New Forum Channel for Mishaps

[jaredyates]

With help from Nev and Grant and others and to help promote safety and learning in the Bearhawk fleet, we have created a new channel here:

https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/general-flying-topics/bearhawk-mishaps

This section includes some guidelines for posting. The intent is to create one thread per mishap, with the year and registration number in the title. The goal is to create a database of case studies that other operators can learn from, and to encourage open discussion and sharing after an event that will undoubtedly include a complicated combination of feelings. As the notice says, please post thoughtfully.

[Nev]

This is a great initiative from Jared, with a continued effort focused on safety and transparency.

Aviation Safety Network is a very good resource that contains reports on mishaps from around the world. It is initiated using crowd-sourcing, then fact checked and given an indicator of accuracy. They then include a link to the relevant regulatory reports (NTSB in the case of USA or other relevant authorities). They include maps, and links to other information as may be helpful.

This Link is to a filtered list of all known Bearhawk records on Aviation Safety Network that have been reported worldwide. If it wasn't reported, it won't show up. It is usually updated daily.

As Jared mentions, the purpose of these threads is so we can all read, share and learn, and hopefully continue to enhance safety as the fleet grows.

[Utah-Jay]

Here to hoping it’s not an active thread!

None the less it’s a good idea

[jaredyates]

I might suggest a slight tweak to say I hope there aren't many new mishaps to discuss but I do hope the discussion is as active as it needs to be. The dialog should be open even on old situations. I suspect this is what you meant but thought it worth clarifying.

[rodsmith]

I had no idea how many Bearhawk accidents there have been, read through all of them. One common theme is loss of control in gusty winds, sometimes during initial test flying. I'm still some months from flying, but have thought a lot about the initial flights. First flights are definitely going to be on a no wind day. I can wait. I will have many landings under my belt before taking on any amount of crosswind. Last month my neighbor ground looped his Carbon Cub, causing substantial damage to the left wing and horiz stab. Fortunately he didn't hit the prop. Wind was around 15 to 20 knots and gusty in both speed and direction. I was thinking that morning that it wasn't something I would attempt until I had a lot of experience in the Bearhawk. Seems like a lot of the Bearhawk accidents have resulted from poor decision making.

[Nev]

There's been quite a few loss of control events in light crosswinds too. These ones caused concern for me because it's the light winds we think are ok and tend to start off in. It's not that the aircraft can't be controlled, it can be controlled very well. It's just easier and more natural with some previous experience, best done with an instructor.

[Sir Newton]

Being a new tail wheel pilot. 30hrs with150-175 take offs & landings on paved runways in my Mustang 2
I only fly on good days. The worst cross wind so far is around 8-10kts
I amp myself up, every landing/take off. Rolling though how I am going to react in every situation.
& I still would not feel comfortable on a 50ft wide runway.

[Sir Newton]

I know, my comments are completly off topic. LOL
sorry :-)

[Battson]

Surely .... such a section should be members only?

We're not going to see much more 'real' learnings unless pilots can share the background with confidence. Otherwise we might as well just read the published reports.

[jaredyates]

Surely .... such a section should be members only?

We're not going to see much more 'real' learnings unless pilots can share the background with confidence. Otherwise we might as well just read the published reports.

Pushing back a little, I see this as a style choice rather than an absolute right or wrong thing, and obviously I fall on the side of making it more accessible. It's something that can be changed if I need to be overruled, but here's more of my thinking.

If we move discussions about less-rosy things like aircraft damage and mistakes into a less-accessible room, we promote the mindset that these are things best kept hush-hush and swept under the rug. Bearhawks are great airplanes, indeed some of the best, but we shouldn't encourage a culture of them being invincible. This hobby carries risk to life and property, and I think we owe it to each other to have open and honest discussions about traps we have been caught in, or close calls. One way we promote a culture like this is to talk more, and I don't think hiding those discussions sends the right message. Flying is dangerous. We do it because it is worth it, but it is not risk-free.

Someone may come to the Bearhawk brand, see that we are a community that talks openly about bad things, and be turned off by that. Likewise, a different someone may come to the brand, see that we talk openly about the bad things, and consider it a major benefit. If we have to select to please one or the other, I'd rather serve the second person. Maybe we can convince the first person to consider the second path. If we only serve the first person, I fear that we hold back progress and growth, and more importantly, encourage repetition of the same mistakes.

Having said that, it would be absolutely detrimental for someone to post information that wasn't offered to be public. If a pilot tells me a story about a mistake and I come here and post about it, that's a problem regardless of whether the post is in a public or members-only section. It has happened that people have told me things that I wish I could share, or better yet, convince them to share. The correct path would be to encourage that pilot to come here and post, or perhaps to obtain permission about posting it second-hand. This is what I understand when we say that safety reporting systems must have confidentiality. It doesn't mean that the information goes into a dead end and never gets distributed, but rather it means that for someone who isn't comfortable sharing about an event, that they may have the option not to. One point where we may differ on opinion is that I wish we could encourage more folks to share.

