Velocity crash

[Lynn Erickson]

I sadly report a Velocity crashed into RV 8. the videos and pics on the links.

 

http://www.local6.com

 

http://www.wftv.com

 

very said.

[Wayne Hicks]

Sad indeed. My friend and former Long-EZ driver lives across the street from the airport. He heard the crash. He assisted. Supposedly, the Velocity that hit the RV was doing an almost ground level high speed fly-by when he hit the RV from the rear as the RV was taxiing off the runway and onto the ramp. The Velocity's right wing was sheared off when it hit the canopy of the RV. The two men in the RV were most assuredly killed instantly and did not suffer the pain of burning to death. Their bodies were not recovered from the plane until all fires were put out. (Think about that as you look at the pictures.) Folks at the pancake breakfast ran over to the Velocity and lifting the nose to get the two occupants out. They were both burned badly and were in grave condition (as of last night).

[Wayne Hicks]

BTW, the crash synopsis was by the NTSB agent on site. It wasn't my friend's account. Which begs the question, why was the Velocity's gear down? If I'm doing a high speed pass to impress, I'm certainly doing it with the gear up. Perhaps it's the velo pilot landing too soon after the RV and attempting a go-around. Couldn't get enough airspeed to get airborne again?

[Waiter]

If I'm doing a high speed pass to impress, I'm certainly doing it with the gear up.

I questioned that also!!!!!!!!

 

ALSO, If the Velocity was at a high speed, I would expect to see the debris field from the Velocity more spread out, and farther away from the point of collision.

 

The debris field doesn't support this statement.

 

 

Waiter

[TMann]

.... could be as simple as the PIC mistaking the taxiway for the runway.

[soloflight]

What a tragedy everybody take a little extra time to look out for other aircraft.

 

My heart goes out to the families involved.

[TMann]

The pilot of the Velocity died. Sounds as though he was burned pretty bad.(95%)

I believe the passenger was Uli.

 

It sounds as though the PIC was not familiar with flying the Velocity, came it to fast and lost it.

 

Bad situation all the way around.

[emteeoh]

TMann, I read the exact opposite. Scott Baker, on the Velocity builder's forum, said:

 

Uli Christen and a friend were invovled. They were attending an EAA Pancake

Breakfast at an airpark near Titusville.

Uli and his passenger survived the crash - how, I don't know by looking at

the photos of the aircraft engulfted in flames. As of last evening, both

Uli and his passenger were in an ICU burn center in Orlando. Scott Swing

learned that Uli was no burned badly, but that the passenger has burns

covering 80% - not good.

Details are sketchy - we all know how accurate news reports are on this sort

of thing. Scott and Amy hope to visit Uli in the hospital today. Perhaps

we will learn more details later.

 

 

That was posted at 7am today.

[TMann]

I was going off of this:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/orlando-sentinel/T8LOG481N2TS03IKF

 

Yet another account seems more likely:

They say the Velocity was landing but the previous plane had not cleared the runway.

They claim full power was applied in an attempt to go around.

 

 

It sounds as though Uli is the sole survivor.

I wish him a speedy recovery.

 

T Mann

[Aiman]

My wishes are with them all.

[TMann]

OMG...... I read an eyewitness account on this on another forum.

 

This appears to be the result of a 'straight in' approach vs. flying the pattern. I got cutoff here Saturday morning by the same type of approach. No radio call just straight in.

 

It's a dangerous approach.

Why chance it!

[Phil Kriley]

Straight-ins are not dangerous. We do not know for sure that the Velocity actually was doing a "straight-in" - he may have been on final. What we do know is that two groups of 4 RV's were doing overhead breaks to a landing. Group 1 was down, but still on the ground, Group2 was starting in, Velocity was in between, Velocity veered because of RV's still on runway, hit grass, applied power but could not get airborne, wing hit RV on the taxiway and Velocity cartwheeled after the impact.

 

Very sad, and very avoidable.

