Sonex Accidents
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:32 pm
Sonex Accidents.pdf
(1.21 MiB) Downloaded 670 times
I was searching for information on Sonex accidents and wasn’t satisfied with the information supplied on the Sonex Pilots and Builders Foundation site so I spent the day, yesterday, compiling the attached list of all the accidents I could find involving Sonex and included all the data that I was interested in. I hope people on this site can add information I have not found, especially information on what the cause of an engine failure is. Also more information on what type of engine was in the aircraft that had an engine failure. Most of the time the information I obtained will state something like “aircraft lost power”. It would be nice to know why it lost power, did the crank break, etc. Where I state the “issue” whether it is Pilot error or Mech issue this was my determination based on the limited information I had. If any of you see this as incorrect please advise me so I can make changes. I don’t want to place blame where not appropriate. Also, I made a suggestion in the suggestion section on this forum, requesting that an accidents section be added. Thanks, John R
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:49 pm
by radfordc
Here is the info on N229P crash in 2007:
NTSB Identification: DFW07CA068
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, February 10, 2007 in Atlanta, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/29/2007
Aircraft: Fortuna Sonex, registration: N229P
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.
The airplane stalled and collided with trees while maneuvering to avoid trees during a go-around. The pilot reported that while practicing takeoff and landings on runway 33, he determined that he was too high on the approach and initiated a go-around. The pilot concluded that his 80-horsepower homebuilt airplane was not going to be able to clear the trees at the departure end of the 2,463-foot long, by 150-foot wide turf runway, so he turned the airplane 45-degrees to the left to avoid the trees. The pilot added that while maneuvering, the airplane stalled and collided with trees located about 100 yards west of the runway 33. The airplane came to rest in the inverted position at the base of the trees, resulting in structural damage to the wings and the fuselage. The canopy was also damaged. There was no fire. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who responded to the accident site noted that runway 15/33 is not annotated on the airport diagram thus there was no information about the obstructions present at either end of the runway.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure to maintain an adequate airspeed that resulted in a stall/mush. A contributing factor was the group of trees located near the departure end of the runway.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:35 pm
by rizzz
johnr9q@yahoo.com wrote:…
It would be nice to know why it lost power, did the crank break, etc.
…
I believe you’ll find that if the exact cause for the “loss of power” has been determined without doubt, the investigation will clearly state that cause.
They generally don’t include speculations or suspicions in the investigations. Only facts that can be traced back to actual findings.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:38 pm
by fastj22
rizzz wrote:
johnr9q@yahoo.com wrote:…
It would be nice to know why it lost power, did the crank break, etc.
…I believe you’ll find that if the exact cause for the “loss of power” has been determined without doubt, the investigation will clearly state that cause.
They generally don’t include speculations or suspicions in the investigations. Only facts that can be traced back to actual findings.
True, if its a simple determination, it will be reported. However, if the aircraft is destroyed and the root cause requires a great deal of detective work, I don’t think you will see it. I believe Jeff Schultz’s off airport landing was never determined why his Jab quit. They (FAA) came out, checked his fuel level, turned the prop, then determined engine failure to unknown reasons. To this day, Jeff doesn’t know why his engine quit. They just aren’t very interested in investigating uncertified engine installations. Had this been a C150 with O200, they would have had the engine torn down.
Another thing to consider, since we do our own installs with few established standards we are held to, there are far too many variables to consider.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:54 am
Surely some of you people can add information to my list or make corrections. If you come up with something I will make changes to the list and repost. It seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult to find out what engine was in the various airplanes?
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:22 pm
by radfordc
You could try cross referencing your list with the Sonex completions site: http://builder.sonexaircraft.com/cgi-bi … ompletions
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:23 pm
by radfordc
Also, I think there have been 1 or 2 Sonex fatal accidents overseas. Seem to recall something about one in Italy?
Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 7:57 pm
by Sonex1517
I wanted to post in this topic about something I find very interesting.
In recent months I have been contacted directly by two Sonex pilots with opposite strong opinions.
One insists we are not doing enough to actively post accident data and as a result are not upholding the mission of the foundation. He voiced a very strong opinion in the subject.
Another separate contact was from someone who literally demanded we remove all of the accident data due to how the community is seen from the outside when we post accident data. His demand (and it was a demand) was also very strong.
So as a point of conversation, what does the community think?
I know what I think.
I know what the Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation has stated its mission is.
What do all of you think?
Robbie Culver
Sonex 1517
Chicagoland
Tails and Wings complete - finishing fuselage.
N1517S reserved
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 8:12 pm
by Bryan Cotton
Here is my opinion-I think we are good where we are. We have certainly had some accident discussion. In fact, a google search led me to Sonexbuilders when I was looking for accident data. This uncovered the thread on the Waiex that lost its tail. I appreciate frank and thoughtful discussions on accidents. I have lost friends in airplane accidents and I try to learn everything about what went wrong. Hopefully our loss of our fellow pilots can spare us from the same end. But, there is more to the Sonex community than just accidents. There is building, flying, events and fellowship. As far as removing all discussion of accidents, I respectfully disagree with that approach.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 8:28 pm
by rizzz
I strongly believe we should be able to discuss everything.
In fact, I would go even further than that and say we should also be able to speculate on possible causes etc. This is something that is often “frowned upon” to say the least.
BUT, much like you stated in the other topic, Robbie:
…those that read the post should be reminded that the post is just that. A post on the Internet in a discussion forum.
.
I strongly believe “people” have to be able to gather as much information and as many different opinions as possible so they can make up their own mind, but off course this assumes “people” have a brain of their own and are willing to use it, not everyone does :).
You need to be able to read a topic within its context and realise that there is a person/company behind this post with feelings, emotions and motives influencing what they’re posting.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:17 pm
by mike.smith
As for accident data, I see no reason to remove it. Accidents are an unfortunate but very real part of travel, whether by air or otherwise. We try to learn from it. The transportation industries have only gotten safer through (FACTUAL) investigation and discussion. To remove all accident data and discussion is to bury our heads in the sand and not learn a darn thing.
Speculation, on the other hand, is counterproductive as it’s usually wrong, and nearly always biased. Speculation is not discussion. We harangue the media for speculating publicly, then we do it ourselves. To what end? If we really want to give the public the wrong impression, speculation will do it. Personally I won’t get into “discussions” that are not based on the facts as they are known at the time.
Just my 2 cents.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:52 pm
by kmacht
I agree that we should keep it. It should be it’s own section outside the general discussion forum but it should stay. The foundation is supposed to be supporting safety of the fleet not being a promotional piece for the company. I don’t expect Sonex Aircraft to post accidents on their Web page but I do expect an owners group to actively discuss accidents and accident prevention. There is a certain RV site that if you went to it you wouldn’t even know that there was a near fatal mid air between the rv aerobatics team or any discussion of why it happened yet they promote discussions on formation flying with no problem at all. The only censorship I would expect from this site is if a discussion got personal and out of hand or if the accident pilot specifically asks for a discussion to stop. For me, if I ever dent up my Sonex feel free to openly and actively discuss and speculate. Even if the speculation is found to be wrong later it at least gets people thinking about the possible risks.
Keith
#554
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:57 pm
by ScottM-Sonex1629
Robbie,
I agree we should keep it on the foundation web-site. Links to the site from this forum are enough, probably no need for double posting as that can lead to mistake when transcribing (factual) data.
I know the board of directors are discussing ways to step up this data search and reporting (to keep it up to date) and if any of the forum members have ideas for ways to better retrieve the data and post/upload to the foundation web-site please share your thoughts.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 11:08 pm
by Sonex1462
I also agree with keeping the information on the foundation web site. In my 50 years of flying I have always wanted to learn as much as I can to be a safer pilot. We can always learn from both the good and the bad.
Thank You to everyone on the foundation that works to provide us the info we need to be safer Sonex pilots!
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 9:05 am
by DCASonex
Keep the forum open to discussion of all Sonex related issues. Censorship will discredit both this forum and Sonex. The issues will find an outlet, and people will be getting their information from less balanced sources. Love my Sonex, and think it is one of the best designed out there, but also see room for improvement. Continues improvement is vital to survival in today’s world.
Speculation is inevitable, posted or not. Better to get the wild ideas out there and debunked than suppressed.