There will be pilots who bend airplanes who will not want to come here and post about it. Hopefully they will still talk to Bob, Mark, their instructor, or someone, and in that sense, nothing has changed for them. The new forum channel just opens up an additional option for someone who does want to come talk about it, or in a case where there is news reporting, for us to talk about it with or without them.

Also, let's not overstate the height of the fence is at the members-only section. To me it's more about discouraging search engine indexing rather than keeping something secret. If a reader wants to see something there, all it takes is signing up and confirming an email address. Posting something there just keeps it from being so readily googled, and as you know some of the things in there are the things that we don't want to make easy to find. But I will also add that if someone wants to talk about a mistake and would rather it be in the members-only section, I hope they will post it there. We certainly won't be moving it out of that section, and having it there is better than not having it at all.

[Battson]

Agree with all your comments.

That said, I see no benefit in 'opening the kimono' to the whole world. There's enough armchair quarterbacks out there, we know this.
Lets be explicit, I don't expect to go to the Vans RV website and see all the aircraft accidents being dissected on the public facing forum. That said, if that's how the Vans team run it, I respect that. We should apply our own judgement rather than following obediently. Many forums explicitly rule out open speculation or certain kinds of discussion about accidents with good reason - who knows who's looking - insurers, employers, organisations...

The benefits you've articulated are aimed at community members and people who take the time to join the forum. It's not exactly trade secrets, but my point is I see no downside to making the section members only.

[Bissetg]

The aim of this exercise is to reduce Bearhawk mishaps and consequently insurance premiums and to ensure ongoing insurability. This is a taildragger issue not specifically a Bearhawk issue.

My view is that the Bearhawk is a great aircraft. The perfect aircraft for me. However, it is an aircraft subject to the laws of physics like any other is.

What Jared is doing here basically is a full disclosure, no surprises approach subject to scrutiny of any potential participant. If you are buying into any taildragger with insufficient or incorrect training you are part of the problem not part of the solution. He is trying to ensure Bearhawk and other type participants go in eyes open. Sadly, others experience is the easiest for us to learn from.

I understand both points of view about public vs members only, but at the end of the day one would like to think we have the maturity to look at historical events through the lens that it could have been anyone of us and we should take the learnings without being judgmental of the individual.

All the information being tabled is in the public arena and while it may be uncomfortable to read some of it maybe that will be the trigger for the learning that prevents a similar problem.

We all need to understand that as magnificent aircraft as the Bearhawk is it will bite us just like anything else will if we ask too much of it or abuse it.

[Nev]

We can stall at 65kts in a 80 degree bank turn with the nose 35 or 40 degrees up, and it just shudders and keeps turning. It really is a shockingly safe design. You can do incredible things and it lets you off the hook every time.

I have an issue with making these sort of claims on the safety and performance of any aircraft, while asking to keep the mishaps away from public view.

A quick glance over the accident figures will reveal over 30 reports whose owners were left with broken aircraft, two of them just last week. A few of them paid more dearly. It's definitely high time to be having this conversation, and the goal needs to be one of open honesty in line with aviation best practices, with a view to reducing the accident rate to zero in as many areas as possible.

We're not saying it's not a good aircraft, many of us own and thoroughly enjoy the utility and performance of a Bearhawk. But it's still an aircraft that obeys all the normal laws of aerodynamics, and it's still a tail-wheel design that needs to be treated with the utmost respect.

[Richard E]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?yr=&at=Bearhawk&re=&pc=&op=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&submit=Submit

33 Bearhawk registered accidents since 2006 in the USA. Over the same period there were 406 Cessna 180 accidents. There are obviously heaps more C180s than Bearhawks, but I don't want to get into percentages. However, just like the Bearhawk, the vast majority are deemed to be caused by a 'Failure to maintain directional control upon landing'. And many mention gusty winds. The common ground seems to be that they are both taildraggers landing in crosswinds. I am not sure if there have been any accidents recorded in New Zealand - yet. However there must surely have been many thousands of safe landings over that same period.

I am a mere novice. I had 300+ hours in a Cessna 172 before Battson took me up in his Bearhawk. My first time in a taildragger and it was so, so different. It was lucky that Battson was there to save me! Whilst building my 4 Place I gained 7 hours in a Piper Cub. Once my Bearhawk was built, I had 20 hours dual with a very experienced taildragger instructor and I now have another 120 hours solo. Only one real mishap, but I will come to that later.

What I have learnt is that the two pedals in the Bearhawk do something, as opposed to them being fairly irrelevant in the standard tricycle aircraft. In fact the rudder pedals are essential to the Bearhawk for stable flight, yaw control, even fuel distribution, safe landings and taxi-ing. I know two C180 pilots that found the rudder in the Bearhawk to be very, very different from the 180, proving that not all tail draggers are the same. That doesn't make either aircraft unsafe, but does mean that the Bearhawk pilot needs to be familiar and current.

My mishap - Landing at an unusual airport, after a long turbulent flight, on a grass runway with a very off-putting tar-seal taxiway crossing at about its mid-point. The wind was 20+knots and was at about 30degrees off runway. I was heavily loaded. I can remember being concerned about the possible abruptness of the tar-seal edge and I was therefore uncertain about landing before the crossing taxiway. I landed before it but not being positive enough, I floated on and was unlikely to stop before the suspect edge. My lack of positive control to deal with the crosswind immediately started a ground loop. Very fortunately I wacked on full power and left the ground again. I remember flying over the taxiway marker boards at about 45degrees so I must have been 15metres or more off the side of the runway and low enough to be concerned about catching a wheel....................... the tower asked if I was OK................. the fire engine readied itself for my next attempt. Second time around I thought about the crosswind, my technique to counter it and landed quite safely. My wife started breathing again! I got very lucky.

There seems to be a movement in small aircraft design to sell a product that is deemed to be ultra-safe and available for anybody to fly. Look at the Icon A5 and others that pride their dashboard as being like a car. Fitted with ballistic parachutes and auto-land buttons, how could anything go wrong. Any aircraft becomes unsafe as soon as it leaves the ground and the pilot can only mitigate its next connection to the ground. Taildraggers and crosswinds are a particularly high risk area - Ask any insurer. I don't feel that the Bearhawk design is to blame for the 33 accidents, but its pilot needs to be very familiar and very current as it is an aircraft that requires a skillful pilot.

I do like the instructional Pitch, Roll and Yaw training technique described by Schu, but I also strongly recommend plenty of crosswind dual training followed by practice, practice, practice. The same goes for forced landings. We all know it..............but I bet few of us practice it.

[Bcone1381]

I like data. Of 33 accidents, I judge 21 are LODCOG. One had a mechanical issue that caused it, another hit a foreign object on landing. It looks to me like 19 could be judges as improper use of flight controls or factors that exceeded ability of the aircraft/crew. Eight of 33 had gear collapses. The gear was strengthened about 5 years ago by fabricating it from round tubing instead of streamlined tubing. That change may have prevented an accident but not a ground loop.

[AZBearhawk272]

I do believe there are positive aspects to understand mishaps within our flock and appreciate Nev’s gathering and uploading efforts.
I spent a bit of time going down the rabbit hole on those postings today. Interesting observations and food for thought.
Reading the plight of others, my empathy understands their experiences and fully appreciate that things can change in an instant.
You are never prepared for the event, because if you were I bet you would never let it happen.
We all can benefit from meaningful conversation and reflections in the quest for better.

[Bcone1381]

I went down the rabbit hole too!!

More data. Of 33 accidents,

• 19 LOCDGO had a factor of improper flight control positioning
  • 15 were during the landing phase.
    • 5 of them I judge as decision making issues.
  • 4 happened during takoff phase.
    • All four veered to the left side of the runway.
    • More right rudder maybe.

A common thread I sense is experience plays a big roll for the flight control based accidents. It validates flight instruction is mandatory. It also plants an idea to build time and experience when the wind is calm, wear the pattern out at one field that has generous space, do stop and go's, and practice flight control follow thru to full deflection on every taxi, takeoff and landing. For those with more experience, decision making is the common culprit.

[BravoGolf]

I am concerned about branding the fleet as "difficult" to land or even unsafe. Since the Bearhawk 5 incident yesterday I have had two individuals ask me about the safety of the Patrol I am building. Clearly the incident yesterday was not enough information to form an opinion about the fleet. Are others reading this information and drawing the wrong conclusions? I want to share my experiences and misadventures in my Patrol with other Bearhawk pilots. I am not so keen on sharing it with the rest of the world, especially insurance companies. I support the idea of a member only area.

[Bissetg]

Scott, I think it’s been well covered in this thread and others that this isn’t a Bearhawk problem. It’s a pilot problem. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the Bearhawk is a well mannered Taildragger, but it still needs the pilot to have sound training, decision making and fly it til it stops just like any other tail dragger.

In my opinion a Bearhawk is less difficult and less dangerous than any other taildragger I’ve flown.

[BravoGolf]

I believe you are right, it’s a very well mannered taildragger. My point is by collecting and discussing BearHawk LOC incidents are we inadvertently sending the message that isn't?

Let me quickly add that I believe it’s incredibly important for the “community” to discuss it and gain knowledge from the more experienced BearHawk pilots.