Guys,
This is a condensed report of the Europa Accident from 2018. There will be
corrections, I=92m sure. I=92m not going to be critical, but I do have a
number of questions and observations:
As far as abbreviations: Read the Abbreviations, =93AND=94 is Aircraft Nos
e Down etc.
Any time an Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft (EAB) is damaged/destroyed
it reflects on all of us in the community. Loss of a pilot should make all
of us pause and consider our procedures and operational techniques and tra
ining to prevent reoccurance.
Notes from my time in the conventional and mono and this particular investi
gation:
1. Trim should always be set and visually observed prior to takeoff or e
ven climbing in. My technique is set the stab equal to the rebate and note
the tab at roughly even with the stab (trim tab or near zero). (My Annex
E setting.) Trusting an indicator is not sufficient. I check the pre-takeof
f trim visually. This will most likely prevent takeoff with a trim at full
deflection and make trim failure fairly comfortable to land with.
2. The old analogue Ray Allen Trim indicator is not terribly accurate bu
t is still an adequate trend instrument, good normally in my aircraft to be
very close. It is not uncommon in all the aircraft I have built that both
the digital and analogue indicators are set for takeoff somewhere in a lev
el to nose down position of one to two bars from the middle position with t
he visual trim position near 1 as above. That=92s life with indicators.
3. Takeoff or landing with full trim up or down:
* Pitch forces at full nose down on takeoff are not really all that
terrible. 10 pounds at takeoff speed to 75 knot climb is my estimate. Mos
t people can hold that for about 5 minutes with the use of one hand only ke
eping the nose steady for one circuit to landing.
* Many civil pilots are not used to setting a pitch attitude then tr
imming to zero stick force in flight, and in my experience, I see wild pitc
h excursions of 0 to + 15 degrees nose high on takeoff due to the pilot not
aggressively putting the nose where it needs to be for takeoff and holding
it there no matter what (initial overcontrolling problem). My basic obse
rvation is the pilot=92s =93death grip=94 on the stick has them flying with
abrupt arm input is a contributing factor to this lack of feel and pitch d
eviation of the inexperience Europa pilot. Experienced Europa pilots (100
hours in type) generally do not have this issue. As a technique in the Eur
opa, I personally put the nose slightly above on the horizon for a 75-knot
climb and just below the horizon for a 90-knot climb. The poor pilot pitch
technique is exacerbated by pilot trainer=92s failure to insist on pitch a
nd power setting memorization for phases of flight. (Of course, it is disa
ppointing to catch oneself with the cruise pitch and power settings off fro
m my normal level off picture because the 10-degree takeoff flap setting wa
s not retracted after takeoff. Been there, done that!) While on that subj
ect, I have seen instructors that will not allow a student to perform a ful
l flap landing to touch and go because they have been scared that the stude
nt allows the plane to hop into the air with full power, near full up trim
and full flaps in the Cessna 150. I nearly smacked the instructor with me
when after a very nice soft field approach and landing I immediately powere
d up, retracting the flaps to 20, trimming constantly, while holding the no
se wheel slightly off the runway. The instructor grabbed the controls clea
rly in fear of a pitch up and after a rather short (colorful) comment from
me he was coaxed off the controls. After I explained my technique and why
it is so important to hold whatever pressure is necessary to keep the pitch
proper for the configuration and power setting was an essential skill for
a pilot to anticipate and learn. I then had him explore my technique and w
e had a good time trading landings and techniques.
* The 914/Constant Speed (CS) prop equipped Europa of any type will
climb at a deck angle of 15-20 degrees at full power and a steady best angl
e of climb speed setting. This nose angle is quite high (nothing but sky,
so pitch setting is difficult). Although the stall speed with 10 degrees o
f takeoff flap set appears to be 45 KIAS in the POH, in actuality, at full
power with the 914/CS, the stall speed is much less. Even with a fixed pit
ch 912S a full power clean power on stall is incredibly nose high and the p
lane properly controlled, will keep a nose up (hang on the prop) pitch atti
tude for an uncomfortably long time with little indication of burble due to
the large amount of prop wash.
