The Lancair IV-P high performance experimental aircraft which caused the freak death of a jogger on Monday, March 15 on Hilton Head Island, SC is listed by the NTSB as being involved in 13 separate previous incidents since 2005, 7 of which have resulted in fourteen additional fatalities.
The plane, which can be ordered from the Lancair factory in Redmond, OR, is available as a kit assembled in a home workshop. Costing $130,000 or more depending on custom options, some claim that it is a bargain. A fully assembled Lancair IV-P can be worth more than half a million dollars.
CAPTIONS: (ABOVE LEFT) Lancair IV-P (Photo by Lancair International, Inc.); (BELOW RIGHT ONE) Lord Frederick Leighton, Icarus and Daedalus, early do-it-yourself fliers (Wikipedia/public domain); (BELOW RIGHT TWO) This photo of a Canadian Lancair IV-P was taken at the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association Convention in Wetaskiwin Alberta June 2005. This plane was built by Gerry Leinweber & Jerry Mulder. The kit was picked up at the Lancair factory in Redmond Dec. 1995 and first flew six years later, on Nov. 21, 2001. Since that time it has over 300 hours on it, and has survived both a lightening strike and a nose gear failure. (Wikipedia/Released into the public domain); (BELOW LEFT) Attorney Mike Danko (Photo courtesy Mike Danko); (BELOW RIGHT BOTTOM ONE) Pilot Edward Smith, second right, pilot of a small plane that crashed Monday evening on Hilton Head Island, SC, walks toward his aircraft Tuesday, March 16, 2010. (AP Photo/Russ Bynum); (BELOW LEFT BOTTOM ONE) Lancair IV-P (Photo by Lancair International, Inc.); (BELOW RIGHT BOTTOM TWO) Lancair IV-P (Photo by Lancair International, Inc.); (BELOW LEFT BOTTOM TWO) Lancair IV-P (Photo by Lancair International, Inc.)
Recent articles: Be sure to read expanded coverage on recent news events below.
Lancair IV-P has killed others
Plane kills jogger on the beach
Bizarre aviation incidents
SAN Green Build progress report
Green Build local opportunities
Non invasive security scanners
Use care in choosing a lawyer
Airlines Examiner on VOA
Is Boeing to blame for ET409?
Ethiopia levels serious charges
Aviation law and compensation
Possible causes of ET409 crash
All ET409 victims recovered
How black boxes survive crashes
ET409 pilot had premonition
Second plane in ET409 crash
Mystery deepens in ET409 crash
ET409 black box recovered
Lebanon and Cameroon crash similar
Black box eludes Beirut searchers
Ethiopian Airlines black boxes found
Fast turn by Ethiopian 737 pilot
Boeing and NTSB probe 737 crash
According to the NTSB incident database, these are previous Lancair accidents:
03/15/2010 - Hilton Head, SC - 1 death - N9JE
07/07/2008 - Hollywood, FL - 1 death - N488SD
06/18/2008 - Springfield, KY - 1 death - N441L
05/08/2008 - Snow Hill, NC - 2 deaths - N101BX
04/23/2008 - Mesa, AZ - 3 deaths - N25CL
02/26/2008 - Murrieta, CA - Nonfatal - N811HB
09/11/2007 - Alabaster, AL - Nonfatal - N335DF
06/02/2007 - Parowan, UT - Nonfatal - N401PT
05/02/2007 - McAllen, TX - 2 deaths - N119TC
08/22/2006 - Helena, MT - nonfatal - N514PT
06/08/2006 - Provo, UT - 3 deaths - N95CE
05/10/2006 - Somerset, PA - 2 deaths - N5473
05/08/2006 - San Diego, CA - nonfatal - N5M
04/14/2006 - Belgrade, MT - nonfatal - N671
To determine if the Lancair is inherently dangerous, we contacted Mike Danko, a lawyer practicing aviation law in San Mateo, CA not far from San Francisco International Airport (SF0). Mr. Danko also writes about aviation accidents at Aviation Law Monitor and is a private pilot who owns and flies three personal aircraft, a Cirrus SR22 which can deploy its own emergency parachute, a Grumman American AA-5 Tiger, and an Enstrom helicopter. His replies are shown in bold type.
Q. Mr. Danko, regarding experimental aircraft constructed from kits, because they are built at home, does that make them more dangerous than factory assembled, FAA certified aircraft?