[TMann]

Phil,

Here is a post of the account given by an eyewitness: HERE

The Velocity decided to do a straight in for 15 and ignored the radio that a flight of 4 was landing.

 

There are 3 guys that would argue the merits of a straight in if they could. I think it's a bad practice. I'm always having to scan like crazy during my base leg 'looking for bubba!'

 

If you're flying VFR, why not fly the pattern? That's what everyone is expecting you to do.

[Phil Kriley]

Phil,

Here is a post of the account given by an eyewitness: HERE

 

There are 3 guys that would argue the merits of a straight in if they could. I think it's a bad practice. I'm always having to scan like crazy during my base leg 'looking for bubba!'

 

If you're flying VFR, why not fly the pattern? That's what everyone is expecting you to do.

I read that account earlier today - it's posted on the AOPA webboard - and others have said that it is unclear that the Velocity was doing a straight-in. Velocity's land a lot faster than most planes, so it's possible that he was actually flying the pattern. It is the opinion of many that the RV's cut him off with their overhead break.

 

Now, if you want to talk about an unsafe approach, let's talk about the 4-plane formation overhead break...

 

As for a straight-in approach, there is absolutely not a thing wrong with it IF you are cognizant of the other traffic in the pattern and are not using the straight-in to cut off others in the pattern. The less time spent in the pattern, the better, and if a straight-in makes the most sense, then it should be considered. But IF the straight-in conflicts with traffic already established in the pattern, then the straight-in pilot should alter his plan and find another entry to the pattern.

[TMann]

Forget the overhead break (even though they entered the downwind legally.)

Forget the straight in approach.

 

Who has the right of way:

The plane on the runway or the plane on final?

 

I went through the same cr@p flying a legal pattern locally the same morning here. I'm getting ready to turn final and here comes Bubba on a straight in. I was already in the pattern and had established communications.

No radio call from Bubba.

[Phil Kriley]

The plane on the runway, of course. But the CAUSE of this tragedy is arguable. Some witnesses say the straight-in, some say because of the overhead break, some say the RV-'s on the runway took too long to clear. I guess we'll have to wait for the NTSB to sort it out.

 

But simply blaming the Velocity for an alleged straight-in when we know that the RV's did an overhead break is uncalled for, and calling anyone who does a straight-in to a pilot-controlled field "Bubba" is silly.

 

If you are uncomfortable with a straight-in, then don't do one. But understand that ANY entry to the pattern at an uncontrolled field is legal and can be done safely. This forum is not really the place to argue the merits of the various entry points, but I can give you many reasons why the 45 to midfield is NOT necessarily the best choice at all times.

[TMann]

The plane on the runway, of course. But the CAUSE of this tragedy is arguable. Some witnesses say the straight-in, some say because of the overhead break, .....

The overhead break was not performed in conflict with existing traffic.

 

......some say the RV-'s on the runway took too long to clear......

Moot point! He still had the right to be there.

I guess we'll have to wait for the NTSB to sort it out.......

Followed by the legal team and the resulting fallout.

...... but I can give you many reasons why the 45 to midfield is NOT necessarily the best choice at all times.

... you mean like at a fly-in breakfast where traffic is going to be more congested?

 

I see this and learn from it.

I hope I'm not alone.

[Phil Kriley]

The overhead break was not performed in conflict with existing traffic.

 

 

Moot point! He still had the right to be there.

 

Followed by the legal team and the resulting fallout.

 

... you mean like at a fly-in breakfast where traffic is going to be more congested?

 

I see this and learn from it.

I hope I'm not alone.

What did you learn from it? That at a crowded fly-in it's OK to do formation overhead breaks into a crowded pattern? Again - not everyone is in agreement that the Velocity did a "straight-in" in the first place. Let's let the NTSB sort it out. We don't really know what happened - all of the eye-witness accounts do not tell the same story.

