What's new
Van's Air Force

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

5 RV Accidents in the last Month (April/May 2019)

gmcjetpilot

Well Known Member
In the last month April to May there have been five RV accidents.

5/18 Ohio RV-6 (1 fatal) - takeoff possible loss of power on takeoff (witness stated engine slowed then surged)
4/29 Washington RV-6 (2 fatal) - in flight impacted water 1000' south-southeast of runway 31 (no witnesses)
4/26 Oklahoma RV-6 (non-fatal) - landing nose over on grass (tail wheel)
4/18 Oregon RV-8 (2 fatal) - in flight "loss of control"
4/12 South Dakota RV-12 (non-fatal) - takeoff on snow covered runway veered off runway, nose gear folded.

In a month period 5 reported accidents, 3 fatal. :( Please be careful.
2 In flight
2 Takeoff
1 Landing
 
George, for comparison, any idea how many Cessna's crashed in the same period?

I understand what you’re trying to say but that’s not the point. This is our community and we need to be concerned about a serious uptick in accidents. Let’s not be satisfied if our accident rate compares favorably, or even close to, any other pilot group.

Sorry to make such a post and then go offline. I’m about to board a commercial flight (God save me! :)).
 
Reliability

But there is value to reading these. I've just started flying my recently finished RV-7A. I've got 10 hours on her. I've flown Piper Cherokees for 20 years and have grown a feeling of reliability for the Cherokee. I just don't wonder if anything mechanical will break. it won't. It's reliabile. I do not yet have that comfort feeling on my RV. I built it. Did I get it right? Will nuts back off, will things loosen up? What's going to go wrong? I'm not concerned about pilot error, that could happen on any airplane. But I'm hoping my confidence in my RV will go up and become as assured as I am for the Cherokee. So far it is doing great. I read the accident reports looking for possible mechanical failures, fuel filters being plugged, control rods coming loose, but I really don't see any.

I wonder how many hours flying it will take until I "feel" confident the RV machine is a solid, reliable performer?
 
It’s good to remind folks to have a look at accident reports becasue that is where the value lies - knowing WHY an accident happened - just knowing that it did doesn’t help you prevent another one, except to up your vigilance.

The sad truth is that this is the time of year when we always see an uptick in the stats. I get a monthly report on Experimental accidents as part of my work on the EAA Homebuilt Advisory Council, and you can see the bump in April and May every year as folks get their airplanes out of storage and try to brush off skills that have become rusty over the winter.

If there is any good news, we are still under our record from last year.....
 
It may help prevent accidents if we post anything that could easily be missed.
I lost the cap to my brake fluid reservoir in my RV4. I put a Davis drain valve in as a temporary fix and locked it open. Somehow the temporary, became permanent. One day on takeoff I had a nose down pitch, but thought I was just overpushing the stick to lift the tail.
Weeks later I landed and gave the brakes a dab, just to check they were OK and continued the roll out, but as the speed dropped and the downthrust on the tail lessened the tail came up to near vertical.
I think what happened is that the Davis valve must have got to a closed position. When I dabbed the brakes the pressure in the reservoir dropped and air got round the Davis valve as if it was a non return valve. I released the brakes but they were still applied.
Lesson learnt is you have to think of even the most obscure possibilities.
 
I wonder how many hours flying it will take until I "feel" confident the RV machine is a solid, reliable performer?

My first confidence jump was after annual (condition inspection). I did find a couple of important bolts low on torque, but I am sure that one of those was just missed. A spar bolt was at half torque. I had them in and out three times and used a half then full torque each time, so I am sure that one was on me. I rechecked every spar and control bolt for torque.
 
I wonder how many hours flying it will take until I "feel" confident the RV machine is a solid, reliable performer?

It took me about 450hrs before I started to accept that we built a proper machine that wasn't going to kill us in the next 30sec. That was a long time ago, and oh the places we've been since...
 
Taking the RV-12 out of the mix because of the nature of the accident, I wonder how old the rest of the planes were...3 RV-6s and a RV-8. I'm not saying that older planes are less safe, but I do wonder if complacency and a sense of comfort set in when you've flown a plane for years and no-one is looking over your shoulder when you go through the condition inspection. Just a thought.
 
Thanks

Appreciate the reminder. The math may say we are safer than others.

