Aviation is an article, "What Went Wrong", about an accident involving N235MW, a Lancair 235. http://tinyurl.com/myzgxkv
The NTSB probable cause is , "The pilot's decision to operate the airplane with known electrical system problems . . ."
|
This is the same incident on which I published
these documents some months ago
http://tinyurl.com/mwo3f4x
Unfortunately, the SA article is typical of many
that I have dubbed "dark-n-stormy night' stories . . .
narratives long story-value, short on understanding.
If one suffers loss of oil because the drain
plug fell out, it's not an "engine problem".
If the elevator becomes disconnected from
the stick, it's not a "controls problem".
The fact that this guy diddled around on numerous
flights to craft a work-around for operating
the landing gear did not make it a "landing gear
problem" . . . or even an "electrical problem."
The issues with the 235 had foundation
in a lack of demonstrated understanding for the
physics of how things work and appreciation for the
performance limits of the components involved.
The guy was flown to another location to get
a couple of freshly charged batteries . . . say
what? The FAA probable cause narrative speaks
to the pilot willingness to initiate flight under battery-
only conditions . . . and do what? Swap
'em out in flight if the first one didn't
get him home? I'd bet he had not a clue as
to the capacity of either "freshly charged
battery."
The same conditions were evident in
the Lancair IV-P accident I cited; I.e.
not one single component of the accident
airframe was defective. Every component
performed in a manner predicted by study
of limits in design and maintenance.
Both of these incidents were "due diligence
problems" waiting to masquerade as an "accident".
You can't do an FMEA without understanding
limits to performance. Rudimentary skills
go a long way toward keeping useful components
attached to each other and performing as
intended. Preventative maintenance
rotates worn-out or abused parts before they
fail. These are but two of many examples of why
we strive for low-risk FMEA combined with
good craftsmanship and responsible operation/
ownership.
Bob . . .
====================================
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
