Printable View
Now that it seems this message board is completely perfect (except for some color preferences,) can we start looking into adding a couple of new topic sections? Feel free to add your own ideas in replies.
I got the poll items from the suggestions in the old 365 message titles. I didn't go into the individual messages, so there may be other suggestions I didn't see.
i would really like to have a discussion with other pilots, owners, mechanics, and just enthusiasts on several topics that I either have some knowledge of or want to learn more about.
Safety is one issue, but it doesn't seem to draw interest, it is just not flashy enough. I wrote at some lenght about a safety issue on the warbird topic,and it hasn't drawn even one reply, except for a number of people that were only focused on what paint scheme the plane had.
The largest response that I have seen, by far was not about airplanes of any kind or of flying at all , but it was about cell phone use. That got a big response. It seems even on this EAA site, that cell phones have a lot more interest to folks than flying. I realize the difference in cost, and maybe I am old fashioned, but flying of almost any kind in almost any airplane, seems a lot more fun than talking on even the most techno complex cell phone ever has.
I always land in here via "what's new". My "bookmark" is that actual link. I also think the vBulletin search works pretty well.
That being said, my suggestion is to not overdo the topics and subtopics - let people post where they think it is best and let the mods move the posts in the rare cases it is needed.
I'm not saying no new topics are needed; just that it should not be over-thought to much.
I've been watching the number of new members growing since monday. Looks like the count has increased by 200. Not bad. I would like to see a section for homebuilders help broken up into sub-forums for particular aircraft manufacturers.
If you're referring to the mid-air at Duxford, honestly that as an experimental flight safety discussion is kind of a moot point since the vast majority of us never fly in formation let alone try a breakaway maneuver from one. There's a bigger interest in safety when it pertains to things that actually effect the average pilot. At very least, you'll have myself (as an aviation safety researcher) to discuss, debate with and bounce ideas off of.Quote:
Safety is one issue, but it doesn't seem to draw interest, it is just not flashy enough. I wrote at some lenght about a safety issue on the warbird topic,and it hasn't drawn even one reply, except for a number of people that were only focused on what paint scheme the plane had.
I'm not a big fan of sub-forums, but then again, I'm also one of those "New Posts" people, so I'll rarely see it. I think before adding a bunch of new forums or sub-forums it might be wise to wait a while and see how things shake out. Over time, it will become obvious if another forum is needed. BTW... here is an extreme example of having too many forums and sub-forums...
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/forum.php
All that being said, I think a Fly Mart section would be nice for those members that wish to buy/sell/trade stuff.
Steve, what kind of plane do you fly? Or fly with? You may be right that the vast majority of EAA members will never fly in formation, but that seems to me to be pretty limiting. Formation flying is one of the fun things that you can do in gen aviation. And it is not that hard, despite what all the "experts" would have you believe. Certainly the basics need to be learned, but practically anyone can do it. There are 3 main points, 1. you find the 45* (or 30*) reference point on your target plane, like wing tip lined up with tailwheel on a T-6, 2. Realize that every move has more than one effect such as if you add power you not only move forward but climb, and 3. You NEVER take your eye off the leader when in close. Sure there are signals of when to change position and other fine tuning, but it is a lot easier than some people make it out. Now, I am talking basic formation, normal flight in calm conditions; not being a member of the Aeroshell team. If you are interested in learning then get the 2 video tapes from EAA as a start. Don't just go out and try it without any idea of what you are doing. It can be dangerous, though for the most part EAA accidents have not come from formation flying; except for quite a few accidents in military jet teams.
Formation flying is not just for experimental planes, many groups like Mooneys, Bonanzas, and my favorite the big DC-3 flight last year have flown into Oshkosh. I would think many, if not most, EAA pilots would want to learn formation flying, just like acrobatics, or ultrlights, or sea planes, etc. I haven't gotten to seaplanes yet, but hope too. I think most people in EAA would want to experience most all ways of fun or sport flying.
And there may be safety issues that in some aspects range across the spectrum, not just in pockets. If the Duxford accident may have been caused by one pilot trying to fly too close, to overdo it, then why do people do that? Why do people try to do acro too close to the ground, or try to stretch fuel range and run out on final to FLD or land too fast and long on rnwy 36 and run off the end?
Some of safety is knowing and practicing the right skills, but some is the catch points in human behavior. If you gave the F16 pilot a written exam, would he chose to land long and fast on a wet runway downwind? But in an airshow environment human emotions may take over.