Statistically the N of 1 that equates to my butt in the seat needs a reminder to be safe.
 
George, for comparison, any idea how many Cessna's crashed in the same period?
Yes that information is available in the NTSB report. My interest was not comparing experimental vs. certified plane. There is an annual report on general aviation safety, and it does break down experimental and certified plane accidents. It's from AOPA and called the Nall Report. FAA has accident and safety analysis as well.
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=21274

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2016.aspx

Post was more of what Paul said, it's an uptick, time to take inventory of safety. I think currency and maintenance are two things to think of before saddling up again, if you and your flying machine have been hibernating for the winter. I'm not saying that's the cause of any of these accidents.

At some point statistics are only so useful. It's your own personal abilities and decision making. However when I was a new young pilot I read flying magazines and the Lessons Learned articles of accidents or some pilot adiverting disaster. I did learn a lot from those, still do to some extent. I say to some extent because a lot of accidents or incidents are from the same reasons they always have been.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many hours flying it will take until I "feel" confident the RV machine is a solid, reliable performer?

I had my very first condition inspection done by an A&P/AI with over 50 years experience. When he finished, he handed me my logs and said ?it?s better than a factory plane?. I have great confidence in 3TP, on the other hand, I?m constantly trying to improve my skills. If there?s ever a problem, that?s where it?s likely to come from. Mechanical problem? Fly the plane.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
This is a great thread, if nothing else than to have us all constantly pay attention and not get complacent with our airplanes. We’ve seen a huge down tick in Experimental aviation accidents over the last 10 years, and we are getting real close to the certified GA fleet accident rate. Of course, even one fatal accident is one too many, but they do happen and the best thing to do is to study them and try to learn from them.

We do believe that a lot of the gains have been due to the technology that we have been able to place in our cockpits, such as moving maps, since CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) has been drastically reduced. Loss of control is another area that has improved, we think due to the focus on training. Another contributing area has been the Additional Pilot Program, as many of the accidents happened during the first 8 hours of flight.

Regarding the question of when do we begin to trust our airplane, I tell everyone that around 100 hours of flight time, with proper testing, is a timeframe when one can start to feel comfortable that something catastrophic due to assembly should diminish. However, past that, it is all about the maintenance and paying attention to SB’s and other operators’ experience. We have a very young fleet in the scheme of things. My concern is that we will start to see an uptick in maintenance-related accidents if we don’t pay attention, especially with the growing population of Second and third owners who are somewhat used to just taking their airplanes once a year to the mechanic for the annual. My experience has been that our kit-built airplanes need a little more TLC throughout the year to understand the particular wear items and maintenance areas.

Having another set of eyes look over your airplane every once in a while, as I know some of you practice here, is a really super idea. ��

Vic
 
Last edited:
In the last month April to May there have been five RV accidents.

5/18 Ohio RV-6 (1 fatal) - takeoff possible loss of power on takeoff (witness stated engine slowed then surged)
4/29 Washington RV-6 (2 fatal) - in flight impacted water 1000' south-southeast of runway 31 (no witnesses)
4/26 Oklahoma RV-6 (non-fatal) - landing nose over on grass (tail wheel)
4/18 Oregon RV-8 (2 fatal) - in flight "loss of control"
4/12 South Dakota RV-12 (non-fatal) - takeoff on snow covered runway veered off runway, nose gear folded.

In a month period 5 reported accidents, 3 fatal. :( Please be careful.
2 In flight
2 Takeoff
1 Landing


Thanks for bringing this to our attention, it is concerning.
 
One area I know we could improve is interaction with convective weather. In a RV there really is no acceptable technique for penetrating a line of storms. I see people often advocating the use if NEXRAD and ducking under to spot rainshafts as a acceptable method. Unless the cells are widely spaced and you can find a least a 10 mile gap it?s not a good practice. Hail can be tossed a long distance downwind from a storm and winds can change nearly instantly as cells develope and collapse. The Delta L1011 crash in DFW is a excellent example where a Learjet proceeding them on the approach reported a smooth ride and no issues. Moments later the L1011 was smashed into the ground despite having plenty of energy available to climb. Best way to get through a line of storms is sitting in a hangar watching it pass over.
George
 
Thanks GMCJ.

What I was wondering is if RV pilots tend to take more risks than spam can pilots due to the confidence the RV's instill in us. In other words, decision making.