* The post crash reference flight done with full nose down trim was
referenced in the report for a climb 5 knots above the stall. That applies
to this accident but is not a prudent climb attitude for the Europa. The
pitch attitude is very high (deck angle) and difficult to set without pract
ice and references even with proper trim at this low of a speed due to lack
of outside references. Frankly at full power and 65 KIAS any engine minor
hiccup will immediately bleed speed and a stall is going to result unless
an immediate pitch down to 10-15 degrees nose down is made to regain/mainta
in airspeed. That is a 30- degree pitch change which most pilots are not r
eady to do when surprised by an engine failure. Why anyone would not attem
pt to get to best rate or L/D Max on takeoff as quickly as possible is beyo
nd me unless there are obstacles on the runway boundary necessitating a bes
t angle of climb speed be held. Then one should plan to never go to that f
ield again, or if necessary to operate out of the short with high obstacle
field one should really keep your engine well tuned with good fuel and prac
tice often.
* Pitch attitude difficulties with full nose down trim is interestin
g. Again, I reiterate, a pilot should be able to hold a steady pitch attit
ude. Yes, the stick force is higher, but holding the pitch attitude steady
is one of those pilot things that is essential for proper control. In com
mercial emergency training, runaway trim at critical phases (takeoff / clim
b runaway trim) is practiced in the simulator often to the embarrassment of
the pilot(s) (although not done that often as the training tech is getting
paid to make sure the pilots pass their EP trainer). The trainer and pilo
ts then go over the why and how to correct this and if necessary, the exerc
ise is practiced again until the evaluator and pilot are satisfied. Intere
sting that I make nearly all my customers fly at least once full nose up an
d full nose down for the experience since runaway or inop trim is always a
possibility in any aircraft. Nice experiment and practice. I preach to ch
eck the trim visually as normally takeoffs are done with the tab neutral mo
stly. Later owner/operators make checklist changes if they need a bit of n
ose up or down to fit their takeoff style.
4. I find a 150 meter takeoff roll (even light weight) in gusty head win
d conditions on a grass strip a bit disconcerting. Even on a rough field,
keeping the nose steady is not terribly difficult in the Europa. From the
photo evidence once tail authority is achieved, I estimate the crash was mo
st likely by eyeball about 200 meters from where he may have added full pow
er for takeoff! His normal full takeoff roll should have been shorter due
to headwind to be sure, but if the crash point is say 200 meters from brake
release that indicates immediately after breaking ground the takeoff climb
went up to a stall. The plane was probably horsed off the runway in my op
inion. In the mishap pilots defense, the conventional or mono on a rough f
ield may be thrown into the air by a very rough field and the pilot must ma
intain a proper pitch attitude to allow a safe retouch or safe fly off in g
round effect recovery. The report mentioned runway conditions did not permi
t touch and go maneuvers. Why? Was it rough, too soft, too short or just
an operational airfield directive? At 660 meters long it is a bit short co
nsidering the ditch at the approach end. My calculations off the top of my
head is the takeoff should be hard surface 500 feet for a fully loaded 914
and in gusty hard surface conditions with a takeoff speed tail up of 50 KI
AS minimum, but for a soft field I add 20% and I decrease roll 10% for the
headwind component of 15 Knots and put the takeoff in a three point takeoff
at approximately 45 KIAS minimum so roughly I expect a 550 foot/167 meters
normal takeoff roll. That puts the aircraft airborne for only an addition
al 33 meters or so prior to the crash impact. At say 45 Kts that is 76 FPS
/ 23 mps tells me the airplane may have been airborne only 1.5 seconds to
2 seconds (momentum still in stall/roll going up. A 914 climbs at 20 FPS o
r 6 mps would be about 10-15 meters high. Witnesses say 15-20 meters high.
