Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Brad Stump
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: Brad Stump

> John H, have you ever spun the MK III ?  How many turns and what is it 

like ?  I have seen Possums videos of spins in his Firestar, but the MK III 

being much heavier may be totally different in a spin.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Mike


	




Mike B:



I have no problem spinning my mkIII.  Spins just like the Firestar and 

Ultrastar, but loses a little more altitude.  They all like to spin nose 

low, almost a spiral.



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: Brad Stump

I`ve been lurking on this topic all week,,,,  the common thread seems to be 

the witness report, & now, it is part of the official investigation prelim. 

Hard to disput the statement. Yes, witness reports can be misleading, but if 

I, or any pilot I know of, was having a control problem, managed to get the 

airplane going straight up,,,,,-, three times,,,,,,, would not have gotten 

to the third time before I shut down the power & pulled the red handle, if I 

was that out of control.



 I have spent 3 or 4 hours with Brad, & had no clue that as a pilot, might 

have been pushing the envelope. But that was also before his 1st flight in 

his plane.

 Think about this, 2 times, the plane was going straight up. Then a third. 

If you were "out of control", those 1st  2 times, with a passenger, would 

you have let it gone to that third time,,,, straight up,     with a BRS???

 Lets let this go,,, Please.



Jim Kmet

Obviously affected

MK-3C 912

Cookeville, TN.

---

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Brad Stump

Jim,



As a community it is important for us to do our best to understand this and every Kolb accident so that others can avoid the same fate.  In any accident involving aviation, an investigation and this kind of discussion takes place and rightfully so, it saves lives.  Given that you knew Brad makes it harder, but this is part of the process.  My uncle was recently killed in a Sailplane setting an altitude record, and everyone in his sailplane club, including his family did all we could to assist in the accident investigation and to figure out what caused the accident so that others flying sailplanes would not suffer the same fate.  My uncle Dave was a very smart and nice guy that cared for his fellow flyers, I know without a doubt that he would have wanted us to figure out what happened and advise the flying community, as I am sure most pilots would.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:35 am Post subject: Brad Stump

maneuver sounds to me like a hammerhead stall. >>



Dont you have any restrictions on airobatics in our sort of planes in the 

US.



Strictly illegal here.  Not to say it is never done of course



Pat

russ(at)rkiphoto.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:23 am Post subject: Brad Stump

Pat

Some GA aircraft here are placarded "Intentional spins prohibited" --  

apparently accidental ones are permitted!

We have more stringent regs in a control zone, near an  airport, than  

in controlled airspace. Many of the restrictions are laid on by the  

manufacturer.

I'm sure a current CFI will let us know the current regs. Hope so.

Russ

do not archive



On Aug 15, 2009, at 7:19 AM, pj.ladd wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 maneuver sounds to me like a hammerhead stall. >>



 Dont you have any restrictions on airobatics in our sort of planes  

 in the US.



 Strictly illegal here.  Not to say it is never done of course



 Pat

aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:42 am Post subject: Brad Stump

Pat, Yes, unless the aircraft is spec'd as an aerobatic aircraft, item 17 in the operating limitations forbids aerobatics.



17) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in the aircraft's attitude,an abnormal attitude, or acceleration not necessary for normal flight.

 



Hard to imagine how it could be any clearer.

Rick Girard



On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:19 AM, pj.ladd <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com (pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com (pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com)>

  

 maneuver sounds to me like a hammerhead stall. >>

 

 Dont you have any restrictions on airobatics in our sort of planes in the US.

 

 Strictly illegal here.  Not to say it is never done of course

 

 Pat 

 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

dalewhelan

Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 105
Location: USA ARIZONA fountain hills

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: Re: Brad Stump

I am not interested in spinning my Firestar as I have no spin training. I plan to get some.

Is the spin recovery technique the same for a Firestar and a tractor?

Specifically, power off?

_________________
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II, Luscombe 8A
Projection, A simple and interesting Psychological concept

zeprep251(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: Brad Stump

Dale,

  No.The spin recovery technique for my John Deere is very different--------.Sorry,the spin recovery techniques sometimes differ because some aircraft require power addition for recovery,but for most, forward stick and opposite rudder until rotation stops and flying speed is obtained are pretty much standard.  Now that I'm out here on this limb someone may want to saw it off.

