Rob Holland accident at Langley Air Force Base

[USMCmech]

Can’t imagine a guy at his level just making a mistake.

You should


Accidents tend to fall in one of three categories

1. inexperienced pilots getting in over their heads because they don't know what they are doing
2. overconfident pilots who get in trouble trying something they shouldn't
3. very experienced pilots making a simple rookie mistake despite knowing better

While I agree with you that it's hard to imagine Rob Holland making a simple stall/spin on approach mistake, it could be just that simple. The MXS is not a forgiving airplane and any pilot on any given day can make a small mistake that bites them.

 

[Inverted]

Ehh, again, I will bite back on the idea that it was that simple. The MXS is an airplane that can literally power out of a spin with engine alone, easily. And Rob is literally one of the finest energy management practitioners on the planet. If the airplane got slow, he would feel it, if it started to rotate he could goose the power and simply exit.

He really isn't a typical case here.

 

[USMCmech]

Ehh, again, I will bite back on the idea that it was that simple. The MXS is an airplane that can literally power out of a spin with engine alone, easily. And Rob is literally one of the finest energy management practitioners on the planet. If the airplane got slow, he would feel it, if it started to rotate he could goose the power and simply exit.

He really isn't a typical case here.

I get where you are coming from and my inclination is to agree with you that he was too good to make a simple mistake like that.

However there have been way too many accidents where people have said exactly that yet the evidence proved otherwise. Steve Fosset, Art Scholl, Dale Sondeergrass, Scott Crossfield, ect.


I too would like to believe that it was som component failure but we will have to wait and see.

 

[Inverted]

I get where you are coming from and my inclination is to agree with you that he was too good to make a simple mistake like that.

However there have been way too many accidents where people have said exactly that yet the evidence proved otherwise. Steve Fosset, Art Scholl, Dale Sondeergrass, Scott Crossfield, ect.


I too would like to believe that it was som component failure but we will have to wait and see.

All of those accidents have outside external factors that were causal to the accident. Dale had little to no time in the airplane he crashed and didn't do a control check. Scholl didn't recover from a flat spin and it is fairly accepted that the cameras were to blame on that. Fosset took a Decathlon and based on the accident, looks like he was caught in a downdraft. While the NTSB is big on pilot error with statements in the vast majority of NTSB final reports like "the pilots inability to..." I really think there is more to these than the pilots simply screwing up. It's a multitude of factors with pilot error in there.

If the aileron is actually found to have departed the MXS, the NTSB report will still use pilot error, because "the pilot's inability to recover from control surface failure".

 

[flyingpotato]

When this happened I immediately thought that maybe something jammed the stick, as the pushrod tunnel is exposed where the stick is, to inspect it. Always found this odd as a water bottle or cell phone could get lodged in there.

Something jamming up the controls is a leading scenario too. But would he make that kind of mistake allowing unsecured objects? How will NTSB also verify given state of wreckage? Then it’s structural fatigue? Would a professional team miss something like that? I don’t buy stall spin scenario for obvious reasons. Unless some type of incapacitation is involved.

Although possible: excellent clip of low level stall from Matt Hall on an MX—corrected by a fraction of a second. Apparently made mistake by looking at wrong direction.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CB27K-wIsM

 

[USMCmech]

All of those accidents have outside external factors that were causal to the accident. Dale had little to no time in the airplane he crashed and didn't do a control check. Scholl didn't recover from a flat spin and it is fairly accepted that the cameras were to blame on that. Fosset took a Decathlon and based on the accident, looks like he was caught in a downdraft. While the NTSB is big on pilot error with statements in the vast majority of NTSB final reports like "the pilots inability to..." I really think there is more to these than the pilots simply screwing up. It's a multitude of factors with pilot error in there.

If the aileron is actually found to have departed the MXS, the NTSB report will still use pilot error, because "the pilot's inability to recover from control surface failure".

My point exactly. All of those pilots were experienced enough that they should have immediately recognized those external factors as threats that could bite them but somehow they overlooked the problem that everyone with 20/20 hindsight saw.

Again, I'm not trying to jump to conclusions here and blame this on the best pilot I've ever seen. However I want to push back on assuming that he couldn't have made a mistake because that's simply not true.

 

[Inverted]

Something jamming up the controls is a leading scenario too. But would he make that kind of mistake allowing unsecured objects? How will NTSB also verify given state of wreckage? Then it’s structural fatigue? Would a professional team miss something like that? I don’t buy stall spin scenario for obvious reasons. Unless some type of incapacitation is involved.

