bdk wrote:
What is the big deal about rolling a Baron?
No big deal I suppose, except it isn't an aerobatic category aircraft and if you don't have the training and ability to do it you wind up like this guy and his 4 dead friends . . . Trying to perform aerobatics without training, in a non-aerobatic aircraft is dumb.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 0463&key=1
NTSB Identification: ATL07FA077.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, April 22, 2007 in Hamilton, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 8/30/2007
Aircraft: Beech 58, registration: N5647C
Injuries: 5 Fatal.
The accident pilot had recently returned from an airshow, and had shared with his pilot associates that he thought he could roll his personal airplane. He had previously attempted to roll the airplane, but a pilot-rated passenger stopped the accident pilot from completing the aerobatic roll. On the accident flight, a ground witness, who is also a pilot, heard the accident airplane, and thought it sounded like the pilot was doing aerobatic maneuvers. He heard the engine noise continue to increase, and saw the airplane descending very fast, in a 45 to 60 degree nose down attitude. The witness then saw a portion of the airplane break away prior to impact. Postaccident inspection of the airplane by the NTSB investigator-in-charge and the NTSB Materials Laboratory, disclosed evidence of pilot-induced overload failures of the tail and wings. The accident pilot's airplane was not designed or approved for aerobatic flight.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's exceeding the design stress limits of the airplane while performing aerobatics in a nonaerobatic airplane, which resulted in an in-flight overload failure of the airframe. A factor in the accident was the pilot's decision to perform aerobatics.