Printable View
It occurs to me that some of you might want to read this and, in particular, vote in the poll ... (light fuse and get away):
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...WT.mc_sect=gan
(Apologies to non-AOPA members if this turns out to be restricted content.)
There have been some rather heated discussions on the AOPA forums on this subject. (not to be confused with the other heated discussions regarding the perceived "cowboy antics" of a subset of homebuilt flyers)
Sometimes I think they get all their story ideas by monitoring the forums
The dogfight discussions are almost the stupidest things I've ever seen. They don't even get someone with a clue to write the viewpoints. The one on LOP was a complete piece of drivel.
As usual, Dave gets it right and Tom just phones it in. The one on LOP was kinda lame.
Anyone that equates homebuilding to birdhouse building needs to admit a complete ignorance of the subject. At least he realizes he needs to let someone else build and maintain his plane. Many should...... including almost all those posting on the AOPA forum!
He completely ignores (or is more likely completely unaware of) the tech assistance and huge builder community and forums that help novices. But even given that modern bit of help. look at all the experimentals that were constructed and are still flying prior to the fabulous assistance of Al Gore's internet..... :rollseyes:
Actually I think he does know all this and just plays the dufus. Unfortunately some of these lame remarks could well end up quoted by the media, attorneys, etc. and hurt us, so they need to consider their topics and comments carefully. Perhaps AOPA should monitor a little more closely?
All in all not a bad way to discuss controversial issues, contary to the opinions of some. IMO as always.
Just voted. 92% went with innovation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
I built and fly 2 RV's so you can imagine where I weigh in on this subject. On the other hand, I know people who think building an airplane themselves is out of the question. By default at least, many of those who fall into the second group are admitting to their own personal limitations and accept that the challenge and commitment of building an airplane as an unacceptably daunting endeavor for themselves to undertake personally. Frankly, we are all better off for it.
As for the camp I occupy, I will say this. There are homebuilts and there are homebuilts. Because there are no formalized quality control standards as you would find in the production environment, the degree and quality of craftsmanship in the homebuilt community is all over the place. For instance, I worked in aircraft production for decades and am keenly aware of construction best practices. Someone who has a background in law or medicine maybe good at what he does but those skills do not necessarily translate well into riveting an airplane together! This dynamic was on full display one day when the owner of my airport ran one fellow off the field because the "airplane" he cobbed together had no brakes whatsoever. The builder reasoned brakes were too heavy and expensive to install. The airframe was partly assembled using hardware store type bolts. Whew! That attitude did not exactly inspire confidence in those aircraft owners with airplanes tied down nearby. Adios amigo.
Recognizing this, some kit manufacturers including Van's have designed a product that is comprehensive and forgiving all but the most egregious builder errors. Dramatic and breathtaking advances in CAD-CAM technology have made the growth of experimental aviation possible and the savvy and well funded kit manufacturers have taken full advantage of that. This most certainly CANNOT be said for those who choose to build an unproven design and as a consequence, are largely on their own when it comes to assembling raw materials from a variety of sources, fabricating parts and then putting it all together.
I find it interesting that some certificated owners bemoan the higher cost of parts for their airplanes relative to the price for replacement parts for experimental aircraft. They must realize that certificated ownership comes at a steep price in regulation and parts replacement costs. Painfully aware of this, I happily sold my certificated airplane after 18½ years of ownership when my first RV was completed and I never looked back.
The EAA has done much to promote safe personal aviation and it should gently and constantly remind those certificated airplane pilots who attend AirVenture that the annual event is only made possible because the E in EAA has made it so.
True, but they don't necessarily mean that skills can't be learned.Quote:
Someone who has a background in law or medicine maybe good at what he does but those skills do not necessarily translate well into riveting an airplane together!
Similarly, there is no guarantee that someone with a background in airplane construction and maintenance is going to build a flawless aircraft.
A couple of bicycle builders and a race car driver did pretty good jobs of designing and building a couple of models of aircraft a few years ago, after all.
I completely agree there are some folks that should never build or buy an experimental aircraft. My flight instructor and I have had many friendly debates over the subject - we fall on completely different sides of the issue, and I agree he should never attempt to do what I'm doing.
A big part of the Builder's Delimna is the selection of project, and I think you're referring to folks biting off more than they can chew relative to their skills.
I knew Jack Nothing about building an aircraft, metal working, etc. half a year ago, but I knew that if I wanted to really fly an airplane I'd have to build it myself. Going after an RV-8 or other complex design is way outside my skillset - but a tube-and-gusset fabric covered open cockpit biplane is well within the learning curve, particularly because there are a bunch of people to reach out for when I'm a little lost.
