|
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. As I said up front, I'm being intentionally provocative in order to get to the bottom of a little lingering doubt, but I'm 90% convinced that the Skymater is a good fit to our future flying needs.
So let me follow up with some real data. I spent an hour or two this morning going over all the fatal Skymaster accidents over a 20-year period (1 Jul 83 to 30 June 03). This isn't anything definitive (just my conjecture), as I am making pretty quick judgements from the NTSB synopses. but here is what I found.
There were 40-something fatal accidents in Skymasters over that period. I'll throw out the ones for which cause was unknown, or the two shot down by Cuba, or the pilot who died of natural causes in flight. Here's what we're left with:
9 vfr->imc or scud running
6 controlled flight into terrain (5 night, 1 low-alt maneuvering)
5 low-altitude stalls (1 departure, several circling maneuvers of various kinds)
4 other loss of control (incl spatial disorientation)
3.5 fuel exhaustion, mismanagement, or contamination
3.5 single engine takeoff attempt
2 mechanical problems (1 engine failure, 1 cockpit lighting failure at night)
2 extreme wx (icing, thunderstorm)
1 midair collision
1 oxygen problem (amazing story)
1 bad landing
1 hit terrain on go-around
1 departure with control locks in place
Since I specifically brought up numerous anecdotal stories of engine failures, I'll note that only one fatal accident definitely involved an engine failure in flight. The pilot noted falling oil pressure on rear engine, turned around to go back to home airport, made it as far as the pattern before the engine failed, but he mis-judged the approach (too high) and tried to go-around. He did not successfully maintain altitude and landed in a pond.
There was another loss of control in which the pilot reported a problem (no specifics) shortly after takeoff into IMC, then lost control. No problem was identifiable from the wreakage. And a third in which a pilot reported an engine failure, but everything appeard normal from the wreakage after subsequent flight into terrain in IMC below minimums; both engines appeared to be developing normal power at time of crash.
There were also several of what I call Stupid Pilot Tricks above and beyond poor judgement of vfr->imc, etc. Two aircraft had no record of maintenance over the last 5 and 10 years, respectively (and pilots to match). Several single-engine takeoff attempts. One pilot had no license at all, and two apparently had no multi, and one was not IFR current. And one departure with control locks on.
Of the single-engine takeoff accidents, two were clearly intentional without starting one engine. Another was unclear whether it had been running in the takeoff roll, but it wasn't at liftoff. And another was known to have only partial power on the rear, but took off anyway, only to have the front quit shortly after takeoff because of water in the fuel; this is one which hadn't been annualed in many years.
Then there is the most amazing story of the Skymaster which got normal air rather than oxygen in a refill...I assume we've all heard that one.
All-in-all, I find this exercise reassuring. Skymaster systems didn't seem to play large role in the accident data. Most are the usual suspects.
--bruce
|