What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Amazing video of RV nose gear collapse shot with GoPro

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Avgas

Well Known Member
The attached video is of the crash of Vans RV6A VH-TJM on the 2nd of January 2017 at a private airstrip in Queensland, Australia. The video was shot with a GoPro camera mounted under the left wing. This video has never been previously released. I asked the pilot and owner of the aircraft, Ian Smith, to give me permission to upload this video to VansAirforce on the basis that it is totally unique and may go a long way in educating other RV pilots to the fact that it is relatively easy to collapse this type of nose gear.

The video is 20 seconds long and captures the aircraft on short final and touchdown. I have probably viewed this video 40 times or more because it is so fascinating. Ian Smith is to be highly commended for releasing it as an educational tool because the crash was highly traumatic for him. His daughter, who was a passenger, was very seriously injured and Ian himself suffered a broken neck which has left him as a quadriplegic.

The incident was the subject of an investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau which has now issued their final report. That report can be viewed here:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-001/

The report claims that the aircraft "landed heavily at a high rate of descent". Undoubtedly the landing was extremely flat and there was a bounce. However I would suggest that student pilots flying Cessnas and Pipers frequently make similar landings without this catastrophic outcome. You have probably yourself made a similar flat landing with a small bounce when you were learning to fly. Here's the video.

https://youtu.be/RYfqnSXRFrI


pNYcFsk.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tragic accident :(

Doesn?t look like a hard landing, the bounce is rather small. Like you say, flat attitude, too hi speed. Maybe pre-damaged gear?

Wishing them the best towards recovery!
 
I have studied this video before having been privy to it via an Aussie aviation organisation.

After many views I drew the idea that the incident occurred due to the second touch down happening while the nose gear leg was oscillating in the fore and aft plane due to the original bounce.

My thought was that the second touch down occurred while the nose gear was at the extreme of the aft part of the fore and aft oscillation . Considering the geometry of the nose gear if the gear is in that position it will contact the ground in a position that allows no further rearward motion, and then a failure might occur.

I am no engineer, and dont pretend to be. But my personal takeaway was 'if you bounce always go around'

FWIW.
 
To me that was not a hard bounce or a High RoD initially What I think might have happened was when the driver first touched down down on the mains (normal) and the nose wheel contacted the surface the ensuing rumble he would have felt had him pull back abruptly then becoming completely airborne again, it's the second touch down that all 3 wheels hit the same time whilst the nose wheel was still suffering from the first contact, IE Flexing! That report was very inaccurate but typical of our useless investigator! That's the third A model I've seen that ended up like that. One at our local field a few years ago the other at an outback strip, too bloody dangerous for my liking!
 
Last edited:
The landing doesn't look bad to me. If it was a hard surface then there would not have been an issue, therefore, it must be the sand.
 
I don't think the A model is a particular problem as long as you land it properly Bob.

And Steve I think it's more complex than just the surface, correct technique and a plan when things dont work out as you expect. For me its a slow, gentle touch down and I always plan to go around if I bounce the nose wheel at all. My mantra on landing is always ' fly it along the runway, go around if you bounce' I say it out loud every landing.
 
The landing doesn't look bad to me. If it was a hard surface then there would not have been an issue, therefore, it must be the sand.
The landing was fast and heavy. The ATSB report said at first touch down airspeed was 75 kt with a 2 kt tail wind and 700 ft per minute descent.
Viewed at slow speed the nose wheel/strut initially looks OK but soon starts oscillating. Sort of looks like the high rotation speed of the wheel and possibly the soft surface excited the harmonics of the strut??
Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
So

They touch down going to fast and end up flying again, and once they are in the air again, the effort is made to try and force it down. The result is a flat landing and the outcome ensues. Maybe if it had been a different runway, maybe this maybe that.......

Always land with the nosegear off the ground as long as possible. Unfortunately, they didn?t get lucky. Didn?t read the report so I hope nobody was seriously hurt.

Randy
8A
 
That report was very inaccurate but typical of our useless investigator!

Please share the objective evidence you have that demonstrates where the ATSB report is factually incorrect.

The report quotes recorded data where it says “At 1029:38, the aircraft first contacted the ground, at an airspeed of about 75 kt, with a tailwind of 2 kt and descending at about 700 ft per minute.” This data supports the conclusion of the report.

Are you suggesting the recorded data is wrong?
 
Last edited:
FYI

It's possible to play it back at .25 of normal speed...............

(In case you didn't know, (which I didn't, before this morning know how to do))

Hit the settings icon on bottom right
 
An RV-9A coming in at 75 knots? No wonder it touched on the nose wheel after the initial bounce. It was 20+ knots too fast.

The goal with any of the -A models is to land on the mains and hold the nose off as long as possible. That's not what happened here.
 
Please share the objective evidence you have that demonstrates where the ATSB report is factually incorrect.

The report quotes recorded data where it says ?At 1029:38, the aircraft first contacted the ground, at an airspeed of about 75 kt, with a tailwind of 2 kt and descending at about 700 ft per minute.? This data supports the conclusion of the report.

Are you suggesting the recorded data is wrong?

At about 8.5 to 9 seconds in the video the sink rate is ZERO.

The approach decent rate is believable at 700fpm, but the initial touchdown is much less.

What is the recording device? And what is the the time interval on data collection points?
 
The nose just starts to buckle before the mains touch.

Put video in slow motion and reset the playback bar with the mouse.

You can figure out where to place the mouse on the playback bar and just click it to get really short replay loop
 
The nose just starts to buckle before the mains touch.

Put video in slow motion and reset the playback bar with the mouse.

You can figure out where to place the mouse on the playback bar and just click it to get really short replay loop

Yep. As a reference, note the relationship of the com antenna and the right main.

The report states the same.

Frankly, I don't think there is anything new here.
 
At about 8.5 to 9 seconds in the video the sink rate is ZERO.

The approach decent rate is believable at 700fpm, but the initial touchdown is much less.

What is the recording device? And what is the the time interval on data collection points?

Correct! It was obvious to me but not obvious to others! Had that touched down had been at 700 fpm the u/c would have splayed out big time and pushed the plane back into the air a long way! The initial touch down was normal decent rate wise, the reaction of the pilot and the soft surface combined with a possible higher than desired speed resulted in what A models do best, break!
 
An RV-9A coming in at 75 knots? No wonder it touched on the nose wheel after the initial bounce. It was 20+ knots too fast.

The goal with any of the -A models is to land on the mains and hold the nose off as long as possible. That's not what happened here.

It was a -6A, not a -9A.
 
Playing the video at .25 speed shows the nose gear (all of it) began oscillating after the first touch-down, which, though too fast, appears quite gentle. That gear would have failed no matter what the speed, IMO. The damage had already been done.
 
Didn’t read the report so I hope nobody was seriously hurt.

Randy
8A

From the original post:

"His daughter, who was a passenger, was very seriously injured and Ian himself suffered a broken neck which has left him as a quadriplegic."

Heartbreaking outcome.....
 
Very Sobering

First, thanks to Mr. Smith for sharing this video.

As a potential buyer of a -6A, -7A, or -9A, this certainly concerns me. I know the report says the nose strut was appropriately designed/built, but I have bounced a few in on occasion. It seems on a grass field there is not much room for error and pilots are human and do make mistakes.

For all you experienced -XA flyers, would Anti Splat Aero's "Nose Job" mod have prevented this event?
 
Last edited:
Frame by frame on youtube

Looking at each frame is possible in case you were not aware - you can pause with the mouse or spacebar, and then move forward and back with the , and . keys.

Thanks to Ian for sharing this.
 
First, thanks to Mr. Smith for sharing this video.

As a potential buyer of a -6A, -7A, or -9A, this certainly concerns me. I know the report says the nose strut was appropriately designed/built, but I have bounced a few in on occasion. It seems on a grass field there is not much room for error and pilots are human and do make mistakes.

For all you experienced -XA flyers, would Anti Splat Aero's "Nose Job" mod have prevented this event?

I don't think the grass runway had anything to do with it, specially when it didn't have any grass and looked smooth. Having said that when I was looking for my RV I wanted an RV-8a but since I live on a grass runway airport I decided to be more cautious and in the end what worked out for me was a RV-8.

Very sad for the pilot and his daughter.
 
Watching how the nosewheel reacts on the second touchdown is most interesting.

At first it is rolling (probably very little weight on it)
Then it seems to hit a hole and starts oscillating fore and aft
Next the nosewheel digs in and bends the landing gear under.
The airplane seems to slide on the bent nose gear for a little bit, until the prop blade impacts the dirt, causing the gear to collapse the rest of the way, and flipping the plane over.


First, thanks to Mr. Smith for sharing this video.

As a potential buyer of a -6A, -7A, or -9A, this certainly concerns me. I know the report says the nose strut was appropriately designed/built, but I have bounced a few in on occasion. It seems on a grass field there is not much room for error and pilots are human and do make mistakes.

For all you experienced -XA flyers, would Anti Splat Aero's "Nose Job" mod have prevented this event?

I'm not an A Flier but I do recall at least one picture of an A with a collapsed nose gear that was supporting the Anti-Splat brace.
At the very least, I recommend changing the front wheel bearing, which helps eliminate the fore and aft oscillation.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts

I just reviewed this video at the .25 slower speed. It appears to me the first time the nose gear touched down it was okay until it hit a disturbance on the runway and then it started oscillating forward and aft. The second time it touched down the oscillation was aft and it quickly collapsed.

My first question is did the RV have installed the Antisplat nose gear bracket? I ask this because two summers ago coming back from Oshkosh I landed with an extreme aft cg and bounced mains to nose excessively (porpoise) and did an immediate go around. I then repeated the porpoise/go around experience several times until application of full forward nose down trim. This helped enough to offset the worse effects of an aft cg condition. (I wrote up my experience and lessons learned in VAF at the time).

Later on I checked my nose gear and discovered significant scrapping on the bottom forward section of the fairing; which I strongly suspect was caused by that landing. I state this as a testament to the value of the Antisplat nose gear bracket.

I also have a personal limitation that I don’t do non-paved runway excursions from another poor experience (resulted in replacement of my nose wheel skirt). Before people get upset with this personal restriction I realize others operate on non paved runways all the time without problems. For tail wheel aircraft I say “no problem” but for my “A” model its a “personal” restriction just like I always try to land with at least five gallons in each tank to always be sure I’m not close to an aft cg condition at lighter landing weights. This restriction also helps with bladder concerns ��.

We should all have personal limitations based on our own analysis of our aircraft and individual skills. I’m also a firm believer in the Antisplat nose gear bracket. This video just confirms my personal restriction of “no soft field landings” is correct for me and my RV7A.

I will stay with this personal restriction until I decide to upgrade to the new Vans nose wheel mount. Tail draggers have the advantage here!
 
Last edited:
An RV-9A coming in at 75 knots? No wonder it touched on the nose wheel after the initial bounce. It was 20+ knots too fast.

The goal with any of the -A models is to land on the mains and hold the nose off as long as possible. That's not what happened here.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Having suffered a collapse on my -6A, I have learned. Proper technique is to keep that nosewheel up, which means airspeed control on final. I noticed that the landing in the video of the AOPA sweepstakes RV-10 was also very fast and flat, with the nosewheel on pavement much too quickly. I'm not sure why this is so common; even in my case I'm not sure where I picked up that habit. But it is something that every A model and -10 driver should consciously strive to correct. You don't want to learn the hard way, like I did.

By the way, I've been on sand, gravel, and rocks since then without problems. As long as you protect that nosewheel, the RV is good on any reasonable surface.
 
Is there any chance that the nose wheel bearings are seized?

It certainly could be a factor. Here's a photo of an RV10's nose wheel which locked on landing, staying locked until the plane came to a complete stop. Then the plane taxied back to the hangar, with no apparent bearing friction. A tire was heard to be chirping on the takeoff roll (I think this was a first flight!), so the pilot was warned that a main might have a hanging brake. There was a video of this landing, but I can't find it just now.

6IinfvGOdUuHNAIaOhbbZ1KiCtl3mqBUJlIkW88RdebPfdL19jUNUp5u48euxjjPRToF19BER6U1XbrhxUCn2b6QnFazEToNNrXaTrLRg0FcyDvKvDfAPmUMaJDGRDASHE4gwSqlnAiO6h9yXbxfJBF-3QnUWCHxnof4uxVqBzdW0N94lPwccbdZEekbv8LJvlfrjzljG_jYZNVC-1L7mkXuRguRQ_pacmqLito0F3nENW-qdrNx-aZw7T4d8BPZ1H8WXtODuXC19pgeb8WRZT8SL1I-9sIWilPeB0KAX7XpZe1gPbY9nzAg3gXxyRkPzcvAN8UEJF1fpbLlpYNqW6RvitqC29wwP2XR2tdbnWiyFky1zk3vG281rVjsLCP028iofYz5WcPsbFY2CL_eZ8PNSFhsOckj0s21QJe_oCCnf6Nj_R-lZcoFn19--4HoPvqDw1-xaUVhbEYs6ckVA45_cnN5ZarMTgKyk_N6riU4F7x9HPcHx9UbJKJh17LWkg9SbqPCopwC1bdDiHGzIKo1zefbFCHVjBYnM4EedDi13vXQMJ4yt03Ze-Ggw6eilkl0AOJaaAxlw8lwCrl3UUuI-MZv-sg2qUcFBOX9gaLwmz77yMlMIBpfVLW40AVKBXgZt6dwh1mv7wZGAKih4arqDevK17Hk-5mr1tBjOkMZyRVHFPSTr-nlaWMaZgwXdFYqLLPMCnNhZzP2mlLhpqX7fL7Zsx184HdJU478BqhQWFQYKoixmMA=w321-h212-no
 
Holy @$@%

Now I speak with complete honesty here. I own a drive an RV-6A and have had way worse landings than what the video shows. I've bounced the my plane, porpoised it, skidded sideways, floated and had three landings in one.
Live on a grass strip that has a bump at the wrong place just before the uphill section and I always seem land just before it and get a little lift off Kinda sorta before it settles down. Oh ya have tall trees also on one side so we get some screwy wind action if it's blownin. This video kinda wanna scare the bejeebers out of me. Gonna have try be more careful in the future.
Maybe I've been lucky, but I try to be very smooth on the controls making very small adjustments at anytime.j And remembering Mike Seager's advice on checkout. NO fast control movements. Yes my plane is still flyable.
But all that said, I seen the video and everything on that landing looked GOOD except for a little bounce. WOW
Yes I did put on the Anti Splat nose mod just for the possible help it will give.
Keep the controls light Art
 
Last edited:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Having suffered a collapse on my -6A, I have learned. Proper technique is to keep that nosewheel up, which means airspeed control on final. I noticed that the landing in the video of the AOPA sweepstakes RV-10 was also very fast and flat, with the nosewheel on pavement much too quickly. I'm not sure why this is so common; even in my case I'm not sure where I picked up that habit.

I don't know why it is so common either. I sit in front of my hangar and watch landings and at least half of the nose wheel aircraft landings are too fast and "three pointers". Sometimes you can hear the nose wheel shimmying....
 
Just a datapoint on the Antisplat brace effectiveness since the question was asked. On my 9A I have the brace installed, and in the early hours of its life my uncle was flying it and attempting his first landing (on a paved runway) and completely botched it. I tried to correct it but too little, too late and we bounced HARD on all three - hard enough that we left half of the nosewheel fairing on the runway and chewed up the other half. Upon inspection I found no plastic deformation of the nosegear leg or mounts, the nosewheel itself and bearings were good, and the breakout force was still good. The nose gear leg had contact "witness marks" in the powder coat where the brace had made contact with the leg during the incident. The "lip-skid" device from AntiSplat also displayed scratch marks, and the front edge of the recovered fiberglass fairing was significantly ground down under the lip-skid from contact with the runway.