So that is in the ball park of off the top of the head calculations. I b
elieve the witnesses were reasonable in their estimate.
5. Back to full nose down trim. If the trim was full nose down, normally
one would not pull excessively far back initially on the climb. Why? Thi
s is a tail dragger, so full aft stick is normally held during the takeoff
roll to a minimum of 35 KIAS. Normally the stick is relaxed as the plane b
egins to initially rise and the takeoff pitch attitude maintained while the
aircraft accelerates. Even with full nose down trim, the tail would want
to rise for slightly easier forward stick. But not so much to be noticeabl
e at normal liftoff speed. Say the forward stick was higher, the pilot wou
ld simply add about 5 pounds more pressure to get airborne when at flying s
peed or simply hold his takeoff attitude. Also full nose down would not pr
omote an extreme nose high attitude initially after takeoff. So, I have qu
estions on the assumption the trim was full up or down at the start. Why?
In the photo it shows down at the top of the trim switch is pushed for DOW
N (not unlike in my aircraft). If he had a tendency for steep climb outs i
mmediately after takeoff, with normal takeoff or full up trim one would nee
d to add more down trim immediately after takeoff due to the speed increase
toward about 65 KIAS and frankly one would add more down trim to push over
to a climb in most Europa=92s. Could the pilot have simply added nose dow
n trim while bringing the nose up from habit. Or was nose up trim from the
last landing still set and on liftoff the nose flew up more aggressively t
han normal and he was slow to stop the nose up moment. Perhaps the pilot w
as trimming nose down and either due to being heads down looking for the tr
im switch the pitch control on takeoff began to become a problem and he add
ed full nose down prior to the stalled loss of control. It takes about 10
seconds to go from nose full up to nose down. That is a long time. I don
=92t think he had full nose up and held the trim for 10 seconds. My conclu
sion is I don=92t think it acceptable to assume that a full nose down trim
was a factor since the aircraft did an aggressive climb and crashed so shor
tly after takeoff as the stick would have been held firmly full aft or near
it until at or near liftoff (if the tail was raised at all prior to liftof
f the stick would momentarily move a bit more forward than normal) until th
e plane was rotated for takeoff. It is conceivable that the pilot with ful
l nose down failed to hold aft stick or he over rotated the nose down (tail
up) faster than anticipated and he may have over controlled, and he allowe
d his overcontrol to continue to pitch up if he was startled. No one will
know since the trim movement direction is not easily traced post accident.
6. Also, the investigators failed to carefully look at wheel track to de
termine if there was any directional control problem or unevenness in the r
unway, but in their defense, by the time you get to an airfield for an inve
stigation everybody has driven all over the evidence. If the tail was rais
ed it is not easily seen on a grass strip where that happened without a car
eful observer watching. Perhaps the co-owner of the aircraft could comment
on the pilots takeoff technique.
7. The pilot had a history of doing what I call an =93airshow departure
=94 or showing off holding it down and zoom climb to best angle. However,
on this day he had a short takeoff (possible lower speed than normal liftof
f), steep climb (possible best angle attempt) in gusty conditions (but not
that bad), which leads me to an early finding of poor pilot discipline/tech
nique. These pilot takeoff observations are not conducive to a reasonable
departure by a Light Aircraft Civil Pilot. One can only wonder. There is
a little hot dog in all of us.
8. Complete pilot 30/60/90 flight time was not in the report. Not repor
ted was his age and occupation. His last flight recorded in the Europa app
ears to have been Dec 2018 so it appears he had currency (290 hours total P
IC with pilot license in Feb 2017 and accident in Dec 2018 appears he flew
about 290/22 months put him at 13 hours per month. What had he been flying
in the meantime other than the Europa? What date did he have his Europa c
heckout or is he a builder/operator? If he was not the builder, who checke
d him out. Investigators probably have that but omitted it in this short r
eport. Just for insurance purposes a prudent owner/operator would log his
Europa checkout and log his flight time in each aircraft and all training f
lights practicing stalls, and emergency landing practice and type (No Flap,
Soft Field, Min roll, etc.) to show currency and proficiency for insurance
coverage documentation. This lack of logging, currency and his routine ta
keoff departure tendency is not prudent pilot action and a bit cavalier for
a routine flight in my opinion, but that is me.
