Doe Mac McClellan Write For EAA?

[CarlOrton]

<snip> In describing how to meet those challenges, he should describe things in a broader context than just a fully modernized B-58 (or heavier metal.)

Chris Mayer
N424AF

I've been somewhat surprised that Mac hasn't been on the forums, or that more effort hasn't been expended in providing him with opportunities to really get to know us (experimenters in general).

I'm assuming that he does not live in Oshkosh (I seem to recall him talking about flying to Convention across Lake Michigan), so daily contact with experimental aviators may be limited. Certainly we can provide him the opportunity to be better immersed. Does he belong to a Chapter? Are there *any* ex/ab members near him? Would he even "hang out" with some of us?

Of course, every time in the past that I've given folks the benefit of the doubt, I've turned out to be wrong, so the emerging conspiracy theorist in me is surprised that we haven't heard from staff on this matter.

[Frank Giger]

LOL, I thought y'all were referring to his blog, which can be reached by the main EAA website page.

His stuff in SA is a lot more on point with the EAA than his blog....though he does come up with some very good On Point stuff for the EAA audience, which is why I check it out.

I don't think Mac cares what we say on a forum board; I suspect as long as the EAA check comes on time and clears he's quite content with the job he's doing. And rightfully so - the only one he has to please is the man who does the hiring and firing, just like the rest of us.

I would like to see him in a Champ (he'd probably stroke out in an experimental) out of an uncontrolled field.

"So where's the stack?"
"Um, the handheld radio is right here velcro'd to the panel."
"Where's the GPS, weather updating, terrain avoidance radar, traffic locator or other basic essential instruments for flight?"
"I put a sectional on a knee board for you. You'll have to rely on the glass above and to the sides of the panel for the rest of it. Oh, and monitor and self report on just the one frequency; the other is the current weather."
"Where's the approach plates?"
"Um, I put a sectional on a knee board for you."
"Where's the trim and autopilot?"
"You're in luck - the elevator trim is right here above your left shoulder. The autopilot only engages when the aircraft's speed and elevation are zero and zero, with the mags turned off and the pilot away from the plane with wind on the field. It is also disengaged through the use of tie down ropes and chalks. Trust me, you really don't want the autopilot on."
"This is barbaric!"
"Aw, it should be a cinch for a super computer wizard aviator like you...."

[rwanttaja]

IMO, the reasons that E-AB has less fatal weather accidents is:
* exp planes are generally better equipped to deal with weather as they are not as encumbered in adding state of the art equipment as certified a/c are.

You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no way to prove this. In any case, not every homebuilder puts gazillions of dollars into in-cockpit weather displays. For the most part, weather accidents are not due to people flying into bad weather because they lack radar or any other modern gimcracks to let them navigate through it. The windshield usually provides all the weather information they really needed.

If anything, the average homebuilt is LESS capable of handling bad weather than the average production aircraft. In the past 50 years, how many Cessnas, Pipers, or Beeches rolled out of the factories without basic gyro instruments? I don't think I've ever flown in a Cessna 172 without an artificial horizon... and my '65 150 certainly had one.

* exp pilots tend to have more experience

That is certainly provable. Looking at accidents in the 1998-2011 time period, homebuilt pilots had a median of 1,000 flight hours at the time of the accident. Cessna 172 pilots had 233 hours, PA-28 pilots had a median 321 hours.

* how does he think all those E-AB aircraft get to Oshkosh?

Same way they did back in the 70, 80s, 90s. Didn't need funky weather gear then, and not everyone has it now. The problem isn't aircraft equipment, it's the pilots making the right decisions. More experienced pilots generally make better decisions.

The fact is, the vast majority of homebuilt aircraft are flown for recreation. While this doesn't mean we're immune to get-there-itis (guilty!), the fact is we tend to not fly in less-than-optimal conditions.

Certified airplanes are much more likely to be operated for business purposes, where the pilot may be under more pressure to get to a particular destination. I've even had an FAA specialist tell me that you can NOT operate a homebuilt in support of a business, based on 14CFR 91.319(a)(1).

The problem with comparing the homebuilt to the GA accident rate is that we're comparing different things. Homebuilts should be compared to the portion of the GA fleet that is owner-flown as a personal recreational vehicle, since that's how the vast majority of homebuilts are operated. When they calculate the number of flight hours, FAA analysts assume that the owner of a Cessna 172 flies 200 hours per year. If the owner of that 172 completes his RV-8, the FAA then assumes he now flies 28 hours a year. See how this might affect the accident-per-flight hours summaries from FAA (which the AOPA uses in the annual Nall Report)?

There's actually some method in that particular madness; the FAA assumption is factoring in the (assumed!) percentage of registered homebuilts that are not active. It'll be interesting to see if their per-hour assumption changes now that the mandatory re-registration process supposedly got rid of all the deadwood.

It really, really SHOULD. Since January 2009, for every homebuilt removed from the FAA registry, twelve production-type aircraft had their registration cancelled. That's the figures as of last December, it'll be interesting to see how it changed this year.

Ron Wanttaja

[flybuddy]

You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no way to prove this. In any case, not every homebuilder puts gazillions of dollars into in-cockpit weather displays. For the most part, weather accidents are not due to people flying into bad weather because they lack radar or any other modern gimcracks to let them navigate through it. The windshield usually provides all the weather information they really needed.

If anything, the average homebuilt is LESS capable of handling bad weather than the average production aircraft. In the past 50 years, how many Cessnas, Pipers, or Beeches rolled out of the factories without basic gyro instruments? I don't think I've ever flown in a Cessna 172 without an artificial horizon... and my '65 150 certainly had one.
Ron Wanttaja

And Mac is welcome to his opinion and there's no way to prove his side either. It might be best to stick to facts when writing about Experimental aircraft (of which he has little experience) in an experimental magazine that you're being paid to write for. Given that you point out the chronic under reporting of EA-B hours. Isn't his opinion that much more wrong?

Not sure I agree with you on homebuilts LESS capable statement. The most common homebuilt flying is an RV and many of those have glass panels. Autopilots are now the norm especially because you can add a fully capable one to a Dynon unit for $1500. APs are a huge help in VFR into IMC incidents. The older certifieds simply can't afford this capability. An AH and DG don't seem to keep the right side for a VFR pilot in IFR conditions.

[1600vw]

There are a lot of folks whom only lurk on boards as this and never post. I myself know of about 10 people whom come here but never post. Read some posts and its not hard to understand this. Make a mistake in spelling or something and you get judged. I myself careless and will post a lot without even prove reading. But 99.9 percent will judge you on this.

Looking over all the airplanes, we have some really nice airplanes today. Glass panels, no more fabric but nice fiberglass or composite airplanes. But as in the GA world where they do indeed today build these new airplanes that have a price with more zero's in it then I will ever spend or afford to by, This is not what is being flown. Our air fleet is in the 50's or years old as we all know.

Well this is my world in EAB. Now I do have a friend building a new airplane but that is not the norm. Everyone I know flies an EAB that is at least 15 years old. Mine is almost 10 years old. Cost in the range of 4500 - 7000 bucks. This is EAB experimental flying in my world. These airplanes have a few steam gauges and never fly in anything but calm weather on clear days.

When I read about experimental airplanes costing upwards of 10's of thousands of dollars, are there those flying them? Sure. But no one I know, so when one speaks of eab's and only talks about those that have glass panels and cost more then my car you have just isolated a huge group of people or shut them out. They stay shut out or alone and play on the sideline. There is more to flying then glass panels or long x-countries that require flight following and in and out of weather fronts. Not one person whom I hang with flies this way..not one.

I ask them why I never hear from them on forums like this....They don't belong...Not for them....They don't fly like those folks...Not my type's......

So I bet you anything Mac looms over these forums but does not post as most. Only a few will jump into the pit.

[WLIU]

Ron,

Thanks for the excellent contribution of interesting data on the topic of your average homebuilder vs your average Piper/Cessna/Mooney driver. May I suggest that the info might be the basis of an interesting article in Sport Aviation? There has been some interesting focus by the FAA on accidents in homebuilt airplanes. The data that you posted might provide an enlightening perspective to use when evaluating whether the response to the raw accident numbers are really being applied appropriately.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[rwanttaja]

Ron,

Thanks for the excellent contribution of interesting data on the topic of your average homebuilder vs your average Piper/Cessna/Mooney driver. May I suggest that the info might be the basis of an interesting article in Sport Aviation? There has been some interesting focus by the FAA on accidents in homebuilt airplanes. The data that you posted might provide an enlightening perspective to use when evaluating whether the response to the raw accident numbers are really being applied appropriately.

Thanks for the suggestion, Wes. I've included this detail in past articles for Kitplanes, and have referenced the issue regarding "equivalent operation" in past SA articles. I'll be writing my annual Sport Aviation accident statistics article in a month or so, and may bring it up, there.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

So I bet you anything Mac looms over these forums but does not post as most. Only a few will jump into the pit.

I would agree with you that Mac probably checks out these forums and reads the threads, or at least someone passes key comments along. But he would be absolutely nuts if he decided to plunge in and participate. Most magazine editors I've met have been extremely busy people, active near-real time discussion of their editorials would require a massive amount of time.

As Mac is a bit controversial in the EAA world, it would be even worse. There would be a few folks who would latch on and not let go. Far easier to just ignore it....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

And Mac is welcome to his opinion and there's no way to prove his side either. It might be best to stick to facts when writing about Experimental aircraft (of which he has little experience) in an experimental magazine that you're being paid to write for. Given that you point out the chronic under reporting of EA-B hours. Isn't his opinion that much more wrong?