I have access to an Aeronca Chief and the standard stuff (Cessnas and Pipers). I don't believe it's difficult to do formation flying just that it's not the most common circumstance and if we are aiming to get the NTSB and FAA off our butts and keep each other safe, we have bigger issues to focus upon. It's not that I disagree with you, but rather that I was making a point out applicability. I don't generally respond to threads that don't pertain to my interests and that might explain why you saw such a low response.
Steve, warbirds are my biggest interest,and I think also an exciting part of sport aviation. So I might not see that others are not into the same thing. But beyond the normal warbird interest, the recent colliosn and bailout at Duxford is pretty unusual and grabs you attention, and it was caught so well on cameras. Who was that great photographer?
Have you see the photos of it in sequence, and the videos?
I can see how formation might not be your main choice, but as for as the FAA or NTSB off our butts, I don't think they have any special interest in this aspect of flying. It has be awhile since I have flown formation,and last time was in Canada so I might not be up on the latest.
Think of this, How difficlut would you think it is for a young person, WITHOUT FORMAL TRAINING, to operate a mechanical device that requires balancing on two thin patches of rubber smaller than a donut? A doing this mostly in an environment that an lead to a hard impact and severe injury?
How hard do you think it is for a normal person, without extra sharp vision or reflexes and no formal formation training to operate a machine at high speed and and within feet of other large machines?
Most every 10 year old kid can ride his bike down the street,and most every driver can drive his car on the freeway, at high speed and in the midst of lots of other traffic, even large trucks. The potential for collison and danger is always there, but most trips are safe.
Yes, I know airplanes operate in 3 dimensions,and are subject to gravity. But the comparison is not night and day. Normal formation flying can be learned, and it is fun to do. This is not to say that a few hours are going to make one ready to join the Aeroshell team.
They are a big interest of mine as well, although I see them as part of "sport aviation" at least not in the sense that the phrase is used now. The exception to this might be the L and O birds. However, while I love warbirds, I personally don't care for airshows so I don't see an immediate and absolute connection between a love for warbirds and a need for formation flying.Quote:
Steve, warbirds are my biggest interest,and I think also an exciting part of sport aviation
I have. In fact, as an aviation safety researcher with decent connections, I have seen it from a couple of angles that the rest of the public most likely has not.Quote:
Have you see the photos of it in sequence, and the videos?
No, but they have a vested interest in figuring out/improving the safety record of EAB aircraft which is what I was referring to with my prior comment.Quote:
but as for as the FAA or NTSB off our butts, I don't think they have any special interest in this aspect of flying
I think you missed my point entirely. MOST pilots don't do aerobatics or formation flying because they simply don't care enough to do so not because they see it as some mystical form of aeronautic brain surgery. It's kind of like how you'd probably be bored with my desire to go point A to point B as fast as possible in private aircraft. So why get bent out of shape when addressing your interest in a forum where most of us will never fly formation (unless you count the arrival stream at KOSH ;) ) and no one expresses an interest beyond the loss of a beautiful plane?Quote:
Yes, I know airplanes operate in 3 dimensions,and are subject to gravity. But the comparison is not night and day. Normal formation flying can be learned, and it is fun to do. This is not to say that a few hours are going to make one ready to join the Aeroshell team.
Steve, when I was invited to join the 365 forum and then this new one, I tried to bring some aviation topics that I have some knowledge and experience with. I mistakenly assumed that other people might have similar interests. In the non eaa forums world, there are many people interested in formation flying like the large flights into and at Oshkosh. There are clinics for many types of planes held all over the U S. Next year is the 75 anniversary of perhaps the greatest small trainer ever, Piper J3 Cub, and I'll bet there is a large flyin of that type. And judging from the number of visitors at the warbird part of EAA, that is popular also. Surveys by airshow promoters show it is the most popular to the civilan types to attendees.
The Duxford accident had alot of discussion on another site. And I attended two type meetings at EAA where formation flying was a major topic, and at one there were large blow ups and discussion of the midair. Some people were interested, just not you or on this site.
If fast point to point, and straight and level is your thing, then you'd be wasting your time to read my stuff. I do think that , for places they go, Southwest Airlines is going to do that cheaper, faster, and safer than private aviation. If the trip itself is not an goal, the airlines and corporate jets are faster.
I can see that for you , and others here, most of what I was writing about was a waste of my time.
I do have a few questions:
What is an EAB, is it an airbus? I am not up on all the lingo of the internet.