However, I have fabricated my own parts and am very confident they are as good as anything that could come out of a factory. Granted, a cut gusset from aluminum stock is a very basic thing, but it strikes at the heart of the generalization about builders "largely on their own when it comes to assembling raw materials from a variety of sources, fabricating parts and then putting it all together," which I think is entirely too elitist.
Another option is to buy a completed experimental and maintain it well.
I have 2 experimentals and do a lot of stuff myself where allowed and it has been a great learning
experience.
It has eased me into the experimental world and completely overcome any reservations about them.
Most people fear them, but it is the fear of the unknown that is driving that.
I rather prefer experimentals now due to the maintenance options they present.
I think you do need to be hands on and somewhat technically inclined as you do need to exercise caution
and use good judgement at all times. I found it always better to err on the conservative side and it has
always served me well.
Owning and flying experimental makes you a vested party to the aircrafts well being and you take personal responsibility
for its condition, enabling you to l catch things others will miss, including your AP IA etc.
That accountability I believe will ultimately make you a safer pilot.
I cringe when I see certified aircraft folks just accept an annual at face value and rarely take a hard look on their own.
In my own case I know how all the parts work together and if something even seems not right I don't fly till I get to the bottom of it.
For example I recently had a plane annualed and just before takeoff at the end of the runway I had released a tail wheel castoring lock and done routine stick freedom check and felt something "different".
Following my own rules to err on the side of safety I pushed back and opened an inspection port at the tail to see if there was some kind of binding taking place of the tail controls.
Sure enough the tail wheel cable had a single wrap around the elevator control rod....right after the annual.
Something that could have caused a disaster, but if I had blind faith in those servicing my airplane I might be injured or worse today.
Ray
Excellent advice Ray, and good catch! Glad you took the time to investigate the "different" feel.
I really like the idea of flying in an aircraft in which I literally know every rivet, nut, bolt, and wire on.
It seems to me that the perception of Experimentals to the rest of the world is that they may be sub standard in some way,
poorly maintained, and unproven designs.
Generally, nothing can be further from the truth as homebuilders typically take much greater care and processing when doing builds
and many designs have been around for a very long time with hundreds of flying builds to proving the qualities and design.
Granted there are always those aircraft that are attempted by folks with no aptitude for home building and I think those mostly either:
1) don't get finished when the builder realizes its beyond his capabilities,
2) get finished /rebuilt by another experienced home builder,
3) don't survive the test flight program, or are shelved due to simply deemed too questionable to take the risk to fly.
There are many advantages to Experimentals and few short comings in my opinion.
Plus, by their very nature, some designs contribute significantly to advance the technology of flight, engine, control and avoinics systems.
In a developed society with freedoms, allowing experimentation contributes more to the society overall versus the risks.
I am to this day still puzzled why there is not an experimental category for vehicles, as I believe the potential for innovation and advances
in those areas are tremendous.
I see experimentation on the whole in the US as being excessively regulated to the detriment of our society. Instead the misguided do gooders would rather prohibit every sort of activity with any risk at all. It will delegate the US to the 3rd world country soon if that trend is not reversed.
Already we are seeing the exodus of our greatest talented folks departing the US for foreign countries where their innovative spirit is fostered and those societies benefit from the advances instead.
Anyway, I digress, experimentation is GOOD and should be fostered in any and all areas of aviation.
Ray
From what I see, I think this is largely correct, but I've also seen some pretty scary homebuilts... proven designs, but poorly maintained in the absence of an IA's inspection every year. Granted this is not the norm, and I also see it with some older factory built lightplanes... but the crash (or forced landing) of, say, an Aeronca or an old 150 doesn't get notices as much as it would if it were a homebuilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by jb92563
Actually there is, in a way... many if not most states allow you to register a homebuilt automobile provided it complies with the applicable safety standards. In a way it's simpler than with airplanes, since it doesn't have to be "experimental" or "amateur built".Quote:
I am to this day still puzzled why there is not an experimental category for vehicles, as I believe the potential for innovation and advances
in those areas are tremendous.
I don't know about that. Have you looked at the homebuilt aircraft regulations in most other countries? I don't know of any country that allows the freedom of experimentation with aircraft that we have here.Quote:
Already we are seeing the exodus of our greatest talented folks departing the US for foreign countries where their innovative spirit is fostered and those societies benefit from the advances instead.
Actually, I was speaking more to the top designers, engineers and innovators in general, not just aviation, the brain talents, rather than the freedoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana
I know that the US is probably the best in terms of Experimental Aircraft rules.