It's difficult to tell from your brief write-up of each of the RV accidents.
 
It took me about 450hrs before I started to accept that we built a proper machine that wasn't going to kill us in the next 30sec. That was a long time ago, and oh the places we've been since...

I'm at exactly that point now, with 425 hours on mine in just over 3 years.
 
The accident rate always concerns me. The difference with me is this. My life long exposure to mechanical things, repair and maintenance, fabrication skills that I use on a daily basis give me confidence that I can build a totally safe machine. I have 0 worries that the machine will fail based on what I have done to it, or better yet what I haven't done to it. I simply am not complacent about my abilities and use sound practices to ensure nothing is forgotten or overlooked.

It is also one of the reasons I chose Van's as their track record for mechanical failures and design flaws are very good. It is a sound design. I feel that if it is built, maintained, and flown properly then my confidence in its safety is very high.

My real concern is with mans ability to fly. In my mind it truly is not natural for us, and seemingly simple mistakes have very unforgiving consequences. I am still a student pilot and it still freaks me out a bit that someone can just crash an airplane when they are a professional pilot that flies almost everyday. I read about high time pilots that wind up in a fatal crash involving their RV (any plane really) that they fly for recreation. Can most of this be explained by complacency? Really?

The ones that bother me the most are the no witness, kind of undetermined, "loss of control" or flight into terrain with no good explanation as to why did it happen. The more experience the pilot has the more sketchy I feel about this whole idea of flying my own plane someday. It seems odd to me that someone with all those hours just lost control........and how the heck am I ever going to be able to feel safe when I have so few hours and so limited skills? How am I going to develop these skills to the degree that this won't happen to me without being in this perilous position at all times?
 
It?s good to be reminded that flying is more than a casual hobby. The Daybreak accident was three miles from our Airpark. Nobody knows what happened. Two experienced pilots known in the community. We are waiting on the NTSB reports and hope to learn something from it.
It is also good to be reminded that the bulk of us will fly for our lifetimes with no accidents or incidents. We just had two neighbors awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award for flying over 50 years accident free. A third qualified but chose not to receive the award (not the award type I guess), and another received the award several years ago.
Our ?hobby? is safe, but not risk free as we all know and it doesn?t hurt to be reminded.
 
One area I know we could improve is interaction with convective weather. In a RV there really is no acceptable technique for penetrating a line of storms. I see people often advocating the use if NEXRAD and ducking under to spot rainshafts as a acceptable method. Unless the cells are widely spaced and you can find a least a 10 mile gap it?s not a good practice. Hail can be tossed a long distance downwind from a storm and winds can change nearly instantly as cells develope and collapse. The Delta L1011 crash in DFW is a excellent example where a Learjet proceeding them on the approach reported a smooth ride and no issues. Moments later the L1011 was smashed into the ground despite having plenty of energy available to climb. Best way to get through a line of storms is sitting in a hangar watching it pass over.
George

All true - and yet, the number of accidents in the experimental world these days that involve convective activity is statistically very tiny. We?ve done a great job of educating pilots that thunderstorms are to be avoided, and the availability of in cockpit weather has helped that trend.

Definitely stayed a healthy distance from convective activity - but look at what is actually causing accidents these days (mostly loss of control in the airport environment) to keep reducing accidents!
 
In 2014 I took my then new RV10 to Oshkosh with about 60 hours on it.
That is about a 2500 mile round trip. I did not have a single issue at all the entire trip. I gave the airplane a near condition inspection prior to the trip even though it was only 3 months old. I am also a 25000+ hour pilot.
However, with the blessing of hindsight, I believe that it was a mistake to take the aircraft on such a journey so early. I would strongly caution anyone to have 2-3 hundred hours shake down on a new aircraft, experimental or certified, before undertaking such a trip.
I now have 600ish hours on the aircraft. I’ve only had two AOG level failures and both were certified equivalent components. Prop governor and alternator.
I’ve also done 15 Flying Samaritan trips to Baja Mexico without any mechanical issues. Most of my certified compadres can’t say the same.
So far I have not had a single failure of anything related to Van’s or assembly.

I know someone who bought a brand new Cirrus about the same time as my RV10 flew and he has had a plethora of mechanical issues and breakdowns.

We fly great airplanes, but like all mechanical things, they demand proper maintenance and attention. No matter what, stuff happens. I fly both Vans and Boeing’s and I’d rather be in Van’s than Boeing’s shoes at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Daybreak Accident

The prelim for the daybreak accident just showed up on Aero-News. BFR Flight. Instructor was 20,000 hour pilot, ATP with a bunch of type ratings. No known witnesses.
 
Boeing

A LONG time ago, before the first RV, a friend built two near identical homebuilts. The first was named MAX for maximum performance. The second was named MAL for malfunction. It eventually got straightened out but it took a long time.
Every time I see some more nonsense about the 737 MAX I think of my late friend and think that perhaps Boeing got MAX and MAL mixed up.
 
Testing

Experimental Exhibition covers a wide variety of airplanes, from new 425K Extras to one of a kind built from scratch airplanes that do not meet EAB. The one common item is that most only require a five hour test program. If I had a 2500 mile trip to take, and the choice was between airlines and a Experimental Exhibition with only five fours total time, I will take the Experimental.
 
I understand what you?re trying to say but that?s not the point. This is our community and we need to be concerned about a serious uptick in accidents. Let?s not be satisfied if our accident rate compares favorably, or even close to, any other pilot group.

Sorry to make such a post and then go offline. I?m about to board a commercial flight (God save me! :)).

What exactly are you implying by your last statement? That your 500 hours - or however many you have - result in a safer operation than the professionals who man the controls of the ship on which you've CHOSEN to purchase a ticket? Just curious. The airlines have flown many more hours and haven't lost 5 birds this last month. Just saying... They're both my communities, hence my interest in each one.
Patrick
 
The accident rate always concerns me.

My real concern is with mans ability to fly. In my mind it truly is not natural for us, and seemingly simple mistakes have very unforgiving consequences. I am still a student pilot and it still freaks me out a bit that someone can just crash an airplane when they are a professional pilot that flies almost everyday. I read about high time pilots that wind up in a fatal crash involving their RV (any plane really) that they fly for recreation. Can most of this be explained by complacency? Really?

A common quote I remind myself of is:
" I / We can have 10,000 hours or 1 hour 10,000 times. "

Professional turbine flying has almost ZERO in common with flying RVs. Unfortunately there are too many accidents with both "professionals" and nonprofessionals at the controls. A goofed up roll that turns into a split S and an over G situation or a ground loop has nothing in common professional turbine operations.

I believe more training would help a lot of these statistics. But how? Vac has a great manual and training program, but who uses it and how much would a course like Vac put together cost?

Than we have the useful load issue with teaching unusual attitudes and mild acro with legal parachutes and not exceeding the max acro weight of our planes. So many don't make the time or spend the money to gain experience of learning acro in other certified airplanes and they teach themselves. Some of these are again high time professional pilots.

I was at DRs hanger the other day when Vans RV-12 came through. We talked at length about training, LODAs, and insurance. There are so many hurdles one would have to jump through to help the RV community with initial and recurrent training. And so while more RV training availability could be such a great thing, it boils down to time and money.

I may be pursuing a LODA for my 6, but when I start to add the cost of appropriate insurance, the wear and tear on the plane, and my personal time, "worth it" becomes a moving target.
 
Last edited:
For those who don't know and wsnt details go to the NTSB database link below:

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx

If new to it there are a few tricks to using it. To not get too many returns, limit date range and leave filters blank and/or ALL, then submit. Scan returned list for your interest. Select 100 returns per page. To see report use HTML link.

For big date range use the filters. Common filters: expermental, fatal, non fatal, operations part 91, 121, 135, type airplane or helicopter, piston, jet... You can use one or more filters... For manufacture and model I usually leave blank. Manufacturer of experimental aircraft usually the Builder's name, so you can't filter that fir general search. For model you can put in the RV model, but there is no standard format, with or without hyphen, spaces and so on. I usually leave manufacturer and model blank and just go with the experimental filter.

All these accidents are preliminary so they don't have all facts. Final report takes months or more than a year. The final report will have a link to the accident docket site which stores the raw data, radar returns, pictures, eyewitness reports. Pretty eye opening.

I have been personally involved in two NTSB accident teams as representative for airline investigating part 121accidents. It's an experience. One did not involve loss of life. The other involved loss of three lives, and it was disturbing to spend two weeks around wreakage putting prices of plane together.

