Taylorcraft Accident

[Acroeric]

I was reading General Aviation News this morning and saw where a BC12-D in Wasta, SD crashed- it was fatal. This one was VERY AVOIDABLE.

The probable cause was that the pilot inadvertently pulled the fuel shut-off instead of the carb heat. The fuel cutoff cover was apparently bent and did not cover it adequately.

We all know there is an AD to install a cover plate to prevent this- it may be a good idea to verify yours is installed and in good working order. I have tried to pull the fuel shut off many times when reaching for carb heat. Luckilly I noticed the cover and figured out what I was doing.

You all be careful out there!

[DanBrown]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

Accidents are almost always a chain of events rather than a single cause.

I think the most important lesson is "Always fly the aircraft". The accident statistics show that landing a T-craft under control -- even in trees or other terrible terrain, doesn't result in a fatality -- in most cases the pilot and passanger walk away.

Pilots always assume that an engine (or other lift) will fail and have a plan for that. We first set up a normal glide, and only if we have time after the landing is assured, do we worry about a possible re-start.

[M Towsley]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

Hey Eric, thanks for the info. Got away from that issue when I got the L-2. Whomever installed the guard in my BC-12 did it right, though it is difficult to explain without pictures. You had to push a button on the end of the guard to remove it. It was foolproof, completely covered the fuel knob, and there was no way you could ever pull the fuel shutoff accidentally. It was even painted bright orange so you remembered to install it. Probably the best one I have ever seen.

[flyguy]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

This is the second time this has come up. My second BC12 was spun in when the guy tried to turn back after the engine quit on takeoff. I had sold it a couple of years before. Everyone said that he had taken off with fuel valve in the cut-off position. (I don't believe that.)
My question is. What are the emergency instructions concerning the fuel shut off valve on most aircraft in case of a forced landing with the engine dead? Shut off the fuel. So what do they find when they check. The fuel is shut off. Duh.
I had the engine shut down on my first Taylorcraft (see, I didn't use the cart word lol) and it was crap in the carb. My buddy has his do the same thing 2 weeks later, crap in the carb. The vertical feed pipe (that provides mid-range fuel) has a REALLY small hole in it and to me is the weakest link in the engine. I wonder if they will check that?
DC

[whake]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

PUSH THAT NOSE DOWN...I learned to fly in the navy in WW2...Our procedure was to chop the throttle opposite the end of the runway and do a 180 degree turn to the runway...the tendency to make that first turn nose high killed a lot of naval cadets. it is just like streching a glide, pull the nose up and you will mush into the ground, push the nose down and you will probably make the runway. On carrier approaches WW2, we came around "hanging on the prop" when you got the "cut, the first thing yu did was PUSH THE NOSE DOWN...

Walter Hake
BC12D 39939

[ClipWing_T]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

Whake, I agree with you totally .FLY THE PLANE and keep the nose down.
There was a guy in this area with several thousand hours and lost his engine
on take-off tried to turn for the field and spun in ,the airplane was a Aeronca
7AC . There was no reason to get killed in that plane in the wide open area
that the pilot had to chose from.SAVE YOURSELF first you can get another
airplane. I have had two forced landings myself and if you never have had one it is a damn scary thing ,both times I landed safely.

Fly safe, Mike

[Len Petterson]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

When do you practise a emergency aproches?
On every landing, it you have to apply power to get in you would not make it if the fan quit!
Len

[Len Petterson]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

When I fly I look for emergency fields. I think we all do.
Last week I landed at my neigbourgs runway.
On take off I looked for a spot to land in case of engine failures, and what do I see.!
Lots of open fields, all planted with grapes and with grapes comes posts and wires and steelposts and more wires.
They will pentrate the cabin floor on a e- landing !
Hense there is no safe place to go so, I have now looked around very well and made a good mental note on where my emergency landing spots are.
One is a road without wires,about 2 milles away. One is a short 600 Ft long, open and clear field inline with the runway but about 1/2 mile out and 100Ft below the runway level. It would need a very step desent not to miss it.
The last place I found requires about 1000 AGL above the runway,it would take a long 180 turn to make during a glide.
To do a short 180, maybe, but I would practice it at altitude first!
I would hate stall in on my own house! I think my popularety would vanish!
Maybe I would not visit anymore if the wind is from the north?
Take of to the south, there is only 60 Ft powerlines and trees with an open field after the bush. What easy! uphill and when downhill and a step pull up and over from 1800 ft. I dune it but!
Len

[Dusty]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

I practice emergency landings every now and then, but I sure don't spend my life flying around thinking the damn wings are gonna fall off!! I fly over 100 miles (and change) of unlandable black spruce and mountains at least once a week in the winter - at Interior AK temps - to get to my trapline, then I land somewhere between 30 and 100 times, often on small and nasty places, then go home. Just to complicate things, I carry a fair bit of power on pretty much all my winter landings to keep the engine as warm as possible. The nearest road is just over 90 miles away - nearest village (with a plowed runway that doesn't do me a lot of good on skis) is around 50. My cruising altitudes generally give me just long enough to say "oh S&*^&)" before I'd be in the trees/rocks if the big fan quit turning. If I never flew anywhere without lots of alternates I'd never fly anywhere, and I fail to see the point of owning an airplane if I'm going to do that.