Although possible: excellent clip of low level stall from Matt Hall on an MX—corrected by a fraction of a second. Apparently made mistake by looking at wrong direction.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CB27K-wIsM

Matt asked too much of the wing. Unloading the stick a half inch brings the wing right back to flying. He got lucky being that close to the ground err water.

 

[Inverted]

My point exactly. All of those pilots were experienced enough that they should have immediately recognized those external factors as threats that could bite them but somehow they overlooked the problem that everyone with 20/20 hindsight saw.

Again, I'm not trying to jump to conclusions here and blame this on the best pilot I've ever seen. However I want to push back on assuming that he couldn't have made a mistake because that's simply not true.

Well, you are talking about the winniest freestyle world champion of all time, and the winniest national champion of all time. None of the pilots you mentioned are judged, critiqued, observed, and fly with this level of precision and detail. Not taking away from any of those pilots but in terms of high level flying, none of them hold a candle to what Rob does multiple times a day, every single day. Literally nobody put more gas in the tank than Rob Holland. So the idea that he got slow on landing and stalled into the ground is simply unbelievable. Could that have happened because he had a stroke? Stung by a bee? Heart attack? Sure...

 

[MikeD]

If the aileron is actually found to have departed the MXS, the NTSB report will still use pilot error, because "the pilot's inability to recover from control surface failure".

Incorrect. A material failure that prevents the pilot from being able to control the aircraft, does not fall under pilot error. That’s like saying Al Haynes committed pilot error by botching up the landing of UA232 because he failed to properly arrest the descent rate of the DC-10 on short final.

Anything is possible to any pilot in an accident. One cannot discount this or that possibility on the simple basis of “it was just not possible”. Any factor must be ruled in, or ruled out, based on evidence at hand.

This is why those who have a personal connection to an aircraft accident, are not allowed to be investigators on said accident.

 

[Hacker15e]

Daff, I think your sarcasm detector is inop with Mark's comment.

 

[MikeD]

The time one will see a probable cause of “pilot failed to maintain positive control of the aircraft resulting in ground impact and fatal injury for unknown reasons”, is when all other possible factors are investigated and ruled out. That means nothing found wrong with the airframe or the poweplant, weather not a factor, ATC not a factor, other aircraft not a factor, ground or obstructions not a factor, autopsy shows nothing out of the ordinary medical-wise, any witness statements unremarkable or do not lead to other evidence. When everything else is ruled out as causal factors and run down as far as they can be; only then does the vague pilot error of failing to maintain control for unknown reasons, come into play.

Unless specific acts of commission or omission are found to support a detailed set of pilot error or errors, then those would have been positively cited from the investigation as evidentiary factors. But barring that, and barring anything else being found, there is nothing left but the vague probable cause statement from my first sentence. Am seeing this exact logic road playing out with an accident from another air branch currently.

 

[MikeD]

Daff, I think your sarcasm detector is inop with Mark's comment.

The problem is, sarcasm or not, there are many pilots out there who truly believe that that is how the investigative process arrives at pilot error judgements, and that these are made off the cuff, with zero explanation or breakdown of what the specific error(s) are, and case closed. When there is one specific time when pilot error is concluded in that manner and form, as described. The rest of the time, pilot error is concluded, but is broken down into the how and why of what those specific errors were.

 

[Hacker15e]

Matt asked too much of the wing. Unloading the stick a half inch brings the wing right back to flying. He got lucky being that close to the ground err water.

More importantly, Matty showed that it is, in fact, possible to do more than just *tie* the record for low altitude flight.

 

[CFI A&P]

Since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, here’s a photo of Nigel Hopkin’s bailout after the firewall forward said nope. If I recall correctly, there was some discussion about possible damage occurring during shipping when the aircraft are partially disassembled for containerized transport, but I can’t say for certain if that conversation was specific to this event or general debate on containers and shipping.

 

[flyingpotato]

Since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, here’s a photo of Nigel Hopkin’s bailout after the firewall forward said nope. If I recall correctly, there was some discussion about possible damage occurring during shipping when the aircraft are partially disassembled for containerized transport, but I can’t say for certain if that conversation was specific to this event or general debate on containers and shipping.

View attachment 83432

MX is indeed an uncommon airplane at completion aerobatics, which is dominated by Extras, more specifically the 330SC--especially at Worlds. Wonder why most completion pilots don't compete with the MX.