JHW
En-Route
not so different. any used airplane is an unknown quantity. I don't view buying a used E/AB of an established design as any different than buying an old piper or cessna. You can find all sorts of nasty surprises either way.
FAA, Let us make our planes safer!
- Thread starter AuntPeggy
- Start date
If you buy an old P,C or B you at least know who built it originally.
Is it possible that Jay and hindsight are wanting to make GA safer by copying the experimental crowd. How does the safety record of experimental compare to the certified crowd. Would this be a step in the right direction?
I personally would have no problem with a procedure of decertifying certain age and size of aircraft for private use. There would have to be legislation removing liability from the original builder and every facility that touched the plane prior to de certifying. I certainly do not see this as the savior of aviation but who knows.
As far as the cost of certification both Bill and Ted make very valid points. Flying just ain't cheap, never has been. Threefinger may have the best idea.
Is it possible that Jay and hindsight are wanting to make GA safer by copying the experimental crowd. How does the safety record of experimental compare to the certified crowd. Would this be a step in the right direction?
I personally would have no problem with a procedure of decertifying certain age and size of aircraft for private use. There would have to be legislation removing liability from the original builder and every facility that touched the plane prior to de certifying. I certainly do not see this as the savior of aviation but who knows.
As far as the cost of certification both Bill and Ted make very valid points. Flying just ain't cheap, never has been. Threefinger may have the best idea.
Horsecrap................
Show me ONE crash that was caused by poor workmanship in an experimental....
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
Cage match with Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Stuart Smally (Flaming D-MN). Winner gets to draft EFB rules.
This may be the first time I would pull for a D!
JHW
En-Route
After 30 years of repairs and modifications, it doesn't really matter who built it originally. Besides, when I first took my Seneca project apart, I found a 3 foot crowbar inside the wing. The place it was that, it could have only gotten there in the factory. I guess it's a good thing it was a factory trained assembler who did that, and not Jay in his garage. Otherwise, it could have been a real problem
Bill Watson
En-Route
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/1999/990126.htm
You are probably thinking 'poor workmanship' as in bad riveting in a kit or improper layup work. But just like flying, it's not poor flying skills or building skills that kill you as much as bad decision making or design decisions.
People make up their own electrical systems to put in even the most popular homebuilts. Same with fuel systems. Fuel systems can kill you ugly. Electrical system failures are often just distractions but not always.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20071120X01821&key=1
And then non-aviation power plants are used in many experimentals but of course they never cause an accident... t's just the pilots inability to execute his last off field power off landing properly.
But I assume you were just being facetious and baiting the gullible. Thanks for contributing.
Ha................
I designed my OWN fuel system that flows 35 gallon an hour..... Not ONE problem...
I crafted my OWN electrical system .. Not ONE problem.....
I even used a "NON -AVIATION POWERPLANT and so far.. I am still alive..... Thank god I don't have a CERTIFIED LYCOMING crank as they break...:wink2:
....Next question sir....
Todd Copeland
Pre-takeoff checklist
As an experimental guy, flying the first one I built. Also flying a cessna 172m, and building a Glasair 3, I have a couple of thoughts on this subject. During the annual of my cessna, owner assisted of course, I wanted to replace the interior light bulbs with LED bulbs. Advantages; less power to operate, last longer, brighter. Can't do it because of regulations?! Really?!
My glasair has dual lightspeed electronic ignition. When installed correctly, very reliable and 15-20% more efficient. Certified in some applications in Europe, the carbon cub uses them, they have been used for more than 20 years now but I have to run a dual magneto on my cessna. Technology that was outdated in the 1970's by something much more reliable.
I am going to install a garmin g3x glass panel in my Glasair. It would be a dramatic improvement in the cessna, but its not possible save for a solution that would be twice the value of the airplane, simply because of outdated ideas in the FAA. Can you honestly tell me that the g3x wouldn't be a safer instrument installation than the steam gauges and vacuum pump?
The things I would like to see allowed make too much sense for our government to ever consider them seriously. This is the same government that took a good idea with light sport and ruined it with the limitations of the aircraft weight. I mean come on, does anyone think an elderly person with slower reflexes that can legally fly light sport, is safer flying one of the new light sport twitchy aircraft than a cessna 150?
My glasair has dual lightspeed electronic ignition. When installed correctly, very reliable and 15-20% more efficient. Certified in some applications in Europe, the carbon cub uses them, they have been used for more than 20 years now but I have to run a dual magneto on my cessna. Technology that was outdated in the 1970's by something much more reliable.
I am going to install a garmin g3x glass panel in my Glasair. It would be a dramatic improvement in the cessna, but its not possible save for a solution that would be twice the value of the airplane, simply because of outdated ideas in the FAA. Can you honestly tell me that the g3x wouldn't be a safer instrument installation than the steam gauges and vacuum pump?
The things I would like to see allowed make too much sense for our government to ever consider them seriously. This is the same government that took a good idea with light sport and ruined it with the limitations of the aircraft weight. I mean come on, does anyone think an elderly person with slower reflexes that can legally fly light sport, is safer flying one of the new light sport twitchy aircraft than a cessna 150?
Last edited:
Todd, you make a very valid point. It does seem hard to explain the price difference from the same company. Where do you draw the line. The g3x certainly has a lot of bang for the buck and I suspect it is dependable. The problem might become which un certified items. What about items other than from a large well known company like Garmin. Once you open the floodgate to allow ANY un certified part it just seems it could be problematic. I think the manufacture may bear some fault.
But remember Garmin makes no claim to the suitability of their non certified stuff. The same 530 in the 172 also had to work in the KA.
There is no doubt there is a problem. The major problem is that aviation is very expensive.
Oh, and Ben, first take a deep breath, relax a little. What part of what I said is horse crap. You do know who built the plane if it was built by C,P. or B. There was no implication that the building was inferior or superior, just that you know who and you know to what standards is was suppose to be built to and/or repaired to. Just a statement of fact.
But remember Garmin makes no claim to the suitability of their non certified stuff. The same 530 in the 172 also had to work in the KA.
There is no doubt there is a problem. The major problem is that aviation is very expensive.
Oh, and Ben, first take a deep breath, relax a little. What part of what I said is horse crap. You do know who built the plane if it was built by C,P. or B. There was no implication that the building was inferior or superior, just that you know who and you know to what standards is was suppose to be built to and/or repaired to. Just a statement of fact.
Todd Copeland
Pre-takeoff checklist
I would draw the line by suggesting the same ATSM standards used in light sport aircraft should be allowed. As far as other items from garmin I'm guessing you are referring to handheld units? I think there is a good reason they aren't allowed for IFR but otherwise they are already used and allowed.
Bill Watson
En-Route
You're bad, yes you are!
Ha................
I designed my OWN fuel system that flows 35 gallon an hour..... Not ONE problem...
I crafted my OWN electrical system .. Not ONE problem.....
I even used a "NON -AVIATION POWERPLANT and so far.. I am still alive..... Thank god I don't have a CERTIFIED LYCOMING crank as they break...:wink2:
Next question sir....
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,661
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,661
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I was thinking about all the gadgets some of us have to have in the cockpit in order to feel safe. What does it say about me in that I would rather win EAA's 70 yr old Stearman tail dragger (oh no) over AOPA's decked out Debonair? I must be a risk taker with a death wish? I don't think there's anything unsafe about flying an aircraft that doesn't fly itself and doesn't come with a coffee maker. Personally I think the challenge of flying the Stearman would be far more rewarding than pushing buttons in the Debonair. 
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,181
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
It's very possible the GA ADS-B UAT data link is an addressed thing, the way 1090 Mhz. Mode S Transponders are for part 121 airplanes.
I haven't taken the time to research the specs on this, but I'm guessing with ADS-B, there is no way for the ADS-R (the repeater) to sent you position data on the X number of aircraft in your proximity without knowing your position and exactly who to send it to.
Most non ADS-B GA transponders are Mode A/C. They only reply when swept by ground radar or a TCAS II system (not P-CAS).
I don't really know how the ground system knows which aircraft are in your proximity in a TIS equipped aircraft either, but I believe TIS only gives you the 7 nearest aircraft. Ever wonder how it knows to only send you info on who is close to you?
ADS-B surveillance is designed to work in non radar airspace.
This is very incomplete as posts go, but it's an enormously complicated system. Where I don't design these things for a living, unwinding all the details would take me weeks. The RTCA will sell you copies of all the specs if you are really interested.
I've picked it apart for an airline before, but what applies for an airline is not applicable to GA.
I do suspect your assertion is not true.
Last edited:
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Yup, and for planes used (or potentially used) for higher, especially with paying passengers certification is good.
I would love to see an option for a factory built plane to a lesser certification standard, for a smaller cost for those who don't have any interest in making money with their plane.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,181
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
One of the problems with a caveat emptor approach to safety (vs government enforcement) is that, the processes available to the consumer for addressing safety issues then fall to the legal system.
I thought we determined that works out bad for aviation.
I thought we determined that works out bad for aviation.