      G.Aman MK-3C

 

   

 

   

 

 --

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: Brad Stump

you will have to ask John H if he has spun one of his John Deeres.

BB



On 15, Aug 2009, at 1:06 PM, dalewhelan wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net>



 I am not interested in spinning my Firestar as I have no spin  

 training. I plan to get some.

 Is the spin recovery technique the same for a Firestar and a tractor?

 Specifically, power off?



 --------

 Dale Whelan

 503 powered Firestar II

 Projection, A simple and interesting Psychological concept





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 57810#257810

zeprep251(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: Brad Stump

Mike,

   I still think we have not enough info to make a judgment.My first thought was an uncommanded up elevator condition, just the opposite from yours,so it's still hard to say.The Feds say "loss of control".That still does not answer the big question,WHY.

                      G.Aman MK-3-C 

 

   

 

   

 

 --

zeprep251(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:28 am Post subject: Brad Stump

Bet he has,at very low altitude and never with power off.

 

   

 

   

 

 --

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:40 am Post subject: Brad Stump

> you will have to ask John H if he has spun one of his John Deeres.

 	  Quote: 	
		   BB


	




Bob B:



 Yep, they are both pushers.



No problem with low altitude with the 1937 JD B.  MKIII is another ball 

game.



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: Re: Brad Stump

 	  zeprep251(at)aol.com wrote: 	
		  Mike,

   I still think we have not enough info to make a judgment.My first thought was an uncommanded up elevator condition, just the opposite from yours,so it's still hard to say.The Feds say "loss of control".That still does not answer the big question,WHY.

                      G.Aman MK-3-C 

 

 	




I did seriously consider uncomanded pitch up at first, that is why I was so reluctant to make the assumption that Brad was doing aerobatics after reading the news report, and obvious lack of knowledge by the witness.



What really changes things is when the NTSB reports that the plane had " Leveled Off " three times before the last maneuver.  In an uncommanded pitch up, the airplane might pass through level a couple times, but " Level Off " very clearly means what it says, the plane was obviously under control three different times in this episode.  I now have to go with the hammerhead stall and spin assumption at this point.



 	  Dana wrote: 	
		  At 11:54 AM 8/13/2009,



Not if they're talking to a non pilot reporter... but somewhere I read that 

in accident investigation, a pilot may be the worst witness... because 

their perception is influenced by that they think is happening.  Accident 

investigators say that a video camera, naturally, is the best witness.  An 

intelligent child is second best, because they describe what they see 

without trying to interpret it.  A non pilot adult is third, and a pilot is 

the worst.



	




I do take strong issue with this statement.   If I was letting a person fly my plane and wanted to know how he was flying and if he was abusing the airplane or not, I could send someone out to the airport or the practice area to watch my airplane being flown from the ground and have them and report back to me.   If I were to do this, I would most definitely send a qualified pilot do this, not some woman that had never flown an airplane before, or even less likely a kid.  Any of you would really rather have a soccer mom tell you how your airplane was going flown than a qualified pilot ?  Loss of control or intentional  aerobatics, a experienced pilot would definitely be MUCH better able to tell the difference between the two rather than some woman or kid that knew nothing about flying.



The statement above may sound appealing on some level, but when one really thinks about it , its total garbage.   If John Hauck, myself, or any of a number of qualified pilots here had witnessed this accident, we would be a LOT more likely to give an accurate account of what happened rather than this witness saw the crash but knows nothing.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: Brad Stump

There is an alternative possibility:  Brad may have simply been  

demonstrating departure stalls.  The non-aviation oriented

witness could easily get the impression that he was attempting to go  

"straight up"

After two, in which obviously it would appear that he was leveling  

off, he went for number three.  (that's the part I can't figure)

A very tall departure stall with the rudder kicked can do  

unpredictable things unless you have done the same thing MANY times  

in exactly the same way.



It can fall off one one wing with the result dependent upon elevator  

position.

Up elevator, exaggerated inverted spin entry.  Usually won't  

initially go on its back but flop so quickly that the nose goes  

beyond center,

giving you the sensation that you are going to somersault.  Loose  

stuff flies around cabin.



Elevator neutralized just ahead of stall. (still at full power)    

Plane SHOULD mush and nose fall through with normal recovery.

If the angle is too steep a certain amount of vertical fall will have  

to happen before the nose falls



Worst case is tail slide.  Up elevator should be maintained to go to  

go right side up. Cut power. The right point for repowering is a  

question

because all my experience in unusual positions is tractor.



We will never know for sure.  I recommend that Kolbs be used for what  

they were intended, casual rides for the geriatric.

BB



On 15, Aug 2009, at 3:54 PM, JetPilot wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 zeprep251(at)aol.com wrote:

> Mike,

>    I still think we have not enough info to make a judgment.My  

> first thought was an uncommanded up elevator condition, just the  

> opposite from yours,so it's still hard to say.The Feds say "loss  

> of control".That still does not answer the big question,WHY.

>                       G.Aman MK-3-C

 I did seriously consider uncomanded pitch up at first, that is why  

 I was so reluctant to make the assumption that Brad was doing  

 aerobatics after reading the news report, and obvious lack of  

 knowledge by the witness.



 What really changes things is when the NTSB reports that the plane  

 had " Leveled Off " three times before the last maneuver.  In an  

 uncommanded pitch up, the airplane might pass through level a  

 couple times, but " Level Off " very clearly means what it says,  

 the plane was obviously under control three different times in this  

 episode.  I now have to go with the hammerhead stall and spin  

 assumption at this point.

 Dana wrote:

> At 11:54 AM 8/13/2009,

>

> Not if they're talking to a non pilot reporter... but somewhere I  

> read that

> in accident investigation, a pilot may be the worst witness...  

> because

> their perception is influenced by that they think is happening.   

> Accident

> investigators say that a video camera, naturally, is the best  

> witness.  An

> intelligent child is second best, because they describe what they see

> without trying to interpret it.  A non pilot adult is third, and a  

> pilot is

> the worst.

 I do take strong issue with this statement.   If I was letting a  

 person fly my plane and wanted to know how he was flying and if he  

 was abusing the airplane or not, I could send someone out to the  

 airport or the practice area to watch my airplane being flown from  

 the ground and have them and report back to me.   If I were to do  

 this, I would most definitely send a qualified pilot do this, not  

 some woman that had never flown an airplane before, or even less  

 likely a kid.  Any of you would really rather have a soccer mom  

 tell you how your airplane was going flown than a qualified  

 pilot ?  Loss of control or intentional  aerobatics, a experienced  

 pilot would definitely be MUCH better able to tell the difference  

 between the two rather than some woman or kid that knew nothing  

 about flying.



 The statement above may sound appealing on some level, but when one  

 really thinks about it , its total garbage.   If John Hauck,  

 myself, or any of a number of qualified pilots here had witnessed  

 this accident, we would be a LOT more likely to give an accurate  

 account of what happened rather than this witness saw the crash but  

 knows nothing.



 Mike



 --------

 &quot;NO FEAR&quot; -  If you have no fear you did not go as fast  

 as you could have !!!



 Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 57840#257840

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:03 pm Post subject: Brad Stump

At 07:19 AM 8/15/2009, pj.ladd wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Dont you have any restrictions on airobatics in our sort of planes in the US.



Strictly illegal here.  Not to say it is never done of course


	


Here you can generally do aerobatics unless prohibited by the aircraft's 

operating limitations.  Most manufacturers nowadays issue a blanket 

statement like "no acrobatic maneuvers permitted except the 

following:...).  For a homebuilt, the builder can specify (or not specify) 

anything he likes and tests for during the flight test phase.  Of course 

there are other restrictions like minimum altitudes, no acro over congested 

areas or on airways, parachutes must be worn unless flying solo, etc.



-Dana

--

  When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...

Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.

-- Cherokee saying

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:03 pm Post subject: Brad Stump

At 09:29 AM 8/15/2009, Richard Girard wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Pat, Yes, unless the aircraft is spec'd as an aerobatic aircraft, item 17 

in the operating limitations forbids aerobatics.



17) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an 

intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in the aircraft's 

attitude,an abnormal attitude, or acceleration not necessary for normal flight.



Hard to imagine how it could be any clearer.


	


Rick, that applies to aircraft certificated as LSA.  For 

experimental-amateur built, it's whatever the builder safely demonstrates 

during the flight test phase.



-Dana

--

  When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...

Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.

-- Cherokee saying

aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: Brad Stump

Dana, Per my original response:



Pat, Yes, unless the aircraft is spec'd as an aerobatic aircraft, item 17 in the operating limitations forbids aerobatics.