Have made some unapproved modifications to mine so that can reach and operate all controls and shut off fuel with shoulder belts tight in event of crash landing. One of those is hydraulic disk brakes that at the time were warned against by Sonex. That warning was sound if the brakes were over powerful or prone to grabbing, fortunately used that warning when selecting mine and they have proved ideal.
David A. Sonex TD with CAMit 3300.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am
by avee8r
I agree, keep the accident data.
The discussion will always naturally follow on anyway.
Happy Landings
John
N50NX
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 10:21 am
by sonex1374
Robbie,
Sharing of accident information is essential, and here’s why I say that. I think we all have the desire to learn from other people’s experiences, both good and bad. When the Sonex fleet experiences a loss I think the rest want to know what happened, and most importantly what they can do to either prevent that from reoccurring, or to at least mitigate the risk. We need thoughtful, well thought out presentation of the relevant facts in order to piece together a narrative that answers two basic questions: “Why did this happen?” and “What can I do about it?”.
The issue comes when the discussion turns unhealthy, speculative, and accusatory. Unsupported statements, premature conclusions, or outright name calling are all inflammatory and tend to get people’s blood boiling. When that happens, the discussion becomes more of a liability to all of us than a help. It simply makes us all look bad.
We need to use the Foundation as a place that promotes thoughtful discussion, and airs legitimate issues, problems and negative trends. We need to be patient when the facts are not yet known, and police ourselves against unhealthy speculation. We need to be honest with ourselves and the community, and continually build our credibility. And above all, we need to learn from our mistakes and those of others, and strive to answer the question about what can we a the Sonex community do to prevent these things from happening again.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 10:45 am
by chris
Sonex1517 wrote:Another separate contact was from someone who literally demanded we remove all of the accident data due to how the community is seen from the outside when we post accident data. His demand (and it was a demand) was also very strong.
The removal of all accident data will never happen. Respectful accident discussion with the goal of prevention is perfectly acceptable here. It’s a goal of SonexBuilders.net to promote safety. It’s safe to say that SonexBuilders.net and the Foundation share in that goal.
If a Sonex aircraft crashes and we don’t discuss the reasons why, especially after we know why (NTSB report) then how are we to increase safety? I would argue that you are promoting more accidents by avoiding discussion. You cannot turn a blind eye to accidents or put your earmuffs on and help to lower accident rates. It just doesn’t work that way.
If we were to delete all things bad that happened, we would be denying everyone who flies a Sonex aircraft information that could help to prevent that same something bad from happening to them too.
That’s the official view about accident discussion from SonexBuilders.net.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 10:55 am
by Rynoth
The accident discussion about the Waiex tail separation was very valuable to me as a builder. As someone new to this, it made a strong impression to me on the importance of such things as proper deburring and using appropriate hardware. Now, I believe it remains unresolved whether either of those things contributed to the accident, but the DISCUSSION about the accident provided me with valuable (and relatable) insight for my build.
Re: Sonex Accidents
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 6:40 pm
by rizzz
Rynoth wrote:The accident discussion about the Waiex tail separation was very valuable to me as a builder. As someone new to this, it made a strong impression to me on the importance of such things as proper deburring and using appropriate hardware. Now, I believe it remains unresolved whether either of those things contributed to the accident, but the DISCUSSION about the accident provided me with valuable (and relatable) insight for my build.
And that is where open “speculation” (or whatever you want to call it) is actually beneficial, hence I don’t believe we should suppress/censor it.
I agree though that allowing this can easily turn a healthy discussion into a toxic one and we should be mindful of this.
Luckily most people who have been around this forum (and its predecessor) long enough know how to filter the information, but I can see how Sonex LLC would be more worried about the occasional lurkers and first timers who might be potential customers focusing on the odd negative unproductive posts and turning them away from a great aircraft.
I would like to think though people who decide to buy/build and aircraft, which is a major life changing decision, do their research a bit more thoroughly.
Anyway, the question then arises:
Is the primary goal of this forum to be a place where (potential) Sonex builders and pilots can get advise, discuss great or not so great experiences, issues, concerns, safety, etc?
Or,
Is it more to promote Sonex LLC and the Sonex line of aircraft?
As the discussion in this thread suggests, the two options above do not always align.
I’m happy to see Chris’s (official) viewpoint on this matter at least from a safety perspective.