An open letter to all G-200 and G-202 owners,

First and most importantly I wish to reach out to those who loved and knew Andrew Wright. Your loss and pain are unspeakable. Nothing can ever fill the hole that was left by his way too early departure. He is missed by all of the aerobatic and airshow community and especially by the G-202 and G-200 family.

Secondly,a word of thanks to those who contributed to the NTSB’s investigation over the last 2 years, Chris Meyers, Greg Howard, Eric Minnis, and the specialists at the NTSB labs provided information and insight that is unprecedented in the study of composite structures and the unique loads aerobatic maneuvers place on our airframes. It is important to note that the very fine people at NTSB took an unusual interest in this investigation due to the G-202’s all carbon fiber construction. It has taken longer than any of us desired to get to the Final Report but I believe the result has been worth it.

I believe that those who have taken the time to thoroughly review the Final Report and the Docket that was released earlier, have noted the same thing… a clean, definitive single cause for the failure has proven elusive. There are a number of contributing causes as noted in the Final Report and all are significant. A lesson to all of us is that tragic accidents don’t usually have just one cause and often the chain of failure can be identified and broken before the final event.

Even though tempted, I will not respond to all the various comments that this thread has already generated and are sure to come. My thanks so far to Bob Stark and Gary Ward for lending their experience and wisdom, I am available offline to answer any question or offer comment to those who wish to contact me. I will attempt here to outline what I believe to be the facts we know and try to refute the various rumors that we know are false. I have also attached the recommended inspection procedure that I wrote and was included in the NTSB Docket. It is especially important to note that even though the G-202 was produced as a kit and was approved for the 51% rule of the FAA for Amateur Built aircraft each aircraft is different and it was and remains the responsibility of the builder and now the owner to determine the limitations and airworthiness of their own unique machine. Perhaps as informative as the actual examination the failure aircraft has been the examination of other examples of the fleet. I have been impressed by both the professionalism and craftsmanship of some of the completions and appalled by some of the modifications and repairs that have been done in the field by persons that often fail to document their work, Often, however, modifications and deviations from instructions by original builders, while done with good intentions and the desire to make the aircraft their own, have resulted in unique airframes that cannot rely on the engineering data that was derived for and by the prototypes. Weight is always an issue with aircraft and none more so than our small aerobatic machines. The prototype G-202 weighed 968 lbs and quite a number of examples were built as light or lighter, many others gained weight as electrical systems and finish weights were not carefully monitored. It has been a surprise that most current owners I have spoken to over the last 2 years do not know what their aircraft weighs or where their CG is but they do know that their airplane is good for +-10gs! The very first item of the recommendations is to weigh the aircraft and reestablish appropriate limitations. I am frequently asked for a POH for the G-200 or G-202 and I have to remind the current owner that it is impossible for anyone other than the original builder to provide that information. I am most happy and eager to assist each current owner in establishing safe limitations but we must start with an accurate weight and balance. Part of the process of establishing appropriate limitations is a basic understanding of those limits and the unique loads imposed on aerobatic aircraft. Especially of note is maximum snap roll speed, unfortunately FAA loads information and standards give us no guidance for snap rolls and gyroscopic maneuvers. Again, I am available and most happy to discuss the issue and assist as much as I can.

The second part of the recommendations is three-fold, a visual examination before further flight, an in-depth examination of the internal tail structure, and repair of deficiencies if noted. These steps focus on making sure the airframe was constructed properly and has been maintained, and repaired as necessary, in an appropriate manor. Exotic testing is not necessary to determine if proper techniques and materials were utilized, however, an experienced and trained eye is required. That is the reason I have listed only a few known individuals to accomplish the second phase of the inspection procedure. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. All of us know of a guy who knows a guy who is a composite expert and whiz. Please take your airplane to one of the people listed or call me and we will find a way for your airplane to be inspected and repaired if necessary in a correct manor.

Lastly, almost everyone wants to know about modifications to the tail. As Bob Stark and Gary Ward have noted already, many G-202s have accumulated hundreds of hours of consistent rigorous aerobatic use and those airframes continue to perform safely today. However, it is my belief that if we can make something better and safer we should take full advantage and I support those efforts. There are currently at least 4 different variations of tail “improvements” available, Shortly after the French accident of several years ago, CAP issued a procedure that added a strap method of attachment for the front of the horizontal stabilizer. Eric Minnis of Bully Aero has inspected quite a few G-202s and has developed a modification that he has installed on several airframes. His mod involves the addition of a cello bulkhead and the replacement of the vertical stab skins with new carbon fiber skins. At least two airframes have had MX tails installed, which also move the rudder aft approximately 7 inches and utilizes the MX bulkheads and stabilizer attachment methods. Finally, I am currently offering new carbon fiber fin skins which utilize the original method of attachment with slight variations. A complete discussion of the merits of each is too long for this post, however, I am eager to discuss each at length with those who wish to contact me offline. Suffice it to say here that while a tail modification may not be required for airframes that are correctly constructed and flown within limits established with regard to the design, many if not all owners will want to implement one of the mods. Again, I am eager to discuss the merits of each and assist in choosing what might be appropriate for each individual airframe. To that end and to facilitate a single source of support for the G-series of airplanes I have entered into an agreement with Jack Moshovis, the current owner of MX Aircraft, and Eric Minnis of Bully Aero to provide parts and support for the above mentioned modifications. While I will provide parts kits, Bully Aero will continue to be the exclusive provider of installations of their modification.

As a final note I should mention that almost all of the above has been focused on the G-202 airframe. The G-200 was never offered in a full kit form and most were completed by professional builders who understood the unique processes required. The G-200 airframe is also just enough different in design and construction to render the current investigation only partially applicable. Again, I am available to discuss those differences and to make recommendations to individual owners. Please contact me offline for assistance.

PLEASE NOTE: I am currently out of the country and have limited phone or internet access until October 1^st. I will respond to emails daily however voicemails have proven a bit more tricky and sometimes do not show up in a timely manor.

Regards,

Richard Giles

(503) 970-5898

rcgiles@gmail.com