[QUOTE=steveinindy;8755]You tell anyone else that I'm "caring" and my standing offer to have a beer with any forum member who so desires at AirVenture will be revoked. I do have a reputation to uphold
I'll take that under advisement. As for the beer, pleased to meet you at the Vintage Cafe any time.
LOL Sounds like a plan.
LOL, there is a lot of "preaching to the safety choir" at FAA safety seminars. The guys and gals that bother to attend are the types that are already thinking safety and wondering how to be MORE safe.Originally Posted by Janet Davidson
Personally, I'm a big chicken when it comes to flying. If I wouldn't play 18 pulling a cart on a golf course in the present weather I won't fly over it.
On homebuilts, I'll gently disagree with Steve's stance, even though I understand it. Occupational hazard; he looks at an aircraft and sees a wreck. As I build my plane I think in terms of why something will work - and then try to shoot it down; the decisions I've made that are off plans aren't compromises but a different approach.
Usually it's an over-build of a part, though, and I talk to the designer of my plane about them.
On safety over all, I'll trust Randy Babbitt's observation that it's not the builder that usually wrecks, but the second or third owner of the experimental aircraft. That makes a lot of sense to me, as maintenance and inspections may be a mystery for a custom built aircraft.
I've put down some maintenance checks on areas that aren't intuitive on my list that will wind up in the POH based on build decisions and specific concerns I have based on being intimate with the construction. I'm not sure that most builders actually write down extra checks they know they need to make.
[edit]
When deciding on my aircraft, I did a bunch of research on safety not just for the particular model, but similar types - and not just in NTSB reports but on self-admitted incidents from pilots that didn't make the grade for FAA or NTSB involvement. Turns out they're really safe - one fatality that happened on the first flight takeoff due to PIO.
Ground straps coming loose, clogged fuel filters, and Ye Olde Ground Loop are the main culprits; owing to slow speeds and the tendency for tube and gusset construction to crumple make them amiable to pilot surviveability when making an opportunistic landing. Based on that, it pointed out some areas of specific concerns on my build.
Last edited by Frank Giger; 01-09-2012 at 01:36 AM.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
You're kind of correct on that. I actually look for something that is practical for the purpose it is intended and then try to figure out how to make it crash survivable. However, you are spot on when it comes to my tendency to look at any aircraft I see and try to figure out how it would react in various impact configurations. It's a quirk....humor me.On homebuilts, I'll gently disagree with Steve's stance, even though I understand it. Occupational hazard; he looks at an aircraft and sees a wreck. As I build my plane I think in terms of why something will work - and then try to shoot it down; the decisions I've made that are off plans aren't compromises but a different approach.
Then might I ask how that stands up to the standard "Once you get past the first forty hours..." response whenever safety of experimental aircraft is brought up. I would tend to agree that there is a secondary spike in accidents whenever pilots are transitioning from one aircraft (or class of aircraft) to another.On safety over all, I'll trust Randy Babbitt's observation that it's not the builder that usually wrecks, but the second or third owner of the experimental aircraft. That makes a lot of sense to me, as maintenance and inspections may be a mystery for a custom built aircraft.
On the first 40, I think it should be given a special notation to keep the data pure.
Test flights are, well, test flights. As a builder it would be much more useful for me to know what causes wrecks during testing versus what causes wrecks once it has been established the plane is "good to go," as one speaks to construction and the other to maintenance and design.
Let's say that Cessna had wrecked their first Skycatcher (which had a big EXPERIMENTAL decal on the side). Let's say they wrecked it three times as they found problems or the limits of the operating limitations (IIRC, there's a very good reason for why one should follow the INTENTIONAL SPINS SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTED placard in them).
It probably would mean absolutely nothing to the safety of the production Skycatcher, assuming that they worked the bugs out.
However, those four wrecks would be listed in the experimental category and lumped along with the fellow that used substandard materials or techniques - or went from a C172 to a 3/4 scale Fokker Eindecker without proper transistion training.