PilotAlan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Display Name
Display name:
PilotAlan
Thank God for certification, otherwise bad components would get into aircraft. Oh, wait.........
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62411
And the government enforcement process only means that manufacturers (like Kelley and Marvel) can use the rulemaking process to force us to replace perfectly good components at OUR expense, and with the weight of the FAA behind the requirement.
Or replace bad components at OUR expense, rather than the manufacturers'.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,181
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
I believe a large part of the certification process is simply making sure there is enough information in the manufacturing records to identify and trace the extent of the problems when they occur.
A lot of the quality control is also about making sure they are consistently manufactured the same way. If all parts off an assembly line failed in different ways for different reasons, there is no way to make any case for any reliability whatsoever.
A lot of the quality control is also about making sure they are consistently manufactured the same way. If all parts off an assembly line failed in different ways for different reasons, there is no way to make any case for any reliability whatsoever.
PilotAlan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Display Name
Display name:
PilotAlan
And I believe the certification process is a massive paper chase, pursuing performance requirements made up on the fly.
Ask whelen about the certification nightmare trying to replace unreliable tractor headlights cum landing lights with low draw and near-infinite lifespan LEDs. They burned up hundreds of thousands of dollars (and two years) on that nightmare.
Better, look at the gillen-phx's PMA'd replacement for the Cherokee door handle. The original was a pot metal door handle from a Ford Falcon, if I remember correctly. The replacement is laser cut aluminum after a year and a half paper chase to meet previously non-existent, ever changing "standards" for a door handle.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,181
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
It seemed like a lot of random nonsense to me when I worked as a mechanic and was only exposed to a little piece here and there.
It wasn't until I got some decent training and worked through the process a few times before it made any sense. Sometimes it can become a huge goat rope, often because of the people involved. Right now, it seems pretty logical, to me.
I've been involved with STCs that busted. Manufacturer was at fault in the cases I've dealt with.
Last edited:
Perhaps there ought to be some kind of program for certified aircraft where a private pilot can install certain equipment on their own and self-certify that they have followed some sort of testing procedure or installation check. Then they can fly on it until the next annual and if an A&P sees an issue with it, they can insist on fixing it before signing off on it.
One example I'd throw out is something I've been looking at lately- engine heaters. Many of these are just a piece of heat material and some hose clamps to hold it onto the cylinders. The hardest part of the whole thing would be routing the wiring. I don't see how I'm not qualified to do something that simple.
One example I'd throw out is something I've been looking at lately- engine heaters. Many of these are just a piece of heat material and some hose clamps to hold it onto the cylinders. The hardest part of the whole thing would be routing the wiring. I don't see how I'm not qualified to do something that simple.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Canadian style owner maintenance would solve half of everyone's complaints. And whatcha know there is a track record for it so we don't have to guess how unsafe it might be. Unless Canadians are better mechanics then us.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
ADs are not an indication that certification does nothing. E-AB still suffer far more engine failures than their certified equivalents, so apparently certification does something.
Has it gone too far? Absolutely. Does it still offer some benefit? Absolutely. Is it worth it? That's the call of the individual. Personally, I'm getting more and more ready to go experimental. However I also don't dent the benefits of certification.
The cert efforts I've gone through have absolutely caught problems that would have killed someone had they gone unfixed. Not because the design was bad or the participants were inept, but just because you don't know what you don't know sometimes.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've bought and sold a dozen experimentals built by someone else. Minor repairs as you would expect in any used aircraft, but I flew all of them home first from all over the country. You can look at the quality of the build and make the assessment in an hour or less. With a little education it becomes clear. All flying aircraft are issued an airworthlyness cert by the FAA after inspection. Many times they ( even certified) do not pass and have rework.
As far as knowing who built it, I would rather shake the hand of the builder and look at his work than rely on an underpaid factory worker ****ed off at his boss.
YMMV.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,181
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
I have worked with certain Airline QA people that had to be involved with my STC project owing to company policies. Sometimes they'd just have a specific role to play in the process. But absent training on the overall process or understanding of why a particular STC prototype and test event will not look anything like the last one they participated in, I think their personal effort to rationalize what was going on to general principles got in the way. It could get very weird very fast.
It seemed like some individuals would just contrive some very inventive and unnecessary road block that would halt all progress.
So then we'd struggle to find solutions for way too much of the day, and in the 11th hour, when we're looking right into the jaws of project death, the same individual would have some epiphany and develop some fiendishly clever rationalization that allowed us to get past the fiendishly clever road block they contrived, and we'd wrap it up and call it a day.
So it goes. (apologies to KV)
Thankfully, most of the folks I work with now are very good.
Last edited: