Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Safety: EAA type accidents

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    just to be accurate, I didn't attend that meeting, I read about it under the safety on the VAN's site.

    So, if you and the other guy are correct, the FAA must have skewed, distorted, or even invented the reports. so there must be no problem and if so we as pilots and builders don't need to change anything, least of all our attitudes and platitudes.

    This is the opposite of what I believe.

    I have only been involved personally with one fatal accident and one non injury taxi accident, and in both cases it seemed to me that they were investigated as needed.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 08-25-2012 at 10:59 PM.

  2. #12
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    just to be accurate, I didn't attend that meeting, I read about it under the safety on the VAN's site.
    The VAF Forums is not exactly what I would call a reliable source for safety information given how hostile they tend to be towards any suggestion that the status quo isn't optimal. It's like watching Fox News or MSNBC (respectively) for the rundown on the latest piece of legislation from a Democrat or Republican senator.

    So, if you and the other guy are correct, the FAA must have skewed, distorted, or even invented the reports
    That's not what I am saying. The data we have indicates problems with the way we build/maintain our aircraft (the rate of engine failure, etc) and operate them (botched flight testing, etc). The issue with the quality of the data is simply a problem with nailing down the degree of those problems. We know they are a problem but a certain degree of probability exists that the problems are worse than what we think they are.

    More importantly, the way these crashes are investigated is overlooking the things that may be turning what should be survivable crashes into fatal ones such as failures of the restraint harnesses due to inadequate design or substitution of inadequate parts to save time or money.

    I have only been involved personally with one fatal accident and one non injury taxi accident, and in both cases it seemed to me that they were investigated as needed.
    If you actually get a "real" investigator on scene, things tend to get fairly well investigated since the NTSB guys enjoy their work and are conscientious. When you are dealing with whomever lost the rock-paper-scissors match at the local FSDO to decide who has to go through the motions, then you tend to run into a problem. This is based on being on quite a few crash scenes personally in the course of my research. Letting an often disinterested and probably relatively uneducated government functionary handle it is like allowing an elected coroner whose day job is being a mechanic or accountant actually do the autopsies for that jurisdiction. It's a bad idea because while the really obvious things probably will get noticed, the subtle but vital findings are not caught or will be misinterpreted by the inexperienced/uneducated eye.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    just to be accurate, I didn't attend that meeting, I read about it under the safety on the VAN's site.

    Can you provide a link to the thread you're talking about?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    If you actually get a "real" investigator on scene, things tend to get fairly well investigated since the NTSB guys enjoy their work and are conscientious. When you are dealing with whomever lost the rock-paper-scissors match at the local FSDO to decide who has to go through the motions, then you tend to run into a problem. This is based on being on quite a few crash scenes personally in the course of my research. Letting an often disinterested and probably relatively uneducated government functionary handle it is like allowing an elected coroner whose day job is being a mechanic or accountant actually do the autopsies for that jurisdiction. It's a bad idea because while the really obvious things probably will get noticed, the subtle but vital findings are not caught or will be misinterpreted by the inexperienced/uneducated eye.
    Most GA accident investigations, including those involving amateur-built airplanes are "delegated investigations" where the NTSB assigns the investigation to the local FAA office. As I have said before, this is pretty common stuff and in accordance with NTSB SOP. I guess it would be nice if the NTSB had unlimited manpower and budget - they could send a go-team to every accident.

    Delegated investigations are not a short cut or deficient in any way. FAA inspectors that investigate accidents are trained and fully qualified to conduct these investigations. Since an FAA investigator has to fully comply with an FAA Order when performing an accident investigation, it's laughable when SGOTI claims that an FAA Inspector is not a "real" investigator on scene and routinely abdigates his professional responsiblities.

    Isn't that a personal attack or in legal terms, defamation by libel?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Kyle, I read it on www.vansairforce.com and then under the safety heading in the left column. You can probably google EAA or FAA about the safety study of am built aircraft also.

    Marty, I think your facts are good, but it is way too much to say Steve's opinion is "a personal attack or defamation by libel". He can certainly have his opinion that the FAA investigator is not as trained as the NTSB investigator who is a specialist in accident investigation.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 08-26-2012 at 01:32 PM.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Steve, your objection to the FAA or FSDO, not being as through as the NTSB in accident report, is, to my way of thinking, a distincintion without a real operative difference, in many or our type of EAA accident.

    Obviously there are sometimes accidents like the Air Tran one in Florida(bad O2 tank) or the DC 10 at Souix City( engine faiure leading to control failure) where the cause is not readliy apparent and is not just plain pilot error.
    In these cases the NTSB is needed and can and does do a job almost like a detective solving a crime.
    Out of these investigations may also come some new AD or procedure change in design or maintenance or piloting.

    I don't think this is the case with many if not most homebuilt EAA type accidents. I think the cause is more likely to be pilot error, possible aggravated by less safe if not unsafe design, and it is not hidden from any investigator. For example, the stall/spin behavior of a fast, high wing loaded plane, vs. a C172

    Your idea of better crashworthiness like better shoulder harness or better seats or for airlines better fireproofing or more emergency exits, is fine. Problem is it is often expensive or inconvenient, like having all passengers wear Nomex suits or having a built in fire bottle system in the cabin.Or we could all fly those turbo crop duster AG cat types and survive most accidents.
    This focus on design features, AFTER the crash is fine, but is different than trying to avoid the crash in the first place.

    These comments from you guys are fine, have some good points, but are along the lines that I was hoping to avoid. They are all pretty much on bending or overlooking the FAA study, or in some way bypassing the accident facts.

    MORE IMPORTANT IN MY MIND, AND THAT OF THE FAA, IS TO FIND WAYS TO DO IT SAFER, SO AS TO HAVE LESS ACCIDENTS.
    I WAS UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED BY THE FAA STATS, AND SORT OF AWAKENED BY THEM. AND IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER THE EXACT FIGURE IS 800 % MORE OR ONLY 500 % MORE.
    If there were only 2 million death camp victims, as some claim, instead of 6 million, it is still a Holocaust.

    Maybe my writing was not clear, but nobody has come on this topic and said, Yes,we need to improve and here is a way to do it safer.

    I think,that to many, safety is a boring or uncool topic.It's like someone telling me to eat my veggies, and give up donuts. Even here on this EAA forum, we still don't have a category for safety, and if you go on the other Warbird forum there is not one either. I have made that suggestion on both sites and got nowhere.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 08-26-2012 at 11:53 AM.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Kyle, I read it on www.vansair.com and then under the safety heading in the left column.
    There are 698 threads in the "Safety" forum at vansairforce.com. Without a pointer to the specific thread, so we can figure out what was written there, it is impossible to determine if the stats you quoted are well researched figures or if they are something less than that.

    I place a lot of value on Ron Wanttaja's write-up. Much more than on 99% of the posts on VAF...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Kyle, asking me for directions on an internet site is like asking Madoff about how do be honest. I am bad with computers, don't like em, don't trust em, and they don't like me. Ask me how to fly, or ski, or play or maybe coach football, or where to get good Bar B Q or even Mex food.
    And I don't see why you want the ref when it seems you have pretty much made up your mind against it already.


    But here it is, and I made a mistake the first time. It is www.vansairforce.com. Then go down the left column to Safety and go to the 3rd line and click on No. 1. That's what I did.

    The article is written by Van himself about the FAA meeting that he was one of the attendees.
    You may not consider him an expert, or the FAA.

    Just as I am writing this there is a discussion on Tv about how people look at politicians and how they vote. And this is really true for almost anything, from which car to buy (I am a Chevy guy or a Ford guy, etc.) to which NFL team you favor. It is not really based on facts, more on opinion.

    Most people already have very set opinions, and for instance if they are looking in the paper or on TV or the internet and claim that they are looking for info or learning , that in 85% of the time in fact what they are doing is just looking for something to reinforce what they already believe. If they don't like the message, ie 6 to 8 times as many am av accidents as all gen av, or if the message is a birth certificate that does not fit their prejudice, they just ignore it or even blame the messenger.

    I had hoped that we as EAA guys could be a little more open minded than that.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 08-26-2012 at 01:59 PM.

  9. #19
    Jeff Point's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Kyle, asking me for directions on an internet site is like asking Madoff about how do be honest. I am bad with computers, don't like em, don't trust em, and they don't like me.
    Gee Bill, with 649 posts, it would seem that you are getting a little more comfortable with computers every day.

    While I applaud your efforts to promote safety, I think you started this thread off with a statement that turned a lot of people off and it has drowned out your message. It is not a fact that E-AB aircraft have a 600-800% higher accident rate. The only true "fact" included in your initial assertion is that the FAA claims that this is the case. The oft-cited FAA study is so full of problems and errors and bad logic that it is almost laughable. Other posts on this thread have cited references which address this, so I won't belabor it here.

    Contrary to what you assert, yes it does matter if the real number is 800%, 600% or 21.6%. It makes a huge difference. 800% is ridiculously high, and almost demanding of some corrective action. 21.6%, not so much. In fact, given the incredible amount of freedom that E-AB gives to the pilot/ builder, many of us would consider a 21.6% increase in accidents to be a reasonable and fair trade-off for that freedom. Now, that is not to say that we should not all work to be better and safer pilots, so don't try to misquote me, but there is a difference between a slight but acceptable increase in risk, and an off-the-chart, oh my goodness level of risk that the flawed FAA study tries to make us believe.
    Jeff Point
    RV-6 and RLU-1 built & flying
    Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor & President, EAA Chapter 18
    Milwaukee, WI
    "It All Started Here!"

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Jeff, I don't have any idea where you get your 21.6% figure.

    I should have really expected this reaction, it is human nature it seems, sadly.
    In fact if you read the #2 and #3 safety post by "Van" himself , talks about exactly this, that of trying to be safer and not just "nit pick" the FAA stats.

    I don't now own an RV or a homebuilt, don't have one for sale or expect to, so I don't have an axe to grind or a pocketbook to protect.

    And to be accurate, in my opening post, I twice very clearly wrote "according to the FAA", so to use your own words, "don't try to misquote me". I got this from the post by Richard Van G, owner of the largest of the homebuilder companies. I never guaranteed these figures, maybe both the FAA and Van are wrong, and maybe homebuilder pilots can and should keep on doing the same things.
    I just hope they don't take any Young Eagles or family members with them.

    Finally, I have never counted my posts( or anyone else's), don't know how many I have. But if you think 641 is too high, what is your approved number?
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 08-26-2012 at 06:07 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •