|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
421 Down
|
|
#3
12-17-11, 10:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
12-19-11, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trolling?
No airplane is immune to mishap in the event the pilot fails to fly the aircraft. Centerline thrust does not alleviate this requirement. Millions of hours are flown on conventional multi-engine aircraft without incident, utiliing the higher performance and safety that multi-engine flying offers, without being centerline thrust. Trolling is watching the deaths of others and suggesting, "that is why I do this." Let's not be arrogant enough to believe that centerline thrust makes you immune from the hazards of not complying with rule number one of aviation: always fly the airplane. Ample people have died in centerline thrust airplanes, including friends of mine, to strongly suggest otherwise.
|
|
#7
12-20-11, 12:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No deaths, but significant injury.
|
|
#8
12-20-11, 05:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've found that you can pretty much crash anything if you have enough talent. I have a friend with a J-3 who when asked how fast it is just say's...."just fast enough to kill you".
Last edited by Red Air Rambo : 12-20-11 at 09:22 PM.
|
|
#9
12-20-11, 09:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
One thing I find quite amusing and quite distressing about the state of journalism today - look at the press release found in the third web link below. This is a press release from the law firm that "won" this case and is quoted alomost verbatium in the so called news articles you find elsewhere. Journalists should be ashamed to rely only upon press releases for their "factual" reporting. ~~~~~~~~ http://www.aero-news.net/subsite.cfm...9-8fb91026786d http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...07LA187&akey=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/11-35-...144500513.html ~~~~~~~~ Aero-News.net Article: Winner Aviation Hit With $11.35 Million Judgement Resulting From 2007 Accident Attorneys Argued That Skymaster Was Improperly Maintained, Leading To The Crash One of the largest verdicts resulting from an airplane accident was handed down on December 14 by a Philadelphia jury. Dr. Robert Marisco Jr. and his fiancee Heather Moran, both of Akron, Ohio, were awarded $11.35 million in compensatory damages in an action against Winner Aviation Corporation, a repair facility based at Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport in Ohio. Dr. Marisco, a dermatologic surgeon, and Ms. Moran, the pilot, were flying back to Ohio in Dr. Marsico's Cessna 337 when it developed an engine problems and went down about 10 miles from DeKalb-Peachtree Airport in Georgia on Aug. 8, 2007. A post-crash fire ensued. Dr. Marisco and Ms. Moran both suffered multiple injuries, including third degree burns covering nearly 40 percent of their bodies. The NTSB notes in its probable cause report that "the pilot, age 34, held a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single engine land, multi engine land, and instrument airplane ratings, and a CL-65 rating with "SIC privileges only." The pilot reported 4,650 hours of total flight time, with 145 hours in make and model. Her latest FAA first class medical certificate was issued on June 5, 2007." At trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Dr. Marsico's Skymaster had been maintained by Winner Aviation prior to his acquisition of the aircraft, and he continued that relationship after he purchased it in 2006. According to the attorneys, from 2006 until the time of the crash, the Skymaster had reportedly experienced recurrent problems with its rear engine. Winner Aviation performed repeated troubleshooting on a waste gate. On the day of the crash, the rear engine on the twin-engine airplane lost power after takeoff, and attempts to restart it failed. Ms. Moran was unable to maintain altitude and attempted an emergency landing. A post-crash fire ensued. At trial, plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that Winner Aviation did not maintain the aircraft in an "airworthy condition." Plaintiffs further alleged that Winner Aviation's misdiagnosis of the recurrent problems of "power loss" in the rear engine was compounded by an alleged failure to have an appropriate inspector investigate all work that was being performed by its mechanics. Plaintiffs also alleged that Winner Aviation was aware that the front engine was long overdue for a complete overhaul, but did not recommend an overhaul to Dr. Marsico. Plaintiffs argued at trial that the failure to overhaul this engine or, at the very least, perform a proper inspection and repair of its valve guides and other engine parts, caused a diminution of power during an in-flight emergency—precisely when full power was most important. The NTSB probable cause report, which is not admissible as evidence in court, confirmed the engine failure but placed the responsibility for the accident with the pilot. According to the report, "Shortly after takeoff on a hot day, after the airplane was about 10 miles from the departure airport, the rear engine failed for undetermined reasons. The pilot turned the airplane back toward the airport, feathered the rear engine, and maintained front engine power at the top of the green arc of the manifold pressure gage, at 33 inches of manifold pressure. The airplane did not maintain altitude at that power setting, and to avoid houses and vehicles on the ground, the pilot performed a forced landing at a water treatment plant. During the landing, the airplane struck the top of a concrete structure, hit the ground, and became engulfed in flames. According to the owner’s manual, after an engine failure, the remaining engine power to be used is to be "increased as required." The published maximum power setting was 37 inches of manifold pressure at "red line," without any time limitations. A performance calculation indicated that at the existing ambient temperatures, and at that power setting, the airplane should have climbed at least 290 feet per minute. Additional references to the use of a 37-inch power setting, including performance calculations, were noted in the owner’s manual." The report also states that "At the time of the engine failure, the pilot estimated the airplane was 1,000 to 1,500 feet above the ground, and between 2,700 feet and 3,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). GPS indicated a small airport about 6 miles away, but the pilot felt the larger airport they had just departed, about 10 miles to the south, would be better due to emergency equipment and a control tower. The pilot then began a gradual turn back toward the south, and while doing so, asked the passenger to verify rear engine switch positions. She then attempted an engine restart, and when it was unsuccessful, she contacted DeKalb-Peachtree Tower and advised the controller of the situation." The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be the "pilot’s failure to utilize all of the power available following an engine failure. Contributing to the accident were the failure of the rear engine for undetermined reasons." -------------------- Donald McDonald KGMU - N4687K 1975 C182P I think this is the one you are referencing...my opinion is if you can't maintain it don't fly it.
|
|
#10
12-21-11, 11:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
press release
Looking at a 7 paragraph summary can't possibly cover what was covered in 2 1/2 weeks of trial.
The plaintiff had a Skymaster assembled outside the courthouse. It had to be moved because of the "Occupy" thing. No matter what your take of the piloting efforts, the resulting injuries were extensive. The note that you copied says, at the end 'if you can't maintain it, don't fly it'. However, in the world of certified aircraft, we rely, we must rely, on the maintainers, who we trust to do a good, safe, job. To keep our aircraft in tip top condition. It can be argued that it is safe on the day it is signed off. However, we also depend on the maintainers to point out areas that need to be addressed to keep it safe tomorrow.
|
|
#11
12-21-11, 08:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Brent
|
Linear Mode