The chronic under-reporting of E-AB hours is *my* opinion, based on discussions with the FAA and the AOPA Nall Report folks. If I had any way to get statistics to prove it, I would dig, hard. You may recall several years ago that that AOPA Nall Report claimed a huge jump in E-AB accidents. This is where the discussions occurred. You may also recall that the AOPA retracted their claim. Modest as I am, I have to take credit for that...I found they were counting Experimental Light Sport Aircraft as Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft (at that time, ALL were ultralights converted by the grandfather clause).

You and I have differing opinions. My (and probably Mac's) logical flow is:

1. Homebuilts are flown as recreational aircraft almost exclusively.
2. Persons who fly for fun are less likely to fly when it ISN'T fun.
3. Hence, E-AB pilots are less likely to fly into challenging weather

Your logical flow is:

1. You have examined the cockpits of some subset of E-AB aircraft (If you looked inside 1,000 airplanes, you've only seen 3.1% of the entire fleet)
2. Your impression is that a large portion of those aircraft contained equipment that would provide an advantage over production-type aircraft if the aircraft encounters weather.
3. You project that unknown large portion onto the other 31,000 homebuilt aircraft
4. Hence, more homebuilt aircraft are better equipped to fly into challenging weather.

I just don't agree.

However, there is a kicker we both agree on: E-AB pilots are more experienced, which affects the statistics even more.

Not sure I agree with you on homebuilts LESS capable statement. The most common homebuilt flying is an RV and many of those have glass panels. Autopilots are now the norm especially because you can add a fully capable one to a Dynon unit for $1500. APs are a huge help in VFR into IMC incidents. The older certifieds simply can't afford this capability. An AH and DG don't seem to keep the right side for a VFR pilot in IFR conditions.

First off, let's look at the statistics. As of 31 December 2012, there were 32,041 aircraft licensed as Experimental Amateur-Built, of which 6,740 were RVs. They're certainly the most common homebuilt type, but it's still only 21% of the homebuilt fleet.

EFISs are certainly more common across the homebuilt fleet, just for the ease of installation if nothing else. Heck, I almost installed one in my Fly Baby last year. But EFISs, in themselves, don't enhance safety. They provide the same functionality of the classic aircraft instruments, just in a electronic, more-compact configuration. They do have their own drawbacks, though, in the form of putting all one's eggs in a single digital basket.

An autopilot enhances safety in challenging weather. Theoretically true...if the pilot takes advantage of it. The pilot has to be willing to push a button and release the wheel in a situation where they're in mortal danger. I would find that hard to do. Do those RV pilots with autopilots get training to prepare them for that kind of decision?

The fact is, we don't *know* how many homebuilts have autopilots, and, further, we don't know what percentage of the owners would turn the plane over to George in a critical situation (I am reminded of the exchange between the peacenik woman and the Marine general). Damn few, would be my opinion...but that's just my opinion.

Autopilots may be rarer in the GA fleet, but they're not all that rare. There are more Bonanzas (12,236) on the FAA registry than RVs...and I bet many of them have autopilots. Heck, Mooney had full-time wing levellers, you had to hold down a button (with a hefty spring in it) to get it to turn OFF. Short, thick, rubber bands became popular, which might indicate the pilots' willingness to rely on the autopilot.

Keep in mind, I'm not anti-autopilot. I agree they're a good safety feature, and there's time I wish my Fly Baby had one (or a modicum of cruise stability :-). I just don't feel they or ANY other piece of equipment significant affects the safety rate of E-AB vs. overall GA aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[jjhoneck]

LOL, I thought y'all were referring to his blog, which can be reached by the main EAA website page.

His stuff in SA is a lot more on point with the EAA than his blog....though he does come up with some very good On Point stuff for the EAA audience, which is why I check it out.

I don't think Mac cares what we say on a forum board; I suspect as long as the EAA check comes on time and clears he's quite content with the job he's doing. And rightfully so - the only one he has to please is the man who does the hiring and firing, just like the rest of us.

I would like to see him in a Champ (he'd probably stroke out in an experimental) out of an uncontrolled field.

"So where's the stack?"
"Um, the handheld radio is right here velcro'd to the panel."
"Where's the GPS, weather updating, terrain avoidance radar, traffic locator or other basic essential instruments for flight?"
"I put a sectional on a knee board for you. You'll have to rely on the glass above and to the sides of the panel for the rest of it. Oh, and monitor and self report on just the one frequency; the other is the current weather."
"Where's the approach plates?"
"Um, I put a sectional on a knee board for you."
"Where's the trim and autopilot?"
"You're in luck - the elevator trim is right here above your left shoulder. The autopilot only engages when the aircraft's speed and elevation are zero and zero, with the mags turned off and the pilot away from the plane with wind on the field. It is also disengaged through the use of tie down ropes and chalks. Trust me, you really don't want the autopilot on."
"This is barbaric!"
"Aw, it should be a cinch for a super computer wizard aviator like you...."

Where's the "Like" button? :-)