"No. These aircraft are structurally sound. Their wings are not going to fall off. The differences are that their controls are extra light and responsive, and they don't have the design stability of certified planes. That's part of their appeal. They are less forgiving, but more fun to fly. They also have a higher stall speed, don't return to trimmed or neutral flight settings, are less forgiving to pilot errors, and handle much like a sports car."
Q. Are there any other differences you can mention?
"The builder of the aircraft is the person who assembles it, and not the kit manufacturer. The buyer
of the kit has to assemble 51% of the aircraft. That is a significant amount, and can take anywhere from 3 to 10 years to complete, involving between 3,000 to 10,000 hours of labor. Since it is an experimental aircraft, the person building it may make design changes in routing oil lines, for example, and other configurations, which may cause future chaffing and leaks. Each plane is unique and reflects its owner's idiosyncratic choices. There are also maintenance related issues. The builder has great latitude in assembling these aircraft."
Q. With so much time and effort invested in putting one of these planes together, isn't that like a golden handcuff or honey pot?
"Exactly. The FAA regards these projects as educational. You don't even need a pilot's license to buy and build one of these kits. There is only about a 20% completion rate. Often, these high performance planes, such as the Lancair IV-P, are too much aircraft for most pilots. But once a person has invested so much effort and time, they naturally want to fly it, and will complete flight training if necessary."
Q. Is there any supervision by federal regulators or quality control?
"There are FAA inspections during the construction phases. The first 40 hours that the aircraft actually flies, must be over desolated, unpopulated areas. Annually, there are condition inspections made by the owner, provided with an airframe and engine repairman's certificate by the FAA."
Q. Isn't that the same as the fox being allowed to watch over the hen house?
"Indeed, but since the owners are also the manufacturers, who have incorporated their own unique
design changes, they know their own aircraft better than anyone else."
Q. When an accident happens, and with the Lancair IV-P we know of at least 14 such incidents and 15 fatalities in the last 5 years, who is legally responsible?
"The kit manufacturers are off the hook. The NTSB doesn't consider them the builders of the aircraft. That's why each Lancair plane in the NTSB accident reports show a different builder, usually the owner who assembled the kit. The owners generally don't have adequate liability insurance coverage, as these are experimental aircraft which are not easily insured. Also, I can't prove this, but the NTSB doesn't appear to take these accidents as seriously as those involving commercial aircraft, or devote much of their resources to them. The FAA seldom looks into these incidents, or revokes a pilot's license after such crashes. Anyone flying in them as a passenger will see a cockpit sign informing them of the plane's experimental status."
Q. Regarding the most recent unfortunate incident on Monday which killed a jogger, do you think the pilot acted heroically to land his disabled aircraft on the beach?
"I wouldn't call him a hero. As pilots, we are trained for such mechanical emergencies. Landing on a beach inhabited by people is suspect. A better maneuver would have been a water ditching 50 yards from the shore. Of course, that would have carried additional risks."
Q. Thank you, Mr. Danko. It's been a pleasure talking with you.
"My pleasure as well."
We would like to hear your thoughts. Please leave comments below or by email and subscribe to get future updates..
Comments
Why do you have a photo of a modeler and his Elder MODEL plane at the top of your story? That makes it look like the model plane is killing people, not a real plane. It makes no sense--you have TWO perfectly good photos of the Lancair. And why throw in the Cirrus? It has nothing to do with your story either.
Concerning a comment by Denise on March 19, at 12:59 AM, thank you for taking time to critically comment on the photo layout of this report. You make an interesting point, and I'm considering if others may have also missed my intentions. Perhaps the concept is too esoteric. It has to do with man's primal dream, and fascination with flight. The myth of Icarus and Daedalus actualized that obsession with bird feathers affixed with wax that melted when Icarus flew too close to the sun. Boys and now girls build model airplanes, as do adults. Those with more resources built real airplanes, which they then fly. I was trying to show that symbolic connection, Denise, and not the literal conveyance that model planes are killing people. The Cirrus is another example of an advanced high performance aircraft, available as FAA certified, and not in kit form. It is one of three owned and flown by attorney Danko. Photos can enhance an article, but these may be confusing others. Thanks again.
Great reporting on this. I find it scary that someone can build a plane from a kit... Shouldn't professionals handle that!?
@LeslieK
Please stop cooking at home then too - you better go out to eat. You might poison yourself.
The invention of Aviation as we know it today was started by Wilber and Orville Wright.... Who do you think built their first airplane? Or their Second?
I am sure the pilot would have liked to have ditched the plane somewhere where there wasn't a jogger, but I suspect he did not have much choice.
I never knew there was such a thing as build your own planes. Maybe there should be more regulation if there is a trend showing they are dangerous. Possibly this incident will cause a change.
They need to rethink this plane!
I've heard of these kit planes but knew little about them. The interview with the aviation attorney is very interesting. Informative article, Joel!
Excellent reporting on this aircraft and it's incident history..an enjoyable read.
Cheers...
Joel: thanks for fixing the top photo. My husband is a modeler, so I was attracted to your article when it showed up on the front page of Examiner. I did actually get the Icarus reference, but I don't think you said anything in text that tied the model plane to the dreams of flight. This is a good, well written story, which is why the photos bugged me. Thanks for taking the time to fix it and good luck with your writing.
as to what Billie has said, maybe they should re-think all small planes...
The problem these days is that anyone can call themselves a "journalist." This article is full of FUD. How about some factual reporting and research into what you are writing about?
This airplane is no more dangerous than any other aircraft in the world. If the author knew anything about aviation he would know that. For those concerned about kit planes, do you want to ban kit cars as well? Maybe we should all stop doing hobbies like playing music as well? Professionals become professionals through activities like this and there is NOTHING wrong with building your own aircraft. The FAA has had sound rules in place for decades that allow for the safe building of an aircraft by an amateur.
The public needs to get a grip and stop buying into the "media" sensationalism. They write articles like this to get hits on their site at the cost of an industry that is already suffering enough. Get the facts, do your homework and arrive at your own EDUCATED opinions!
Concerning remarks by Frank on March 21, at 3:00 PM, I appreciate your taking the time to leave your opinion, and welcome all comments, be they compliments or criticism.
You are right in stating that I seek a wide readership for these dispatches, which often involve hours of telephone and email interviews, fact checking, and research.
This article was not an attack on experimental aircraft, or the people who build and fly them. In fact, I won't give my personal opinions in a posting, unless labeled as editorial commentary. Out of 187 articles, only two of them have been editorials dealing with local news events.
I am a former private pilot, have worked in commercial aviation, and have many contacts with professionals in this field. I also have a great affinity for my subject. In researching events, I typically make calls to London, Beirut, Washington, Seattle, New York, or anywhere else in the world to get statements from experts.
Thank you again for commenting.
Clearly apple is at fault here. What I want to know is how the iPod engineers missed this scenerio. 2 million seems fair. I think I'm due for jury duty.
Joel,
I have to agree with Frank. The title alone is suspect.
"Besides jogger, Lancair IV-P aircraft has killed others" I have a couple of questions:
1. Did other Lancair IV-Ps kill their victims accidentally or had the aircraft been planning the murders?
2. Were all of the aircraft convicted and sentenced or were any of them alleged killings?
3. Were any of the other murders a crime passionnel? Were there any other aircraft involved in the plots? I could certainly see a well manicured lancair, after years of meticulous care, put a propeller tip through their owner after seeing them nestling into another cockpit.
If those same aircraft are now out on the loose lurking around dimly-lit T-hangars, the public needs to know.
A water ditching would have been better? Really? How many water landings have you walked away from in a high performance, low wing aircraft? Chances are we'd be reading about two deaths. The beach may have looked clear with oil everywhere. He did the right thing. Unfortunate result.
I wonder what song the jogger was listening to at impact?
the motor malfuntioned, not the plane
i don't know much about the subject of kit planes but enjoyed your article. thank you.
Strange article and interesting replies to questions. Seems that the author and attorney have ax to grind with Lancair. In same past 4 years, the attorneys manufacture of choice Cirrus has had 98 accidents and 69 deaths. Seems that the more dangerous airplane has no connection to who made it. Very misleading title....but I guess that was the point.
Once Saw the attorney mentioned in this article, walk away from engine tear down with his expert witness with the comment "We can make the earlier flight home". He and his expert know there business, In this case on an aircraft manufactured by a well know company, The repair facility used a used cylinder with a wrong part on it. Re the Contimental 500 C used on the aircraft which lost its propeller. i would bet a beer that the Crankshaft installed in this aircraft had been crash tested in a previous accident and the shaft broke at the front bearing where it has been hardened for wear but alas, the hardening makes it brittle...
Planes don't kill people. People do. Any homemade aircraft is as good as the person who puts it together. I live in Cancun Mexico and look what I found at MMCZ (Cozumel). Completely restored and flying!!! Hasn't killed anyone else, though! http://placerradial.web.officelive.com/Documents/N514PT.jpg
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!