The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, the Schilling S-19, an experimental, amateur-built airplane, “ballooned.”
He then relaxed back pressure on the control stick to correct, however the plane then hit the runway hard and departed the left side at the airport in East Falmouth, Mass.
Examination of the wreckage revealed that the stabilator trim tab (antiservo tab) push-pull tube’s threaded end had separated from its connection, that the associated nut remained loose on the threads, and that the three end threads were stripped.
Further examination revealed that only three of the threads in the push-pull tube’s threaded end were engaged in the trim tab connection and that about 1 inch of the threaded portion of the push-pull tube was exposed and visible on the opposite side of the securing plain nut.
The kit manufacturer’s assembly manual cautioned that a minimum of 10 threads must be engaged to secure the stabilator trim tab push-pull connection.
The manual also stated that about 0.5″ of the threaded end of the push-pull tube should be exposed and visible on the opposite side of the securing plain nut.
The builder assembled the airplane from a kit, and it was issued a special airworthiness certificate about 20 months before the accident. The pilot purchased the airplane from the builder about five months before the accident.
At the time of the accident, the airplane had accumulated 94.5 total flight hours.
The pilot performed the last condition inspection about four months before the accident, which was 32.8 total flight hours before the accident.
The excessive thread exposure on the opposite side of the securing plain nut would have been detectable during the most recent condition inspection, however, the pilot/owner failed to detect the excessive thread exposure during the inspection.
Probable cause: The experimental airplane builder’s failure to properly secure the stabilator trim tab push-pull tube’s connection, which resulted in the tube’s separation and a subsequent hard landing. Contributing to the accident was the pilot/owner’s failure to detect the improperly secured connection during a recent condition inspection.
NTSB Identification: ERA15LA360
This September 2015 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.
I must assume that the original builder of this kit aircraft is named Schilling, as this kit is manufactured by RANS. That original builder wat charged with completing successfully completing all inspections and tests on the completed aircraft prior to submission to FAA for airworthiness certification as an amateur built aircraft. That builder is also urged to have an EAA member, or someone familiar with that aircraft model or type of construction to act as a second pair of eyes before closing up the aircraft. The logbook entry would have equated to, “I certify that I am the original builder of this aircraft, and having constructed it for my education and recreation, I have completed all required inspections and tests and find this aircraft to be in a condition for safe operation, and ready for FAA airworthiness certification.”
The FAA inspector will not inspect the aircraft until that builder certification is logged. FAA does not conduct the condition inspection for the applicant. FAA will then inspect the aircraft “to the extent necessary” to find that it is in that safe condition. This includes the builders log, weight and balance report, equipment list, kit purchase receipt and parts list, and any other documentation which may include a fuel flow test report,etc. The inspection requires that the builder removes any inspection plates or panels, the engine cowling, prop spinner, and may require the removal of seats to gain access beneath the cockpit floor. Wheel pants may also be removed. Following a visual inspection, FAA will require an engine run-up up to and including full power. FAA may also request the repeat of any prior-completed test that may be in question. When deemed appropriate,FAA will issue a Special airworthiness certificate for the operation if amateur built aircraft. This certificate is accompanied by a set of operating limitations that, for the initial 25 or 40 hours (minimum….ref. Order 8130.2 and AC 20-27) that serves as flight test time, and restricts operation to a specific non-populated area and base of operation. It is surmised that any flight critical anomalies will appear within that test period. It also allows the operator familiarization time with the newly built aircraft. This improperly installed/ rigged flight surface control should have been discovered and corrected prior to the certificate issuance, if that non-compliance existed prior to certificate issuance. We have no way of telling if it did. It may be that at some point during flight testing, an adjustment was required which was not accomplished properly.
The builder would be eligible for a repairman certificate to allow the performance of follow-on condition inspections. That is issued by FAA FSDO if the builder is found to qualify.
Since it seems this builder was in possession of the aircraft for 20 months, at least one additional condition inspection would have been required.
Additionally, ny the nature of this assembly or rigging error, it may have been readily apparent during a preflight inspection.
If no log entry had been made regarding this rigging adjustment (if that is what caused the error) , it may be difficult to lay blame. In any event, the person operating the aircraft is ultimately responsible fot the aircraft condition.
In my time, I performed several hundred amateur aircraft certification inspections, and only three inspected aircraft did I find completely fault-free.
That really was a foolish comment gbigs. Using your logic, general aviation is a bad idea because commercial airlines have a better safety record. The home built sector is a very important pillar in the aviation community.
Their contribution is enormous when it comes to promoting aviation and inspiring future pilots and mechanics.
I meant to say “know nothing about”!
