VFR Flight at 7,000 MSL

[bwilson4web]

. . .
There are a lot of things that could be done in the name of safety that aren't really value added when the cost is put into the mix.

A good example is the ELT. It's been deemed as a direct benefit to the safety of passengers in GA aircraft should there be a crash, as it aids in locating the injured by first responders. The cost isn't horribly prohibitive, nor is the weight penalty. They are proactive in the event of misfortune.

Pilots aren't quite as valued, of course, as ELT's aren't mandated for single seat aircraft. . . .

I was a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol in the pre-ELT days and remember the hundred or so volunteers and hand full of planes that would search for missing aircraft. If nothing else, ELTs all but ended these massive, volunteer efforts with their costs and risks to what were effectively, crash recovery. I remember how often the low-pressure, IFR weather was still hanging around. I also noticed many urban volunteers were not ready to tramp about in the woods.

Later, when I was taking my flight training, the ELT let me know I had made a particularly unskilled landing. . . . or perhaps I was just testing the ELT. But I also remember at least once a year or so picking up ELT signals from airports where someone else must have been 'testing' their ELT with an unskilled landing.

Bob Wilson

[steveinindy]

* GA aircraft tend to be much less complex than commercial aircraft, and the causes are most often pretty straight forward.

I don't know....the causes of most airline crashes tend to be pretty straightforward as well. The only thing that makes them more complex is that we actually know what led to the crash rather than simply saying "Oh, the crew of Colgan 3407 just failed to maintain airspeed and stalled the plane".

One doesn't need a black box to determine that somebody landed without lowering their gear or stalled on the turn from base to final. GA pilots do dumb stuff at a much higher rate than commercial ones, as they typically don't have a crew to back them up and help prevent mistakes.

No, but it would be nice to know why- as an example- certain aircraft are prone to "loss of engine power for undetermined reasons". "Undetermined reasons" is basically the euphemistic way of saying "insufficient data". Likewise for the pilot error accidents, it would be helpful to know not just that pilots are doing "X" but to figure exactly why they are doing it. Identifying a likely proximate cause of the accident is fine, but to really have an impact on crash rates we really need to understand what is leading up to that.

Permissiveness is the watchword of American society, particularly when it comes to movement, and any serious challenge to it without a damned good reason is unsupportable in the USA legally and politically.

No, it's the watch word of anyone with a stance they want to protect. It's the same argument the NIMBY folks use against us, etc, etc ad nauseum. I see figuring out why people are losing their engines or leaving a mark on history that only a landscaper would truly appreciate as a "damned good reason". You'll see people grouse about "Well, they always blame it on the pilot!" or "My friend's crash is still undetermined after ______ months" but as soon as a potential solution to that problem is put forth, it suddenly becomes "Wait! You can't infringe on my right to....". That always kinds of strikes me as being the defense of someone with something to hide even if I know that person well and trust them.

Honestly, the increasing paranoia of the American public is more alarming than what they are supposedly concerned with.

Pilots aren't quite as valued, of course, as ELT's aren't mandated for single seat aircraft.

I've never understood that oversight.

I don't know what you meant by "impinges on their ability to fly" in your reply.

The argument that is usually brought up with this sort of discussion is what CDRMuetzel pointed out: cost.

[rwanttaja]

No, but it would be nice to know why- as an example- certain aircraft are prone to "loss of engine power for undetermined reasons". "Undetermined reasons" is basically the euphemistic way of saying "insufficient data".

Actually, in a surprisingly number of cases, the data is there but they STILL can't figure it out. There are a few wrecks that destroy the evidence, but in most cases, enough is left to do some diagnostics, and nothing out of the ordinary is found. Often the engine re-starts after the accident.

In some cases it's carb ice--but the NTSB report usually says if the conditions favored it--in other cases it's operator error ("I had it on the wrong tank, but I'm not going to admit it")--and in still others its transient effects (vapor lock, electrical glitch to an electronic ignition). But about 1/3rd of all homebuilt accidents begin with a power failure, and for a large percentage of them, the cause is never determined.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dana]

I've never understood that oversight.

I don't think it's an oversight; it's the same reason that parachutes aren't required for aerobatics when flying solo, and no pilot certificate is required to fly a [single seat] ultralight (but you can't fly it over congested areas). "You can go ahead and kill yourself, but don't take anybody else with you." Individual freedom-- it's the proper attitude for the government to take.

[steveinindy]

Actually, in a surprisingly number of cases, the data is there but they STILL can't figure it out. There are a few wrecks that destroy the evidence, but in most cases, enough is left to do some diagnostics, and nothing out of the ordinary is found. Often the engine re-starts after the accident.

I think you're confusing having the engine still there with having the performance data from said engine. But if you had some form of engine readout recording the changes in parameters, it would certainly make those the minority. The problem is usually something transient (as you said) and even if the plane is completely recovered, it's still impossible to figure it out without that data.

But about 1/3rd of all homebuilt accidents begin with a power failure, and for a large percentage of them, the cause is never determined.

Which is all the more reason for some form of crash resistant data recording. A lot of glass panels have memory built into them and therefore the paranoia over the government "watching us" is pointless since if there is a crash and no significant post crash fire some of this data can be recovered. Why not just make that data more widely available? It doesn't have to be a full-on CVR and FDR but the data already displayed on the MFD would certainly be helpful in the event of a loss of power crash.

I think this is one area where experimental aviation should be leading from the front. Instead of simply toeing the line of what is required, how about we identify the problems (which Ron already pointed out an example of this) and then go figure out why it's happening (which means data collection since current standards are not sufficient apparently) and figure out a solution. There's a bullet that will help keep government oversight and "interference" with personal freedoms to a minimum: reduce the crash and fatality rate and they have no reason to hound us.

I don't think it's an oversight; it's the same reason that parachutes aren't required for aerobatics when flying solo, and no pilot certificate is required to fly a [single seat] ultralight (but you can't fly it over congested areas). "You can go ahead and kill yourself, but don't take anybody else with you." Individual freedom-- it's the proper attitude for the government to take.

Just for the sake of thoroughness: Then why is suicide technically illegal then? (No, I'm not arguing that such activities are tantamount to suicide, so don't any climb up my butt over it).

[Bill Greenwood]

Parachutes

[Dana]

Parachutes are not required by FAA regs, period. It is not a matter of if you are flying solo or with passengers.
Of course you'd be nuts do fly acro without a parachute, but some people do it.

No, parachutes are required to be worn when doing aerobatics with a passenger:

§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds— (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or...

[Frank Giger]

Steve, I don't want a glass panel; it's one point of failure for instrumentation and I've experienced the no-panel blank screens on takeoff, thank you.

Similarly, I don't know what voice recording is really going to do to help investigate anything in my single seat aircraft. When performing crew management by myself in an aircraft there isn't a lot of verbalization.

One of the other problems with the idea of mandated black boxing is the variety of engines - both certified and non-certified - used on aircraft. What if I'm experimenting with power plant options for aircraft? Do they make black boxes for electrical engines?

What would be the value added for the sort of recording that goes into a Boeing 777 being put into my little day plane? Other than to put another 50 or 100 pounds of stuff onto it, that is....

[Bill Greenwood]

Dana, Thanks for your catching it. That's what happens when one makes a quick response to a topic, in a hurry.
I was thinking of the exception that CFIs and students don't have to wear chutes when doing spin training.
I was not aware that a pilot, apparently can do acro without a chute if solo.
NEITHER ARE SMART; if you are going to do acro, do it up high and wear a chute. And that goes for spin training also; I don't care if you are a CFI, does not suspend the law of gravity.I am planning on doing CFI training soon, the CFI can wear a chute or not, I am going to borrow or rent one, from the nearby FBO that teaches acro and rents acro planes.

[Dana]

An intentional spin is a fairly benign maneuver if the pilot knows what he's doing, which is why parachutes aren't required... and why I wouldn't bother. The real risk in aerobatics, and doubtless why parachutes are required, is messing up a maneuver. A good example is entering a loop too slow and ending up in a tailslide or whip stall, or messing up a roll, split-s'ing out, and overspeeding the aircraft. Or pulling too many g's. A Spin is a low g maneuver, not likely to overstress the aircraft, and unless you wait too long and dive too steep on recovery, hard to mess up.