A friend of mind had an engine failure on a Cub over big trees a few years back. He put it between a couple of trees, took the wings off, and walked out unscathed. Just because there aren't good places to LAND doesn't mean there aren't lots of good places to CRASH!

Point is, flying entails taking risks. The risks you are willing to take are an individual decision, and I certainly won't try to influence that process. However, some of us are perfectly comfortable flying in places that do not provide any alternate landing spots - at least, not any that will allow re-use of the airplane. Of the millions of hours of that sort of flying across the state each year, there are maybe 2 or three fatalities that are obviously due to lack of good places to crash. Most of the people that do manage to kill themselves spin in trying to turn a crash into a landing. ClipWing_T pretty much nailed it - fly the airplane, use the resources you have (not those you WISH you had), and it generally works out fine.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

I had to jump in on this one!
check the AD 51-09-03:

51-09-03 TAYLORCRAFT: Applies to All Series Aircraft Below Serial Number 13001 Incorporating a Pushpull Type Fuel Shutoff Control.

Compliance required not later than June 1, 1951.

To prevent accidental operation of the fuel shutoff valve during flight, a safety device must be installed on this control. The device is to prevent inadvertent operation of the fuel shutoff valve by requiring a definite and positive movement by the pilot before the control can be operated. Taylorcraft P/N B12-947-3 or equivalent is considered satisfactory. P/N B12-947 which was previously installed in some Taylorcraft airplanes must be replaced by this improved part.

(Taylorcraft Service Bulletin No. 66 dated December 6, 1950, covers this same subject.)

This supersedes AD 47-13-01.

I have attached a pic showing the B12-947-3 in the foreground, it takes TWO of these; OR "equivalent" to comply with the AD. I would say who ever installs the "equivalent" should sure document it in the Aircraft "Maintenance records". YES I was on accident investigations where the pilot turned the fuel off ; either this caused the accident OR he did it prior to the attempt at a forced landing. Look , feel, think, before moving things, then if something unusual happens for cripes sakes move it back again........

[flylo]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

Just like in skydiving,look at it before you pull it!

[flyguy]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

I am so casual about carb heat here in the central valley of California that I suspect that it is going to get me one of these days. The humidity varies from awful to really dry here, but I have never had even a hint of carb ice in 30 years of flying with Continental 65's and 85's, or 0200's for that matter.
I did have a Datsun (Nissan) 510 sedan that would get ice every hazy night at midnight when I came off work, but that was over on the San Francisco penninsula. It would just start to warm up as I got on the freeway and pop, bang, sputter down through the intake and then it was ok.
Always reminded me that ice will form under the right conditions.
Now I always have to consciously look down and move the carb heat on or off because it isn't something that I do without thinking. My fuel shutoff is impossible to do accidentally as it takes both hands to operate, what with the safety cover over it.
Speaking of flying, it is about 55 here and CAVU, so I am going to see if I can get some good pictures of town and such from the plane.
DC

[N96337]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

I had to jump in on this one!
check the AD 51-09-03:

51-09-03 TAYLORCRAFT: Applies to All Series Aircraft Below Serial Number 13001 Incorporating a Pushpull Type Fuel Shutoff Control.

Compliance required not later than June 1, 1951.

To prevent accidental operation of the fuel shutoff valve during flight, a safety device must be installed on this control. The device is to prevent inadvertent operation of the fuel shutoff valve by requiring a definite and positive movement by the pilot before the control can be operated. Taylorcraft P/N B12-947-3 or equivalent is considered satisfactory. P/N B12-947 which was previously installed in some Taylorcraft airplanes must be replaced by this improved part.

(Taylorcraft Service Bulletin No. 66 dated December 6, 1950, covers this same subject.)

This supersedes AD 47-13-01.

I have attached a pic showing the B12-947-3 in the foreground, it takes TWO of these; OR "equivalent" to comply with the AD. .

Forrest,
I'm probably gonna get hit with "dumb question of the year" but why do you say it takes "TWO" p/n B12-947-3 ?? I don't see anywhere in that text that it calls out for two of them... but I don't have the AD right here in front of me..
Thanks,
John

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

John,

That jumped out at me too.........

Forrest??

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Taylorcraft Accident

by definition the B12-947-3 ( made out of a spring steel) is indeed two of the one pictured that makes sure you do not mistake the fuel shut off for the carb heat . I only mention this because right after the accident; IF any investigator knows what he is doing he will blame any missing AD compliance for the cause of the accident.
At the Fly-ins here and OSH or S-N-Fun WE have a lot of fun poking around the various airplanes and pointing out these things that may cost you a lot of money if not a life...