I purchased a plane that had been sitting for 15 years without flying. I paid an IA and his crew of A&P’s over $12,000 to go through each and every system and inspect, clean, lubricate, refurbish or replace anything and everything as necessary. When my own IA did the next annual a year later, he found that the aileron turnbuckles were not only not safety wired, the bolts did not have nuts on them! They were being held in by the tension on the wires. So certified or not, FAA blessed IA or not, mistakes can be made, and the owner/pilot should be very vigilant, because he and his passengers are the ones that will be at risk. Especially if you purchase an EAB that has been being maintained by someone you just met and no nothing about.
I thought as stated earlier that only the original builder could do the inspections. it is the same as part 23 aircraft.. there are certain items a pilot can do on either, but not inspections.
The original builder is charged with performing the initial condition inspection after the build is complete, and prior to FAA airw. certification. That builder may perform follow-on condition inspections, but only if he hss been issued a Repairman certificate for experimental aircraft or if he hols an A & P certificate.
Since the pilot did the last condition inspection, he must be an A&P. The builder, if he has been issued a Repairman’s Certificate, or an A&P can do the condition inspection.
A perfect example why home builts are a bad idea. Both from the build standpoint and the notion that a pilot/owner do their own annuals.
Actually, the pilot/owner of an EAB Aircraft can’t conduct the condition inspection unless he is the builder and has been issued the builders certificate. So I guess that an IA has never missed something on an annual inspection??
I’m an IA and I don’t do condition inspections because I just don’t know the (experimental) aircraft well enough. This was missed for the same reason – the inspector didn’t know enough about the aircraft to be able to identify the defect.
This is not a reason to not own an experimental category aircraft, but it is a reason to find (and pay well) someone who knows the make and model and who can identify problems.
gbigs that was a really uneducated comment. Although amateur built aircraft do have a slightly higher (typically 1 percent or less) accident rate than certified aircraft, it is still well below the rate which causes concern with the FAA. The pilot in command had final authority over the airworthiness of the aircraft if you recall from your flight training. Although the builder of this aircraft chose not to follow the instructions given to him, one can also make a very good argument that the owner/pilot could just as much be at fault due to not only being the final say of the airworthiness of the aircraft, but also not making a thorough prebuy inspection including letting a third party inspect the aircraft for safety and airworthiness.
Don’t just take my word for all this though. I strongly encourage you to take the time and research this topic. Remember these articles are meant to make us become better and safer pilots, by learning from the mistakes of others so hopefully something similar to this doesn’t happen again.
I find such closed-minded comments as these to be a disappointment. I am proud of the aircraft I built and accept that there is added responsibility in maintaining it.
I went EAB after multiple trips with my certified aircraft to A&P’s and IA’s that botched the work, but we’re happy to demand payment anyhow. Does that mean A&P’s and IA’s are all bad, or are a bad idea? No!
EAB brings responsibility with it. I fly with my wife or son so it is my responsibility to ensure the maintenance I perform is correct and safe. EAB offers an affordable path to aviation, enhances the education of those doing the building and maintenance, and offers capabilities certified aircraft are restricted from.
This is a ridiculous comment.
Certified aircraft have also gone down due to A&P errors during maintenance.
There are home builts out there that are in far better mechanical condition than the average 50 year old certified aircraft. Yes, the average certified aircraft is about 50 years old.
I feel safer in my 11 year old experimental than the vast majority of aging certified aircraft.
Exactly!
I must also concur with paragraphs 1 & 2.
Now let’s look at the opposite side of this coin:
I bought a certificated aircraft where an IA had done several years of paper annuals. The pre-inspection by the A&P that did the work on the plane was accepted based on the logs concurring. The first annual after purchase was done by a repair station. They had to immediately contact the FAA after finding the rigging of the plane done wrong, many ADs not complied with.
Would you believe that the IA was also the DE for that A&P and the IA had done several years of “paper annuals” on that aircraft? The end result was all aircraft that this IA had inspected for the prior 2-3 years had their owners notified that they needed to contact their FSDO. Last I understood, that IA was being criminally charged.
Once again gbigs fails to conform to the Lincoln philosophy of public speaking: “It is best to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
That is the type of comment I’d expect from such an uneducated individual as gbigs, that drives an airplane with a built in parachute. If only he would take the time to see the technological advances E A B aircraft and their builders have made, he wouldn’t be so quick to judge. Mistakes are made in all aspects of aviation.
Until you take humans out of the equation, mistakes will keep haunting us.
How do you think aviation began? It’s because of pioneers like home built or experimental aircraft that we have our aviation industry, both General and Commercial .
If it wasn’t for the homebuilt movement gbigs might not even have a Plastic Plane to fly around in. I remember seeing it the first time as an EXPERIMENTAL at Oshkosh. Maybe a trip to Oshkosh would be a good thing for gbigs to do. He might learn something.