And why do you seem to think only L& O , Liason observation planes are sport aviation and other warbirds are not. To me sport aviation just means aviation for fun, not airlines or business jets or miltary or cargo. Our EAA magazine certainly considers warbirds and other fun stuff as part of it in SPORT AVIATION.
Now back to something fascinating like cell phones, on which I don't have any experitse to contribute.
Not really if my design pans out the way it should. I could be from Indianapolis to Wilmington in an hour and twenty and then Bermuda in two. That's still faster than waiting around at the airport. I see your point, but the trip is the important part to me as I love flying. I guess having someone five feet from my wingtip makes me not as excited.Quote:
I do think that , for places they go, Southwest Airlines is going to do that cheaper, faster, and safer than private aviation. If the trip itself is not an goal, the airlines and corporate jets are faster.
Because you say "sport aviation" and most people are going to go "light sport aircraft" not a radial powered multi-million dollar warbird that 99% of us will never get to fly. The only warbirds that meet that definition (other than the scaled down replicas) are the L and O-birds. That's why I make that comment.Quote:
And why do you seem to think only L& O , Liason observation planes are sport aviation and other warbirds are not.
Then again, if you see the other thread, there is a lot of crabbing about how they also discuss commercially built aircraft too much for most people's liking. I'm not saying that it's not welcome. I am saying you should not allow your feelings to be hurt or otherwise be perturbed if no one wants to have a discussion about formation flying with you. It doesn't mean that safety isn't interesting or a concern to most people. It's just that no one at the time has anything more to add to the discussion whether it be through lack of interest or that you have said everything that can/should be said about it.Quote:
Our EAA magazine certainly considers warbirds and other fun stuff as part of it in SPORT AVIATION.
"Experimental, amateur built". It's the abbreviation the FAA and NTSB uses fairly frequently to describe what the EAA is about for the most part. It's a way of separating out the homebuilts from things that are "experimental" in other ways (demilitarized jets, commercial designs undergoing testing after modifications, etc)Quote:
What is an EAB, is it an airbus?
Sport Aviation has been the title of our magazine, for decades, long before there was any category called Light Sport Aircraft.
When I am talking about sport aviation I am talking about flying for fun, not limited to any one type of plane. Most folks are not going to fly a powered parachute, but I'd certainly think that it is part of fun or flying for sport. Same as riding in the zeplin or the Tri motor.Most folks are not going to build or fly a Wright eihter, but one of my EAA highlights was getting to fly the Wright simulator. By the way, it was Hard, and word got around, Even Patty Wagstaff didn't want to try while people were watching. There were a couple of catch points that once learned, helped , but it was a humbling experience.
If you are going to design a homebuilt to fly to Bermuda, good luck. I wouldn't want to be the passenger, but it will make a good story if you do.
I think EAA started out as homebuilts, but now is much broader, and bigger than that. I may not have much interest in a spaceship, but I like the diversity that is EAA, for the most part.
I co built a Starlite and flew it, never recall hearing about EAB.
I seem to be the only one on this forum intersted in LSA aircraft too.
Why would it be any different than riding in a King Air? It's a turboprop and will be built to (or exceed in several cases) the standards in place for standard category certification. Just because it's a homebuilt doesn't imply that I have an excuse to cut corners.Quote:
If you are going to design a homebuilt to fly to Bermuda, good luck. I wouldn't want to be the passenger, but it will make a good story if you do.
Yeah, I can understand why. It's tough to control especially after a few beers.Quote:
Even Patty Wagstaff didn't want to try while people were watching.
Steve ,for some folks whipping out at turbo homebuilt to go to Bermuda may not be much of a problem. Wasn't Melmouth, though not a turbo, capable of that? And I never wrote anything about cutting any corners, you must have me confused with some Nascar guy.
For me, I don't have much experience with turboprops, kind of in a different price range. And like jets, they sound bad and smell worse. My first choice to go to Bermuda would be a DC-4M. Those are a little scarce, so how about at super DC-3? If not my next choice is a commercial jet. My best friend went there on a sailboat out of Maryland, had a great time.
I do have a great co-pilot in mind for you, Diana Niad. I don't know if she is a pilot, but she is experienced in ocean travel. If you are not sure, look her up on Google or watch the news the next couple of days.
Good luck.
I don't know. I had never heard of it until it was mentioned on this forum. I can't find any specifics on it.Quote:
Wasn't Melmouth, though not a turbo, capable of that?
That wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular on this forum. There are some elements in experimental aviation that do treat the leeway we're given as an excuse to half-ass their construction or design. It's quite frightening to look at crashed experimentals and compare them to the plans they were allegedly built from. Often you find some glaring errors ranging from poorly thought out modifications (the guy who shortened a bar in the fuselage around the cockpit of his RV for some reason and wound up dying from head injuries and positional asphyxia comes to mind) to just shoddy craftsmanship. All too often these folks wind up dying and become part of my research. These are things that can be fixed from within (before the FAA decides to "do it" for us in a way we won't like at all) through better oversight, better education and forming a tighter knit community.Quote:
And I never wrote anything about cutting any corners,
Also, when I talk about cutting corners, it also has a lot to do with the issue of folks not wanting to improve their aircraft (in a professional and concerted sort of way) because they feel a personal attachment to it, a sense of personal offense at the idea that their beloved RV/Sonex/Pietenpol/etc could be improved, etc. We have a very bad habit of sitting on our hands up until it's time to start wringing them when one of us dies. That's what I mean by cutting corners. I've lost three friends in small aircraft crashes, a girl I briefly dated in a commercial crash in Europe and nine friends in medical helicopter crashes. I looked into it, saw room for improvement and decided to apply what I had learned. That's why I am working on the design. The fact it will take me to Bermuda is just kind of icing on the cake.
Eh. Nothing smells worse than a burning human body at a crash site. I'll deal with the smell of Jet-A (which I actually don't mind...I don't think gasolines smell all that great either) in exchange for the reduced fire risk.Quote:
And like jets, they sound bad and smell worse
Talk about out of our price ranges! LOLQuote:
My first choice to go to Bermuda would be a DC-4M. Those are a little scarce, so how about at super DC-3?
Where's the fun in that? ;)Quote:
If not my next choice is a commercial jet.
A sailboat is one of the other things I would like to design eventually. I just enjoy a good engineering challenge.Quote:
My best friend went there on a sailboat out of Maryland, had a great time.
More of an open wheel sort of fellow? Where are you out of?Quote:
you must have me confused with some Nascar guy.
I came over to "Support and Feedback" in order to suggest a Chapters section... glad I found this poll. I would really like to see a Chapters section... not a sub-section, but a top level section where chapters leaders, organizers, supporters and volunteers can share ideas on events and such. Whether it's Young Eagles, Learn to Fly Day, the B-17 coming to town or just organizing a fly-in, I know there are a lot of good ideas out there.
I saw that Young Eagles was suggested as another section... I would think that this discussion might also be conducted under the Chapters section as well. If we create too many splinter topics then the information becomes harder to track down and follow.
Just my .02
what about a maintenance/troubleshooting type section? I'm an A&P/IA that doesn't visit TOO often, a section like that would be a great place for me and others with expertise to get people the information they need in troubleshoot, maintenance, repairs, etc.
My favorites for new topics:
- "Maintenance" (questions from a/c owners that could be answered by A&Ps or other owners)
- "Chapter Activities" (suggestions for activities/events and discussions of same)
- "Where Eagles Soar" (threads related to both Young Eagles and whatever the adult version is called)
- "Flying Destinations/Events" (pancake breakfasts, fly-ins, scenic flights, friendly airports, etc.)
- "Light Sport" (ultralights have a discrete topic; this growing segment deserves one as well)
I think type-specific topics are a good idea in theory (especially for types that presently rely on the awful Yahoo message boards), but I suspect it would quickly become unmanageable in practice. Unless the mods are willing to moderate scores of topics, or permit select members to moderate type-specific topics, it could be overwhelming. The most popular types, like Vans, already have forums on the manufacturers' websites.
I've seen "Buying & Selling" topics on other boards turn into a real mess. The mods end up spending an inordinate amount of time weeding out commercial postings from people/companies trying to get free advertising. Inevitably, ads for male enhancement products will slip through the net -- it's remarkable the registration hoops those folks will jump through to post their ads. Besides, there are plenty of established aviation classified sites (Barnstormers, Trade-A-Plane, etc.).
I'd suggest renaming "Learning To Fly" to "Flight Training" so that it captures more. We're all learning on every flight; this topic can capture a lot more than just ab initio training. There are already threads here that go beyond learning to fly.
"Homebuilders Corner" is really the core of what EAA and this site are about. Turn it into a major group heading and create topics within for the various construction disciplines and techniques:
- General Discussions
- Wood
- Tube
- Sheet Metal
- Composites
- Welding
- Fabric Covering
- Firewall Forward
- Electrical & Avionics
- Landing Gear & Brakes
- Floats & Skis