One thing I was struck by, as was mentioned previously, the RV pilots were not inexperienced, as mentioned one was a 20,000 hr ATP. Another RV accident pilot was also the builder and had been flying the airplane since 1990's.
 
Last edited:
I believe a well built RV is a s safe as a certified airplane of similar design. The fact is many different planes have varying levels of safety. It all boils down to each individuals " risk " factor. I have decided to sell my 7 due to safety concerns. I have an Aviat Husky that I have owned for 15 years. It has a full chrome moly cage around me and I know will do far better in an emergency landing due to the way its constructed. I can set it down almost anywhere if I had an issue. Mine is a tilt up and if it goes over on its back good luck getting out. It may be me just getting older but I am will to give up speed for safety. I fly mostly in mountains and would probably think differently if I was in a different location with more open area. I saw where a 7 landed in a marsh and killed both pilot and passenger from what looked like just the G force. I never did feel comfortable flying my grandkids in it.
 
True...but

What you say about the husky, well, as you said, it?s dependent on the individuals own risk assessment.

From an engineering standpoint, though, your husky, in a crash, can easily generate sufficient g forces to be fatal...
 
I know it any crash can be fatal I just like my odds a lot better with more protection around me and lower speed if I had an emergency.
 
Pursuant to the discussion of what kind of airplane is safer in a crash, the one that absorbs the energy and doesn't transferred it to the occupants. Composite, wood, steel tube air frames tend to be very strong but also ridgid. Aluminum semi monocoque construction of Van's Aircraft tend to deform and absorb energy. However they're very small planes, and there's not a lot of extra structure to deform and absorb energy.

What I really like about Vans aircraft when I became aware of them, when the RV6 came out in the mid-80s, was the low stall speed. Low stall speed in a controled crash is going to be more survivable, and the handling characteristics of the airplane are excellent (aileron control into a stall without much adverse yaw).

Bottom line any airplane in a crash can be fatal.

During the flight test phase you do find a few little things. What I found in the following few hundred hours you started finding things that are going to crack early, rub or chafe. Once you resolve those, reinforce, reroute, modify, the plane becomes more robust or at least you know what to look for and when.

Statistically commercial airline flights are far more safe than GA. However when you look at the cause of many GA accidents involving poor pilot judgment, weather, fuel or poor skills, loss of control, failure to maintain A/S, the statistics do not apply, if you don't make those mistakes. Mechanical failures and general aviation are higher as well than commercial, but fairly low. Again that's in your control to some degree. I agree flying to Oshkosh in a brand new home built with five hours has some risks with it. At least if there's some repairs you need to make away from home base, it could be problematic.
 
Last edited:
yes

"...I know it any crash can be fatal I just like my odds a lot better with more protection around me and lower speed if I had an emergency..."

The perceived odds...again, an individual's risk assessment.

We had a C-172RG have a catastrophic engine failure some years ago. The pilot, a 110 hour private, did a wonderful job putting the airplane into a clear cut logging area (no place else to go). Totaled the airplane but both he and his passenger walked away. Upon recovering the aircraft and disassembling it to part it out (that's another long story; the insurance DID NOT PAY), we found a 4 inch diameter pine branch had penetrated the fuselage structure just below the pilot's seat. It stopped about 2 inches short of the lower seat cushion. In this case, the metal skin and structure probably saved the pilot's life...
 
" Upon recovering the aircraft and disassembling it to part it out (that's another long story; the insurance DID NOT PAY) "

Thread side note:

Can you share the cliff notes version of why the insurance didn't pay?

I was just curious. The only times I have heard of this happening was in unique cases like illegal activity or unauthorized modifications to certified airplanes.

Thx
 
For perspective in 2018 there were 24 RV incidents and accidents. 2019 it is 8 incidents/accidents to date, including one foriegn RV. So actually we are better than last year? I guess we can't eliminate all accidents, but fly safe. (numbers are ball park)
 
yes...

"...Can you share the cliff notes version of why the insurance didn't pay?..."

Yes. Long story short is that there was an exclusion buried in the policy about "catastrophic" engine failures. The policy was written on our flight school aircraft...several C-172s, the RG, and a a C-421.

