Lancair lost its Lancair Columbia 400 conforming prototype in an accident two weeks ago. Fortunately, nobody was injured in the accident, no property (except the aircraft) was damaged on the ground and it wasn’t the result of a flaw in the airplane itself. In the weeks following the accident, answers to several questions that have been asked regarding the Columbia 400 program and the aircraft development have become clearer. In an effort to deal with any residual negative scuttle-butt, Lancair sent the following 'commonly asked questions' along with their answers...

How did the Columbia 400 accident happen?

Wednesday, August 27, The Lancair Company was conducting spin testing of the conforming Lancair Columbia 400 prototype east of the company’s Bend, Oregon factory. These are routine tests in a certification program for a high altitude, higher gross weight aircraft model. When an aircraft is being tested for these purposes, the test program takes the airplane to extremes to ensure that once the design is finalized it has safety margins built into its flight envelope. After completing two successful tests that morning, test pilot Len Fox pushed the aircraft into a third from an altitude of 14,000 feet. When Fox’s attempts to recover the aircraft from the spin failed, he deployed a “spin ‘chute,” a small parachute that is attached to the tail cone of the development aircraft for the sole purpose of causing the aircraft to recover from a spin in this type of test situation. The spin ‘chute worked as designed and the aircraft recovered from the spin. However, Fox was then unable to release it and the aircraft was rendered unfliable due to the tremendous drag the ‘chute produced.

When it became clear that he would be unable to land the aircraft safely, Fox guided the aircraft over an unpopulated area and exited the aircraft, parachuting to safety. The aircraft crashed into an empty field where it was destroyed by an ensuing fire.

Post-accident investigation has revealed that the spin ‘chute’s primary and secondary release mechanisms may have tangled in the chute’s support bracket, thereby rendering both systems ineffective. The Lancair Company is now taking corrective measures with its backup flight-test aircraft. Company officials have also contacted several other general aviation aircraft manufacturers (who are using similar equipment on their development aircraft) and communicated what they’ve learned so that others may avoid a similar problem.

Why is Lancair experimenting with changes to the Columbia airframe?

From the beginning of the Columbia program, Lancair has sought to build extremely high levels of active safety features into its aircraft. It’s no secret that most aircraft accidents ultimately are the result of pilot error. While The Lancair Company can’t foresee every possible mistake a pilot could make, with the Columbia 300/350, it has designed an aircraft that has very high margins of safety in the flight scenarios that precipitate most accidents. The most obvious, and possibly most significant result of these design elements is the Columbia 300/350’s incredibly docile and controllable behavior in slow flight and stall situations, which is where a large proportion of general aviation aircraft accidents originate. Lancair is now translating that behavior into the turbocharged Columbia 400. Though the airframes of the Columbia 300/350 and 400 are all quite similar, the Columbia 400 is designed to operate at higher altitudes, higher speeds and at higher gross weights. These differences are subtle, but require careful attention to assure that the aircraft retains the exceptional handling characteristics of its lighter, lower flying siblings. At the time the accident occurred, Lancair was testing a revised configuration designed to maintain the slow flight and stall characteristics of the Columbia 300/350 in the 400. When flight testing of the Columbia 400 resumes, the company will continue to perfect this design until it, and the FAA, are completely satisfied that the friendly flight characteristics of the Columbia 300/350 are completely carried over to the Columbia 400’s much broader performance envelope.

What does the accident mean to the Columbia 400 certification program?

The accident was not the fault of the aircraft’s design. As you read this, Lancair is modifying a backup Columbia 400 prototype (N143LC) so that it can resume conforming aerodynamic flight testing as soon as early October. Lancair is also expediting the completion of another conforming production Columbia 400 for use in final FAA systems flight-testing. The company expects to complete this aircraft by mid-November.

Concurrently, Lancair’s engineering department is in the process of conducting critical path analysis to determine a realistic schedule to complete the certification program. Lancair expects to finalize the schedule by September 19th, with the ultimate objective of delivering the first customer aircraft during the second quarter of 2004.

Does the Columbia 400 accident affect the Columbia 350 program at all?

No. The modifications Lancair was testing for the Columbia 400 are not relevant to the Columbia 350. The Columbia 350 production line is continuing as normal, though deliveries are currently held up by a delay in certifying the S-TEC 55X autopilot and subsequently the Avidyne FlightMax Entegra Primary and Multi Function Displays. STEC expects to complete certification of the autopilot by the end of this week. Avidyne will then complete the final phase certification of the glass panel system and begin delivering them to Lancair for installation on the waiting Columbia 350s. The company expects to have the first certified Avidyne panels in hand in mid-September and deliveries will begin almost immediately thereafter.

FMI: www.lancair.com