 



From FAA AC 8130.2F change 3 (current version)

 



153. ISSUANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS.

 



(15) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an intentional maneuver involving

 an abrupt change in the aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration not necessary

for normal flight.

NOTE: If the builder states that the aircraft is capable of aerobatic flight,

 limitation 16 will be used in lieu of limitation 15.

(16) This aircraft may conduct aerobatic flight in accordance with the provisions of § 91.303.

Aerobatics must not be attempted until sufficient flight experience has been gained to establish that the

 aircraft is satisfactorily controllable and in compliance with § 91.319(b). The aircraft may only conduct

those aerobatic flight maneuvers that have been satisfactorily accomplished during flight testing

 and recorded in the aircraft maintenance records by use of the following, or a similarly worded,

statement: “I certify that the following aerobatic maneuvers have been test flown and that the

aircraft is controllable throughout the maneuvers’ normal range of speeds, and is safe for

 operation. The flight-tested aerobatic maneuvers are _________, _________, __________,

and __________.”

I apologize for getting the number of the limitation wrong between E-LSA and E-AB, but the gist of my statement is true, the aircraft must be spec'd for aerobatic flight as per the above.

 



Rick



On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net (d-m-hague(at)comcast.net)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net (d-m-hague(at)comcast.net)>

  



 At 09:29 AM 8/15/2009, Richard Girard wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   Pat, Yes, unless the aircraft is spec'd as an aerobatic aircraft, item 17 in the operating limitations forbids aerobatics.

 

 17) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in the aircraft's attitude,an abnormal attitude, or acceleration not necessary for normal flight.

  

 Hard to imagine how it could be any clearer.

 	
 

 Rick, that applies to aircraft certificated as LSA.  For experimental-amateur built, it's whatever the builder safely demonstrates during the flight test phase.

 

 -Dana

 --

  When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...

 Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.

 -- Cherokee saying



 

 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 



[b]

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: Brad Stump

At 11:12 AM 8/19/2009, Richard Girard wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Dana, Per my original response:



 Pat, Yes, unless the aircraft is spec'd as an aerobatic aircraft, item 17 in the operating limitations forbids aerobatics.

 <regs snipped>

 ..but the gist of my statement is true, the aircraft must be spec'd for aerobatic flight as per the above. 	


 Understood, and correct.  My point was that in the US, if the builder chooses to do (and test for) aerobatics, he can do so, and the operating limitations will then permit them.  This is very different from the UK, where (as I understand it) you can only build from an approved design, and no deviation from the original approved design or operating limitations is permissible.



 I guess that applies to aerobatics as well as fuel filters. 



 -Dana

 --

  "640K of computer memory ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981    [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: Brad Stump

the UK, 

where (as I understand it) you can only  build from an approved design, and 

no deviation from the original approved  design or operating limitations is 

permissible.>>

  

 Hi Dana,

 The first part is certainly correct. You can only  buy a kit or completed a/c if it conforms to `Section S` Approval will only be  granted after it has been passed by British Microlight Assoc. or Light Aircraft  Assoc who hold delegated powers from the CAA.

 This sometimes means that a/c which are used the  world over need some changes to fly here. The Kolb 3Xtra for instance would not  have been approved with the Jabiru without  VG`s fitted.

 If you want to change something markedly, new  prop/engine combination, altering dihedral, cutting a couple of feet off the  wings then you can put your proposal to the LAA or BMA  and their  engineering division will look at it. They may suggest a better way of achieving  what you want, tell you it has been tried and it produced  a cranky or non  conforming a/c. They will often do engineering analysis of your suggestion but  their decision is final.

 The authorities are not unreasonable and are  generally helpful but if they say don`t do it, listen.

 We have recently introduced a very light category  and under that regime you can do more or less what you like. Desigh, alter  etc.,. Anything as long as its below the specified weight.

  

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat



   [quote][b]

Steamin

Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Posts: 1
Location: United States

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Brad Stump

Hi. I was a co worker with Brad. His loss has left a hole in many lives.

Since this forum is dedicated to pilot safety, I feel compelled to add to the above discussion that, the BRS chute entanglement was most certainly, at least to me, caused by the fact the rocket never fired. First responders weren't able to get near the crash until the rocket was fired.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum