Sonex Accidents

[johnr9q@yahoo.com]

Sonex Accidents.pdf

(1.21 MiB) Downloaded 678 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

[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.

[rizzz]

...
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.

[fastj22]

...
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.

[johnr9q@yahoo.com]

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?

[radfordc]

You could try cross referencing your list with the Sonex completions site: http://builder.sonexaircraft.com/cgi-bi ... ompletions

[radfordc]

Also, I think there have been 1 or 2 Sonex fatal accidents overseas. Seem to recall something about one in Italy?

[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

[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.

[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.