The mid time engine failed due to a complete loss of oil. When the engine was manufactured, the main oil galley was drilled, the the end is threaded and plugged with a flush pipe plug on the prop side of the engine; this plug is basically supposed to be permanent and never removed, however, it came out during that flight. The oil was then pumped overboard and immediately covered the windshield. A short time later the engine seized due to lack of oil, followed by the off airport landing, which destroyed the plane. All maintenance was up to date and complete on the aircraft. I will see if I can find the pictures, and post some of them...

Point is, make sure you READ the policy COMPLETELY and understand what is and is not covered. At the time, the aircraft was valued at $55K...we got a tiny fraction of that back by parting out what was left of the aircraft...
 
This just came across my news feed.
Scary and sad.

Fatal mid-air collision...
(29/May/2019)
- United States of America
A private experimentally built Van's RV-4, registration N319RL, experienced a mid-air collision with another private experimentally built Van's RV-4, registration N203DD, near Green Cove Springs-Haller Airpark, Florida.

The first RV-4, N319RL, was destroyed after crashing into a wooded area, the sole pilot on board was fatally injured.

The second RV-4, N203DD, impacted open field terrain and the sole pilot on board received serious injures.
 
This just came across my news feed.
Scary and sad.

Fatal mid-air collision...
(29/May/2019)
- United States of America
A private experimentally built Van's RV-4, registration N319RL, experienced a mid-air collision with another private experimentally built Van's RV-4, registration N203DD, near Green Cove Springs-Haller Airpark, Florida.

The first RV-4, N319RL, was destroyed after crashing into a wooded area, the sole pilot on board was fatally injured.

The second RV-4, N203DD, impacted open field terrain and the sole pilot on board received serious injures.

Details in this thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=171949
 
Insurance Rates Going Up, A LOT 😢

I?m insuring a new airplane and was shocked by the increase in premium for just 6 months ago! I?ve had my RV-4 insured now for 10 years. My last premium was lowest ever. Speaking with the insurance agent yesterday ALL insurance rates are going to increase dramatically because we HAVE had a large increase in accidents and incidents resulting in near record insurance payouts. The agent ?blamed? it on low fuel prices and the big rise in student training since airline/corporate jobs are paying better and the ?pilot shortage? increasing people desire to join the flight work force. Also more dormant/former fliers are flying again thanks to lower prices. In my case my insurance quote on a $150,000 dollar hull coverage increased $1,100 over the same quote last November 2018. The agent also said parts for our aircraft are increasing in price.

It is imperative to all us RV pilots, experimental airplane drivers, or certified planes users to be smarter and more careful out there. It does impact us all. And as you know, it takes longer for ages to decline than it does to rise. No one plans to have an accident/incident. But we call all work on being safe.
 
What exactly are you implying by your last statement? That your 500 hours - or however many you have - result in a safer operation than the professionals who man the controls of the ship on which you've CHOSEN to purchase a ticket? Just curious. The airlines have flown many more hours and haven't lost 5 birds this last month. Just saying... They're both my communities, hence my interest in each one.
Patrick

Sorry, the remark is not a reference to safety. The airlines have done an excellent job and are just about the safest way to travel. My reference was more to the whole sardine can experience/cattle car experience.

BTW/FYI, I have a little over 10k hours, mostly corporate turbine time.
 
Sorry, the remark is not a reference to safety. The airlines have done an excellent job and are just about the safest way to travel. My reference was more to the whole sardine can experience/cattle car experience.

BTW/FYI, I have a little over 10k hours, mostly corporate turbine time.

What mode of transportation is safer than the U.S. commercial carriers?
 
Found this on the interwebs, attributed to Wikipedia, so it must be true!

main-qimg-23214e49537ef6401f67ff60ab9da6b9-c
 
School buses historically have been the safest form of transportation (as far as fatalities go....not counting whatever happens on the bus.......).

[recent retiree as a juvenile haulage facilitator].
 
Actually, I believe the safest (lowest fatality rate per passenger mile) form of transportation in the US is........an elevator.
 
It said "The FADEC and speed sensor are being retained for further examination".
Did it really have a full FADEC in it? I didn't know any were available for RVs. Is this really a "semi-FADEC", or does it truly take control of the CS governor as well?

The "F" in TMXOF-360 really does mean FADEC, but that's FADEC for the engine, not for the total propulsion system. Google "Aerosance" for some history.
Re prop governor, the prop was a fixed-pitch Prince prop, so no governor would have been used.
 
Back
Top