Guys, I was in this airplane when it crashed. If you want to know what happened you are NOT going to find it in the pixels of an NTSB or FAA report. If fact relying on either an FAA or NTSB report for details on anything other than a commercial or high interest (national media coverage) mishap is a colossal mistake.
Facts everyone needs to know about this mishap, mishap investigations, and the KR2 in general. - The current NTSB report is a PRELIMINARY REPORT. It says so right in the first box. Most of the information they used was given to them by me, from the back of an ambulance enroute to UC Davis Medical Center 30 minutes after the mishap. If you contact the NTSB about a mishap, they will go down a 40 question form with you. It is amazing how many facts I gave them they either got wrong, or chose to word incorrectly. We will have to wait and see what the final report says, but so far, more than half of the "facts" in the PRELIMINARY REPORT are simply incorrect. Understand something about the NTSB. They took my phone call, got a statement from Jim (PIC), looked at the plane for less than 45 minutes, and wrote a preliminary report. The NTSB does not "investigate" mishaps of this nature other than to assess if they need to investigate it. Since there was no indication of failure of the aircraft (controls, engine, linkages) and no fatality (thankfully) they neither care nor desire to spend any more time on such mishaps. No threat to the public, no media interest nationally, no further involvement or brain power expended by them. They have other, better, ways of maximizing the consumption of your taxpayer dollars. As a military trained and experienced mishap investigator I can tell you the amount of time spent on a mishap scene is directly reflected in the accuracy of the report of findings. Do not hang your hat, or your biases, on a "report" that has so little time invested in investigation. Just analyzing what happened to the nose strut should have taken more time than the NTSB spent total, if one wants to actually know what happened. A trained mishap investigator can tell you what angle the plane impacted in pitch and roll, what the vertical vector into the ground was (which will give the plane's airspeed), and a host of other information, just from the nose strut. 45 minutes total at the scene? Translating this statement to other KR mishaps: They may get parts of a given mishap correct and they may be enroute to Pluto or points beyond on others. Do not define your opinions by these reports. - There was nothing twitchy or overly sensitive about Jim's plane. It was a well balanced, solid-responding plane. I had more hours in it than anyone else (12.1) and I had zero problem with the flight characteristics of this aircraft. If there had been any issues with it handling qualities, my logbook would have reflected a .1 total time in flight, just enough time to circle to land and walk away. The plane responded to the inputs it received. Jim's craftsmanship was very evident in how this plane flew. The KR design is responsive, not sensitive. This may seem like semantics, but there is a very big difference. Most people are used to flying aircraft with the responsiveness of a 18-wheeler, i.e., a Cessna 150 or Piper 140. These planes are totally forgiving of pilot errors because they are trainer airplanes. The KR pedigree does not behave this way. Simply put, if you fly a KR with the same heavy handedness most pilots fly with, you are going for Mr. Toad's wild ride. I flew with two other pilots in Jim's KR, once each in the left and right seat. One was an ATP, the other a commercial pilot. Neither chose to fly in the plane again. Both made some of the classic mistakes new pilots to the KR make, and it was "exciting" to be in the right seat with both of them. The intent was they would finish the test phase of flying the plane, but they declined. The ATP pilot actually told someone this was the only plane he had ever flown that scared him, an unfortunate observation, but not a knock against the KR. His comfort level remains in 18-wheelers. Before anyone flies the KR for the first time alone it is my STRONG opinion they need to fly with someone else in a KR first. I also submit one should spend some time talking to someone who knows a good deal about how the KR handles relative to other aircraft. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE people who have most or all of their time in the KR, as they will miss a great deal of the difference that needs to be explained to a new KR pilot. This is not a cut down, it is simply their familiarity and comfort with the KR platform may cause them to skip key factors a new KR person needs to know about. If you spent a few years building something you are proud enough to go airborne in, take the extra bit of time to get ready to fly it the right way, by/with someone who can help you. If you cannot find anyone else to talk to, give Bill Clapp or I a call. For the tall, big, or otherwise unable to fly in with another in the KR, do not despair. Give Bill or I a call. Many people (including myself) successfully flew a KR with no prior time. My first landing in my own KR, Goliath, looked like a missile coming down the glideslope. - Yes, the plane bounced, exactly twice. The first time was under control, the second was not. The third contact collapsed the nose gear and the propeller's disintegration drove us to the left side of the runway. - We did not "continue off the left side of the runway" after landing left of centerline as the NTSB report states. This implies we were lined up left with a vector not in line with the runway. That is incorrect. On a wide runway we landed slightly left and were driven off the left side by the disintegration of the propeller. If you have a prop strike with the prop turning full power after the nose gear collapses, you are going to be driven by that prop to the side of the runway. Expect it. - The firewall was not damaged, or even cracked like the NTSB report states. The upper plywood was bent, but not fractured, and the lower firewall did not appear to have broken away from the fuselage. Other than repairing the damage to the upper portion of the airframe, and overhauling the engine this plane should be repairable. I have seen military jets crashed worse than this that went on to fly 20 more years. - There were no passengers in this aircraft, nor were there any passengers in the aircraft on any previous flight. Per FAA order 8130.2 (series) Par 134(10) there were only essential crew in the plane. One can look at 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91 and Advisory Circular 20-27 (series), Certification and Operation of Amateur-built Aircraft for more information. Interestingly, nowhere in the CFR or FAA regulations will you find a definition of what an "essential crew" is. If anyone has questions about this mishap, call me at 360 678 1602. The FAA investigation is ongoing, but I will share anything and everything safety related with anyone who calls. There are more photos and write-up of the mishap aircraft at: http://sites.google.com/a/wildblue.net/goodmans/Home/2010-kr2-mishap If you have questions about flying a KR for the first time, call me as well. I will spend however much time you need or want to help you get ready for that first flight. IHS, David Goodman Vertical Avionics, Inc. www.verticalavionics.com