 

And yes, at a busy fly-in a straight-in approach MIGHT be the safest entry. I was flying in to a small field for a steak-and-lobster event, and planes were arriving from all quadrants. There were several planes in the pattern when I arrived, and as it happened a straight-in worked perfectly in that situation. I could see the other planes in the pattern, was talking to them, we all announced our positions and I landed #3. Flying around the field to make some other entry would have put me in conflict with other planes that had announced their arrival positions but were not yet in the pattern.

 

At pilot-controlled fields, you have to keep your head on a swivel, communicate, and do what makes the most sense. If that means a 45 to mid-field, then so be it. If it's safer to enter on the upwind, or crosswind or base, then do it. Being a safe pilot is all about judgement.

[TMann]

.......... I will watch for you.

[rickh]

... At pilot-controlled fields, you have to keep your head on a swivel, communicate, ...

What was communicated? Maybe his radios were losing smoke...

 

Rick

[argoldman]

Straight-ins are not dangerous. We do not know for sure that the Velocity actually was doing a "straight-in" - he may have been on final. What we do know is that two groups of 4 RV's were doing overhead breaks to a landing. Group 1 was down, but still on the ground, Group2 was starting in, Velocity was in between, Velocity veered because of RV's still on runway, hit grass, applied power but could not get airborne, wing hit RV on the taxiway and Velocity cartwheeled after the impact.

 

Very sad, and very avoidable.

 

Phil,

 

This is a very sad occurrence, and we, all as pilots, have a sliver of "there for the grace of (insert your own word here) go I.

 

Now Lets talk about straight in approaches, or at least let me talk about my feeling about straight in approaches.

 

If you are the only plane in the sky landing at a particular airport, there is nothing wrong with them. Although the perception of altitude may be easier when in the pattern, experience will let a straight in be safe and expeditious (straight from PHC or is it tasty and expeditious).

 

HOWEVER, when you are sharing airspace and maneuvers with other aircraft, a different situation happens.

 

Ideally, all in the pattern or landing at a particular airport have a mental image of all of the aircraft around and their intentions. Radio contact works well except for and not limited to the following:

1) No radio

2) inability of some pilots (most) to conceptually grasp what is happening and the usual filtering of information, some of it important, which happens with multitasking, such as landing an aircraft.

3) pilots who fly like they don't care

4) low time pilots just at the extent of their capability

 

 

It would be interesting to do a poll on "near misses" in the pattern and when they happen. I personally, in 40 years have never had an "incident" when entering the downwind, or crosswind leg at 45, however have had a few oh Shi* moments being almost run over by straight-ins.

 

Our craft are very difficult to see when flying. The confines of the pattern make this visibility better. A straight-in approach increases the distance between a plane in the pattern and the approaching plane by a large amount.

 

Don't forget, it usually takes more than one aircraft to have a collision.

[brendanw]

Attached is a simple diagram of the airport incident that I put together. It's helpful to have a bit more of a visual of what occurred so that we can learn from it.

[Eccentric]

Attached is a simple diagram of the airport incident that I put together. It's helpful to have a bit more of a visual of what occurred so that we can learn from it.

Thanks for that picture. I don't understand why the collision took place so far down the runway and on a taxiway off to the side of the runway? I admit I haven't kept up with the latest info on this accident that may have come out the last couple days.

[Drew Swenson]

One where I almost got smacked was when a Bonanza called for a left 45 for runway xx (he really meant right 45 ---and guess where I was looking). Anyway, he did not intercept the downwind at midfield---he intercepted between the approach end and the base turn. I saw lots of belly as he intercepted the downwind. Oh--and I was talking the whole time too. So you have people talking---but reporting their position incorrectly. You have people who talk but don't listen/process the information. You have people using a non-standard entry. Add all those together at the same time and you have an accident waiting to happen.

[Drew Swenson]

After reading the eyewitness account and after looking at the airport diagram (assuming eyewitness acount is error free and the diagram markup is accurate)---why did he veer left to avoid the RV? Does not make sense----if he wanted to veer, he should have gone right. Maybe he stomped on the brakes too hard and failed the right brake??