I don't know if that would have resulted in a bent gear leg and subsequent nose-over or not, but in my opinion I think I was in that Gray Zone where the brace was able to lend some strength to avoid it. It counts as a save in my book, YMMV.

That same landing on a dirt runway would have resulted in a nose-over, I'm certain.
 
Last edited:
Man, guess I'll scratch all -a models off my list.

This brings up an interesting question, do the taildraggers suffer more ground loops than tricycles flip-over?

The flip-overs get all the press but I rarely hear about ground loops and I'm sure they happen. I suspect the insurance companies might have statistics on this because if the A's were such a risk, they would have higher initial insurance rates.
 
This brings up an interesting question, do the taildraggers suffer more ground loops than tricycles flip-over?

The flip-overs get all the press but I rarely hear about ground loops and I'm sure they happen. I suspect the insurance companies might have statistics on this because if the A's were such a risk, they would have higher initial insurance rates.

Not JUST ground loops. Here is a damage report from a gusty crosswind landing mishap. http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&category=9040&log=173542

It has been some time since read Matt's RV-8 stories, but I believe he junked the fuselage and got a QB fuse from Van's and rebuilt the airplane.

Lance
 
Van's has a new nosegear design you can purchase for your new-build or which you can retrofit to existing aircraft. The new design is more robust.

Yes, I've seen reference to it, but in the case of the -8 I was reading about, it was about 5k and you have to remove the engine mount, not the end of the world but it's cheaper to just get a taildragger and a tailwheel add on, I think. The problem is getting a tailwheel add on as a big guy, most of the citabria-ish tailwheel trainers around here I need about an 80lb instructor :)
 
This brings up an interesting question, do the taildraggers suffer more ground loops than tricycles flip-over?

The flip-overs get all the press but I rarely hear about ground loops and I'm sure they happen. I suspect the insurance companies might have statistics on this because if the A's were such a risk, they would have higher initial insurance rates.

the tailwheel pilots will be along shortly to say that they're just better pilots. :D

what I find interesting is I can't say I've seen a sr20/22 collapse the nose gear. I have balked our 22 and had it resonate similar to what this aircraft did, you can really feel it. Sometimes it'll do weird things when the nosewheel is cocked a little when you touch down too. Wind I assume, I don't even know how that happens. I consider it to be of a similar design on the g3 and older sr22.
 
Last edited:
I have been based at airports with long paved runways. Saw plenty of C-150?s with destroyed nose gear from touching down or bouncing with nose wheel first. In discussing the issue with instructors, they indicated that it is always caused by improper airspeed control on short final. Being to fast, tends to result in pilots leaving the nose low to prevent the extended float. In the end, a pilot technique issue.

The unique aspects of all RV?s is the resultant flipping due to the short coupling. This greatly increases the possibility of personal injury if the seat belts aren?t secured properly, meaning being tight. The 5th point is also very valuable in keeping the lap belt down on the pelvis where it belongs.
 
Question

Does anyone know whether this RV6-A was a tip - up or sliding canopy? I am also interested in knowing, as Bob asked, what kind of seat belts were in use. I am saddened and surprised by the injuries suffered by the pilot and his daughter. Thanks.
 
Man, guess I'll scratch all -a models off my list.

No reason for that. Just as a taildragger needs a certain finesse and technique to land properly and safely, nosewheels deserve the same. No, they are not as robust as a Cessna, and I think that is what leads to some inattention to the delicateness of them.

I do all my taxiing with the stick in my lap, including takeoff and landing (depending on winds of course). I apply throttle and let the nose come off and adjust pitch to keep it there. My landings the nose touches when there's not enough speed to keep it off the ground.

Treat all your landings this way and you will never have a problem. If you do, go around- and practice this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7rqQa1VIwI
 
Last edited:
No reason for that. Just as a taildragger needs a certain finesse and technique to land properly and safely, nosewheels deserve the same. No, they are not as robust as a Cessna, and I think that is what leads to some inattention to the delicateness of them.

I do all my taxiing with the stick in my lap, including takeoff and landing (depending on winds of course). I apply throttle and let the nose come off and adjust pitch to keep it there. My landings the nose touches when there's not enough speed to keep it off the ground.

Treat all your landings this way and you will never have a problem. If you do, go around- and practice this.

This technique has become such muscle memory for me that no matter what plane I am flying, the stick/yoke is in my tommy and take off and landing follows the same process regardless of model, type of runway.
 
Last edited:
anthony,
i always treated my piper warrior as you say. it is clear though that you sure don't have the margin when you do less than textbook. i know all mine aren't textbook.
 
Nosegears, Design and Technique

Many years ago I worked for an aircraft dismantler and noted that he had about a half dozen broken off nosegears for the then-fairly new two seat American Yankees. Not too long afterwards, I got a checkout in an AA-1A with the laminar wing and small horizontal stab and elevator. I’d trained on Cessna 150s like everybody else in the 70s and knew to protect the nosegear. The little Yankee was a bit in the fast side on landing, and easy to porpoise, especially if one landed full stall, as I was taught to do. And then it required anti-intuitive controls to fix... power and actually release some back pressure on the yoke. Certainly much of that was pilot technique, but the nosegear design didn’t help a bit. It’s really just an undampened spring, attached to a short-coupled airplane with limited elevator authority. Later, when Grumman had the type cert those airplanes got bigger elevators and stabilizers and that helped make them much more forgiving. The 4 seat Grummans had similar nosegears but with small shock absorbers, presumably to dampen nose wheel movement. Upshot of all this... I’ve never been convinced that the nosegears on the Grummans and the similar ones on the RVs with tricycle gear were very good designs. They’re light, simple and relatively inexpensive, but not very forgiving of mediocre piloting. I totally get that they’re OK as long as the pilot is reasonably savvy, but that “as long as” is just not very reliable. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Grummans and the RVs, including the tricycle ones, but I’ll always think those nosegears are weak points on all those planes. The pilot if the airplane in the video paid a horrible price for a landing that didn’t look so awful. I’ve made similar, and worse landings in Cessnas and even Grummans. I went around and nothing else Bad happened, but it’s unrealistic to expect pilots to get it right all the time. I see the danger in designing to the lowest common denominator, but my humble opinion... those sproingy nosegears are too far over on the side of good pilots.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the honest admit to an elevated heart rate on a 15G25 day ;)



Not collapsed, but I have seen one get bent. In fact, I saw it bent two or three times, and even got pictures!

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=1353376&highlight=cirrus#post1353376

that bounce will happen in any slick single when you're too fast and try to force it on. Try that in a mooney and see how it goes. I also don't think it's bent, unless I missed further photos. When it bounced the nosewheel cocked. There's no nose steering or centering mechanism. Optical illusion exaggerated by the long nose wheel pants. Surprised a 20 had the HP to get out of that one. They are DOGS.

See how far forward on the cowl they pivot? I think that's what you're seeing in the pic with the wheel canted left

Nose-wheelpant-N575LD.jpg



15g25 is an average day where I'm moving, guess the taildragger is out too. lol. Guess I'll just buy something already on island.
 
Last edited:
Playing the video at .25 speed shows the nose gear (all of it) began oscillating after the first touch-down, which, though too fast, appears quite gentle. That gear would have failed no matter what the speed, IMO. The damage had already been done.

The Nose gear would not have failed if it had been held off the runway until the elevator ran out of authority. The approach was way to fast, and the nose gear was allowed down too soon. I tell everyone to hold the nose gear off the landing surface until the elevator runs out of authority. And treat the nose gear like it's made out of glass!
 
...
what I find interesting is I can't say I've seen a sr20/22 collapse the nose gear. I have balked our 22 and had it resonate similar to what this aircraft did, you can really feel it. Sometimes it'll do weird things when the nosewheel is cocked a little when you touch down too. Wind I assume, I don't even know how that happens. I consider it to be of a similar design on the g3 and older sr22.
I have a video on my phone (sorry, I can't share it) of an SR22 that bounced the landing and the nosewheel tucked under on the second impact. Almost identical to the RV-6A. The difference was that the SR22 just slid down the runway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top