9. The eyewitness (it would be nice to know the differences in the witne
sses statements) report of 15-20 meters altitude at the stall and left roll
departure from controlled flight is very disconcerting also. Assuming ful
l power, right rudder is obviously needed for proper yaw control, and if th
e stall was encountered on departure to get a left roll meant either insuff
icient right rudder, and or input of right stick to control P factor roll.
This is interesting to me. Since full back stick ANU (Aircraft Nose UP) w
as held until impact, the pilot most likely lost control in the stall and m
aintained a full aft stick as the plane departed controlled flight, rolled
and impacted. One would assume full aft stick is a pure reaction to an uni
ntended low altitude stall. Of course, there is insufficient data on contr
ol input history due to lack of black box aircraft recording instrumentatio
n common in light aircraft and is only an assumption.
10. Finally, it is obvious the plane had 870 hours, and began life as a m
ono. It was modified, (no discussion of the mod and post flight test) and
apparently resold after about 5-600 (ish) hours? I find it sloppy that no
where in the report is the post flyoff test flight data of PH-PGV on stall
and characteristics from the logs (build log or aircraft log). Was the ori
ginal builder interviewed? The testimony of the co-owner on the aircraft
=92s characteristics and his partners flight time and performance are missi
ng from this report. I find that unusual. Especially in a government cond
ensed report. Perhaps in the long report it will be or has been included an
d was not deemed worthy of comment in this summary report. I find the lack
of standard maintenance documentation on this aircraft a bit scant also.
Who did the Annual and was he authorized? Since the aircraft had flown man
y hours since it was built in 1999 there must have been others who had flow
n it, modified it and flight tested it, were they interviewed or did the fa
il to participate?
As a former accident investigator (granted, years ago now) I have far too m
any questions that are unanswered. Perhaps the long report will have more.
It is sad the investigation of experimental aircraft accidents do not get
a lot of detail and is mostly assumptions as resources are normally given
for commercial flight mishap investigations. So, is the bottom line =93stal
l spin and ignore, it is just an experimental=94 bothers me. Until the LAA
gets the long report I will stand by and let the investigators do their jo
b.
It grieves me a perfectly good airplane and a nice pilot are lost. I can
=92t see how we can prevent this from happening from the report. problem ex
cept
Bud Yerly
Custom Flight Creations
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com <owner-europa-list-server@matr
onics.com> On Behalf Of Pete Zut
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2022 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Re: Fwd: Updates over Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligh
eid
Except the indicator was correct for takeoff. Baffles me that a multihundre
d hour on type pilot would mismanage the stick due to excessive trim....esp
ecially in that direction.
PeteZ
On Tue., Feb. 1, 2022, 6:22 a.m. Roland, <schmidtroland@web.de<mailto:schmi
dtroland@web.de>> wrote:
hmidtroland@web.de>>
Hi Kingsley,
figure 3 in the report shows on the left picture the elevator in ANU-positi
on, which is correct, since the aircraft finally stalled in a steep climb (
the Pilot obviously overrode the trim, which was in the full AND position a
s shown on the right picture.
So all is correct in the report as I can see it.
Regards
Roland
D-ERIG
XS TG 914
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505875#505875<https://na01.sa
felinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2Fv
iewtopic.php%3Fp%3D505875%23505875&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdb8a8d1cc704409cf79d
08d9e5787e40%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63779312795958168
1%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha
WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hITF3SmeB6xzKtVPst5ybvJEp3pjHRwzrFhZTuop%2
BI0%3D&reserved=0>
pa-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Europa-List
FORUMS -
eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://matronics.com/contribu
tion
|