In the homebuilt world, every single plane is a one off test platform! Some are less "testy" than others, like the RV's with pre-punched panels and if-it-doesn't-line-up-it-ain't-right design (which is why they have such a good track record), but one still has to remember the nature of the beast.
I know of at least one aircraft that wound up grounded permanently at the 20 hour mark because it was a monster to fly, and another that didn't make it to a hundred before it got hung from a museum ceiling for the same reason.
I want to know what problems are during testing (where they're expected) and what problems came later on.
Steve, I'm with you that we should definately be our own worst critics and that there is room for improvement on safety. Part of that should be stressing transition training, which also means reaching out to the larger GA community.
When I was in primary training in a FlightDesign CTLS and struggling through crosswind landings some wag at the airfield made some disparaging remarks about my less than stellar performance. Well, I took it in stride - man, I did everything but bend the bird!
The next week the same guy walked up and apologized to me. My instructor took exception to his comments and had him go around the pattern a few times after I left, and he learned the difference between a C172 and a twitchy little LSA first hand - and I gather it was a very sobering experience.
"If you can land that [censored] you can land anything," he said.
LSA transition training is one of the areas we're falling down on as well, but that's another thread....
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
I know a friend of mine who took a former WWII fighter pilot up for a ride in one and let him land it. His response was apparently "That bird is a ***** to land". It's a heck of a statement coming from someone with as much experience as that guy had (he had accumulated 30,000+ hours before he retired from flying). The only thing anywhere near that light I have flown was an ultralight and the difference between that and the 172s and Comanches I had been used to was enough to increase the "pucker factor" quite significantly.When I was in primary training in a FlightDesign CTLS and struggling through crosswind landings some wag at the airfield made some disparaging remarks about my less than stellar performance. Well, I took it in stride - man, I did everything but bend the bird!
Any traction or ideas for an EAA safety pledge?
Well if the pledge includes having an A/P check my routine maintenance work before I fly count me out I know several, only one of which would I let turn wrenches on my plane and only if I am present. I don't have any thing positive to say about that part of the pledge, and what's wrong with single engine night flying?especially VFR??????
I'm not into the drama that seems to plague most aviators but I want to come home and fly again many many times, I think that what Frank experiences described with the "airport expert" is a factor that tends to discourage newer pilots from asking for help when in doubt for fear of being put down. Better than any pledge could ever be, if you really care about safety in experimental homebuilts is encouraging the tech counselor program and offer your help (not just disparaging comments) to new builders.
Race, I've been uniformly welcomed by the community of aviators - I think he was just jumping the gun on the friendly razzing and came off harsher than he meant to. I really believe he was aiming at my instructor more than me.
The cool thing is when the Champ is on the ramp ready for me (Jim having a student earlier or putting gas in it) and some twin engined IFR twenty-something pilot is giving it the hairy eyeball - and then find out he's not going anywhere for an hour. Welllll....let's do a half hour hop around with some touch and goes for some honest stick-and-rudder work.
Big smiles and a light bulb over their heads. "I understand the low and slow now...."
I'll throw some water on the Safety Pledge if I can.
Safety should be inherent in the mission and (more importantly) the culture of the organization. I'm always leery of any company or club that has to put things they should be doing anyway on a poster ("People First," "Do the right thing," etc.) - if one has to constantly remind folks of such things that means they're not doing them in the first place.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Frank,
Thanks for the comment, I agree that a mission statement etc. is meaningless unless it is part of the culture of the organization. My feeling is that the EAA culture may be promoting the opposite. As I mentioned on a previous post:
I can think of several forums at Airventure where the audience cheers when a speaker boasts of flying irresponsibly but few about staying alive in a single engine airplane.
When I purchased my airplane, I promised my wife, I would not take the children flying. I am hopeful that she will change her mind one day, but I understand her reservation. After all, this is my dream, not hers. For curiosity's sake, what are your ADM limits? Do you feel the culture of EAA promotes the opposite or am I alone on this issue?
Daniel
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote