FFZ Evolution crash

[Stinger]

http://www.azfamily.com/story/35905891/2-people-dead-in-plane-crash-on-mesa-golf-course

Wasn't actually mechanical issues, it was an electrical failure. Pilot had electrical problems a few days ago too, but managed to land after a few low approaches.
Heard that they crashed turning left base to final.
Had to have gotten too wrapped up in the electrical issues, because that can't cause a crash by itself.

 

[Cptnchia]

At the risk of being offensively cold hearted:

"Mind if we play through?"

 

[GolfChuck]

Lancairs have extremely unforgiving stall characteristics, I've read through TONS of NTSB reports on Lancairs and nearly all of their fatalities involve inadvertent stall/spins. I imagine it would be easy to do if you are distracted by an electrical malfunction, but having partial/zero panel may also be a factor.

 

[BigZ]

Lancairs have extremely unforgiving stall characteristics, I've read through TONS of NTSB reports on Lancairs and nearly all of their fatalities involve inadvertent stall/spins. I imagine it would be easy to do if you are distracted by an electrical malfunction, but having partial/zero panel may also be a factor.

It's an Evo
Supposed to be a whole nother animal

 

[FlyingAccountant]

Lancairs have extremely unforgiving stall characteristics, I've read through TONS of NTSB reports on Lancairs and nearly all of their fatalities involve inadvertent stall/spins. I imagine it would be easy to do if you are distracted by an electrical malfunction, but having partial/zero panel may also be a factor.

Sounds like the SR22.....

 

[BigZ]

Sounds like the SR22.....

Sr22 and turbine IV are not even the same ball game. Never flew a piston IV though

 

[GolfChuck]

It's an Evo
Supposed to be a whole nother animal

I am not knocking the Lancair, I am merely pointing out that it is an experimental, does not conform to standard airworthiness flight characteristics, and therefore needs to be treated with the utmost respect. If the Evolution could pass FAA certification standards, rest assured it would already be a certified aircraft. The big thing holding back many light experimental singles are the required stall characteristics and a Vso greater than what the FAA allows for single-engined airplanes. These are basic risk factors that all pilots of experimental aircraft should understand, since their lives depend on them.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

If the Evolution could pass FAA certification standards, rest assured it would already be a certified aircraft.

Pursuing certification is a business decision, it has little to do with airworthiness.

 

[BigZ]

Pursuing certification is a business decision, it has little to do with airworthiness.

This
Cessna Corvalis did start off as a Lancair ES at one point.

Evolution is supposedly the bigger, slower much more docile airplane that shouldn't be getting the rep of the IV with a turboprop bolted to it.

 

[Itchy]

Electrical could easily be smoke, which if thick enough, will put you in a bad corner really quickly.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Lancairs have extremely unforgiving stall characteristics, I've read through TONS of NTSB reports on Lancairs and nearly all of their fatalities involve inadvertent stall/spins. I imagine it would be easy to do if you are distracted by an electrical malfunction, but having partial/zero panel may also be a factor.

By unforgiving, you mean they don't mush out like a 152 or 172, right?

A number of the accidents have been caused by pilots moving up from a 152/172 without much experience in a more demanding type.

A related cause is that owners get involved in building for a few years and don't stay current before jumping in their shiny new toy.

 

[GolfChuck]

By unforgiving, you mean they don't mush out like a 152 or 172, right?

A number of the accidents have been caused by pilots moving up from a 152/172 without much experience in a more demanding type.

A related cause is that owners get involved in building for a few years and don't stay current before jumping in their shiny new toy.

You are correct that the evo was designed to have standard airworthiness flying characteristics which I was unaware of; but no, I mean particularly that they have high stall speeds, no buffeting to warn the pilot of an eminent stall, and are prone to spinning if that stall occurs in anything other than perfect coordination.

The first link is just a link to the index page, the others are the first 4 domestic results, all loss of control, one for unknown reasons, the rest for stalls. I am not knocking the airplane one bit, I would love to own one myself, all I am saying is they need to be treated with a higher degree of respect than a certified aircraft or some of the other more popular E-ABs.


https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....?queryId=76778c97-c0b0-431e-bb73-f940ed6a52d0

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110703X14123&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080719X01077&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060508X00520&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20040916X01440&key=1

 

[Pilot Fighter]

You are correct that the evo was designed to have standard airworthiness flying characteristics which I was unaware of; but no, I mean particularly that they have high stall speeds, no buffeting to warn the pilot of an eminent stall, and are prone to spinning if that stall occurs in anything other than perfect coordination.

The first link is just a link to the index page, the others are the first 4 domestic results, all loss of control, one for unknown reasons, the rest for stalls. I am not knocking the airplane one bit, I would love to own one myself, all I am saying is they need to be treated with a higher degree of respect than a certified aircraft or some of the other more popular E-ABs.


https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....?queryId=76778c97-c0b0-431e-bb73-f940ed6a52d0

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110703X14123&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080719X01077&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060508X00520&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20040916X01440&key=1

My point was that designers of experimental aircraft are very capable of designing aircraft that will meet certification requirements. I thought your post suggested a failure on their part to achieve design goals, having to settle for the experimental market.

The Vs/Vs0 requirements for certification really handcuff the designer in achieving performance goals that many folks are willing to pay for. I think the market would be better served if the FAA just designated certain aircraft as trainers and loosened the regulations for other aircraft.

 

[GolfChuck]

My point was that designers of experimental aircraft are very capable of designing aircraft that will meet certification requirements. I thought your post suggested a failure on their part to achieve design goals, having to settle for the experimental market.

The Vs/Vs0 requirements for certification really handcuff the designer in achieving performance goals that many folks are willing to pay for. I think the market would be better served if the FAA just designated certain aircraft as trainers and loosened the regulations for other aircraft.

No that wasn't my point at all, the original design goals of the Lancair was to make the fastest, most efficient airplane possible, of course there is always a trade off and in the case of the earlier Lancairs, the sacrifice was stall characteristics and high stall speed.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

On a related note, think about the current LSA situation. FAA only cares about stall speed. No standards with regards to stall and post-stall behavior.