Sunday, January 13, 2013

Seawind Amphibian - Worst Experimental Aircraft?

65 Seawind experimental aircrafts are currently on the FAA Registry

15 crash reports are available on the NTSB Aviation database

That is an impressive fail rate!



1/12/2013 Sarasota, FL 1 dead, 1 serious
Report not yet released

4/2/2012 Deland, FL 1 dead, 1 serious along with three hurt on the ground
Preliminary Report:  "A pilot at DED reported that he landed on runway 23, and while taxiing, observed the accident airplane depart. The airplane rotated about 500 feet prior to the end of the runway, and began a shallow climb, while mostly maintaining a high pitch angle. Shortly thereafter, he observed the airplane "stall" and enter a descending left spin, before it disappeared behind a tree line. He did not hear any communications from the accident airplane over the airport common traffic advisory frequency after the takeoff."

6/23/2010 Sanibel Island, FL No injuries
An overstress failure of the elevator. Contributing to the accident was the owner/builder's modification of the experimental airplane beyond the recommendations of the kit manufacturer.

4/23/2007 Knox City, MO 2 dead, 1 serious
The loss of engine power for an undetermined reason. Contributing to the accident was the unsuitable terrain that was encountered by the pilot during the forced landing.

4/11/2007 Yanceyville, NC 1 dead
The pilot's failure to maintain clearance/altitude while operating in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of an instrument rating, his improper decision to operate in IMC, a low cloud ceiling, and reduced visibility.

7/10/2006 Havasu Lake, CA No injuries
"an electrical fire due to improper wiring of the electrical system by other maintenance personnel."

8/28/2005 Wrightsville Beach, NC 2 dead
"The pilot's improper preflight decision to attempt night VFR flight into IMC, which resulted in an inflight encounter with weather and the pilot's subsequent loss of control of the airplane due to spatial disorientation."
Note: Pilot in this case was drunk and high on barbiturates at the time of the crash

6/18/2005 Sarasota, FL 1 dead
Maintenance personnel failure to secure throttle linkage on the carburetor which resulted in loss of engine power and a collision with a building.


12/8/2004 Trenton, NJ 1 minor, 1 uninjured
"The pilot's improper fuel management which resulted in fuel starvation and subsequent loss of engine power. A contributing factor to the accident was the pilot's inadvertent loss of airspeed."

11/30/2002 Bryant, WA 2 dead
A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons and the failure of the flying pilot to maintain flying speed resulting in an inadvertent stall, loss of control and subsequent collision with terrain.

9/7/2002 Bloomingburg, OH 1 serious
The pilot's inadvertent use of the fuel shutoff valve which resulted in a subsequent total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.


10/3/2000 Chapin, SC 1 uninjured
"A total loss of engine power for undetermined reasons. A factor was the trees."

2/11/2000 Cumberland Gap, VA 2 dead
"The pilot's continued flight from visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions."

6/14/1999 Martinsburg, WV 1 uninjured
The air-intake's inner liner separating from its outer liner, which blocked airflow to the fuel servo, resulting in a loss of engine power. A factor in the accident was the owner/builder's inadequate inspection of the airplane.

2/11/1999 Bradenton, FL 1 minor
Total loss of engine power due to a burned piston for undetermined reasons resulting in a forced landing to unsuitable terrain and the subsequent crash landing onto a golf course.

4/3/1993 Coatesville, PA 1 minor, 1 uninjured
IMPROPER ADJUSTMENT SETTING OF THE PROPELLER PITCH CHANGE MECHANISM AND/OR PROPELLER GOVERNOR OUTPUT PRESSURE, WHICH RESULTED IN A LOSS OF POSITIVE THRUST AND A FORCED LANDING.

4 comments:

  1. If anybody wanted to actually look at the reports from the NTSB Aviation database, they would see that the majority of the crashes were from pilot error (even drunk) and/or poor or faulty maintenance. There was only three out of 15 that were due to loss of power (maintenance??) and NONE were listed as due to bad aircraft design.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whoever labelled this article "Worst of Experimental Aircrafts" should be ashamed of themselves. If you are going to write a piece on something, at least speak to someone with Aviation knowledge before you share your un substantiated opinions about a topic you seem to know little about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Copy that anonymous. Poor interpretation of the facts and lack of any knowledge in the field. ...kinda like the people who buy a home near an airport and complain about how noisy and dangerous it could be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete