About five minutes after the RV-6 departed from the airport in Sauk Rapids, Minn., an air traffic controller notified the pilot that an Airbus was 30 miles southwest of the airport and inbound.
About seven minutes later, the pilot reported that he had the Airbus in sight and then stated that he was going to take a picture of it.
No further communications were received from the pilot.
A witness reported observing the RV-6 “rocking back and forth” before the “nose went down” and then seeing two objects come off the airplane when it entered a descent.
Another witness reported hearing engine noise before observing the airplane enter a steep nose-down descent. The airplane hit a house and was destroyed by a post-impact fire. Both people aboard the plane were killed.
The two objects that the witness observed coming off the RV-6, which were a headset and PVC material, were later located near the accident site and did not exhibit thermal damage or soot.
The exit of the two objects from the airplane’s interior indicates that the canopy likely opened in flight, which led to the loss of pitch control.
Fire damage precluded examination of the airplane’s canopy and systems, so the reason for the canopy opening in flight could not be determined.
There was no radar or recorded position and time data for either airplane so the effects, if any, of wake turbulence from the Airbus on the RV-6 could not be determined.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s loss of pitch control due to the in-flight opening of the canopy during cruise flight for reasons that could not be determined because fire damage precluded examination of the airplane’s canopy and systems.
NTSB Identification: CEN14FA306
This June 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
There’s lots of room for speculation. perhaps a factor was distraction, or maybe a camera strap getting caught on the latch or some other interference with controls by the photographer – it’s happened before! or maybe “wings rocking back and forth” meant a wake turbulence encounter, . A similar WT encounter in an EAB a few years ago was reported by a recent EAA webinar presenter. That encounter resulted in a cracked canopy, bloodied head, and a bent spar. Moral: Keep lotsa distance from transport category aircraft, stay at or above their crossing altitude, and FLY the airplane rather than take pictures. Else the selfie you obtain may be on display at your wake (Yes, the pun is in poor taste, but humor helps us remember lessons even better than gore – unless it’s Al Gore who we all want to forget).
The NTSB accident report includes mention of a previous uncommanded canopy opening about seven months prior. It also includes a detailed discussion of potential control issues regarding degraded air flow over the tail should the canopy open in flight, and issues associated with control/sight picture/and surprise. The pilot reported flying at 2,000′ and the airbus radar track showed 3,300′. One witness said the “small plane” “could have been above” the airliner, but this belies data from the airliner and reports from the very high time pilot of the RV. The same witness was definite the RV was 45 degrees behind. If behind and below WT becomes an increased possibility with only 1300′ of vertical separation. The NTSB was, however, unable to independently confirm the RV altitude or location by radar or onboard GPS data. Another witness said the plane was low (300′ AGL) and that the airliner flew over the flight track of the small plane 3-5 minutes prior… clearly enough time for vortices to descend!