FAA, Let us make our planes safer!

Peggy, there's good and bad with the regs. The summary is you want an experimental aircraft, so you should buy one and get rid of your 172.

I would like the flexibility of experimental, but I like enough other aspects of certified that I will stick with those.
 
Fearless Tower said:
IOW they haven't made a EAB twin that meets his standards:D
Click to expand...

That's most of it. I also don't have the time right now to build one, and the price would end up probably being $200k to build. I like the V-twin, but we need a 6-seat plane because of cargo space and occasional need for 6 seats.

When our son gets old enough to be interested, maybe we'll do it then. By that point I suspect there will be an experimental airframe that will be sufficient.

But the rant has been the same and is very two-sided. I myself have seen cert testing that would not have caught a problem. But E-AB planes do have a much worse safety record, so...
 
How much of the safety stuff was installed by owners after they purchased their cars? What percentage of the auto fleet was produced in the 60's and 70's?

The FAA has relaxed the rules for shoulder harnesses and AOA's to allow for installation without hoop-jumping. How many planes have them now? Does yours?

AuntPeggy said:
The rules don't reinforce their intent. The rules prevent us from improving the safety of flight for ourselves and others.

Look at the statistics on safety of light, recreational GA. It just stays on a flat line. Look at the statistics on safety of autos. Been getting better every year since the 70s.
Click to expand...
 
The #1 reason an inspector defaults to "you can't"

---THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE REGULATIONS---

So, when you find one like that, black list them and go somewhere else.

This is classic human factors. If they are not comfortable with it your request will be DOA in their hands.
 
JHW said:
I like it too, and it's big enough to replace my D95. But we need to operate from runways smaller than edwards, so canards are out for us.
Click to expand...

I forget what the advertised runway length on it was, but that part didn't seem a show stopper for me. I was more concerned with the lack of space. A 310 is really the minimum cabin space we can accept.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I forget what the advertised runway length on it was, but that part didn't seem a show stopper for me. I was more concerned with the lack of space. A 310 is really the minimum cabin space we can accept.
Click to expand...
whatever they publish, flying a canard off short strips regularly is a no-go. With what we have now I can mow 1500 ft at the farm and not worry about it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes and no....problem is that the intent of the rules for installing new technology is to insert the requirement that some 'expert' (ie not Jim Bob down the street, self-proclaimed 'expert of the interwebz') has reviewed the install to insure that it can and is done in such a way to prevent the added safety from killing you in some other way.

Same intent behind a PMA'd part versus going to Auto Zone to buy your repair parts. The PMA part has been through a process to determine that it is indeed acceptable to use in the airplane in question. Whereas the part that appears identical that you find at the car parts place may or may not be manufactured to the same standard.


Apples and oranges.

No amount of technology is going to stop pilots from pushing the limits, running their airplanes out of gas, stalling and spinning it in on base to final, losing control of a twin after engine failure.

Things you don't have to worry about in cars.
Click to expand...
Met any teenaged drivers lately?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Peggy, there's good and bad with the regs. The summary is you want an experimental aircraft, so you should buy one and get rid of your 172.

I would like the flexibility of experimental, but I like enough other aspects of certified that I will stick with those.
Click to expand...
I don't want an experimental. But that begs the question. Why not just apply the same rules to all of us?
 
AuntPeggy said:
Still don't get it. BTW, personal insults are not appreciated.
Click to expand...


Debbie = Debonair the airplane in the AOPA givaway sweetstakes that has a BRAND SPANKING new panel and an iPad right in the middle.

I'm not the one screaming "OMG we can't......" when you haven't even researched or communicated with someone in the modifications biz and asked if you can. So the comment stands.
 
wabower said:
How much of the safety stuff was installed by owners after they purchased their cars? What percentage of the auto fleet was produced in the 60's and 70's?

The FAA has relaxed the rules for shoulder harnesses and AOA's to allow for installation without hoop-jumping. How many planes have them now? Does yours?
Click to expand...
And how many new cars retail for 1/4 million dollars?
 
They allow aircraft equipped with a Dynon EFIS as primary systems to fly in IMC and file IFR, yet doing so in a certified airplane is illegal under the auspices of SAFETY? Riddle me that.....
 
hindsight2020 said:
They allow aircraft equipped with a Dynon EFIS as primary systems to fly in IMC and file IFR, yet doing so in a certified airplane is illegal under the auspices of SAFETY? Riddle me that.....
Click to expand...


It all boils down to $. Do you want to pay the fees to show compliance with regs (STC project) to do that or just buy an already appoved system?

#1 Spend $ on an engineering project to install a $100 coffee maker from walmart

or

#2 Buy the already FAA appoved coffee maker for $10k
 
bnt83 said:
Debbie = Debonair the airplane in the AOPA givaway sweetstakes that has a BRAND SPANKING new panel and an iPad right in the middle.
Click to expand...
OK. Not so much into AOPA or their aircraft sweepstakes. Sorry for my ignorance.

I'm not the one screaming "OMG we can't......" when you haven't even researched or communicated with someone in the modifications biz and asked if you can.
Click to expand...
I have been doing that for years. Keep getting the same answers. I'm willing to learn.
So the comment stands.
Click to expand...
OK. Rude is rude.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I don't want an experimental. But that begs the question. Why not just apply the same rules to all of us?
Click to expand...

The rules are different because experimental means there is no required testing rigor, and certified means there is.

You are asking that no cert testing be required for parts to be added to a plane. By definition, that puts it in experimental.

I'm sure gecko would love to sell you an RV. ;)
 
AuntPeggy said:
Absolutely correct. Are those carseats hard to find? I have not found any and will soon need to buy a few for my grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Mine are Maxi-Cosi, not the cheapest brand. I haven't noticed if other brands are certified for aircraft.
 
bnt83 said:
It all boils down to $. Do you want to pay the fees to show compliance with regs (STC project) to do that or just buy an already appoved system?
Click to expand...
Right. And time.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I don't want an experimental. But that begs the question. Why not just apply the same rules to all of us?
Click to expand...
then you've made your bed, so lie in it. I just don't get these tirades that some up periodically from various quarters. Everything you want, and more, is ripe for the picking in the E/AB world. You are the one turning your back on it.
 
That's the point. If the regulatory environment had been the same for cars and planes, the changes would have been about the same. The voluntary upgrades by carmakers have been things the public wanted to buy, not the safety features that have been mandated by regulators.

I installed seat belts in a '54 Ford in '58 because the plastic seatcovers were slick and I couldn't turn left without sliding across. I didn't see another set of belts in a car until they became mandatory some years later. Many valuable auto safety features have been available for years as after-market add-ons, including rear-view cameras and sensors for cars, trucks and SUV's, but very few used vehicles have them installed. Dunno the current status, but have heard rumblings that DOT may soon require them.

Everskyward said:
You could argue that part of that has been due to regulation.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The rules are different because experimental means there is no required testing rigor, and certified means there is.

You are asking that no cert testing be required for parts to be added to a plane. By definition, that puts it in experimental.

I'm sure gecko would love to sell you an RV. ;)
Click to expand...
And you have to get an individual STC and 337 for each and every installation. Do the 2nd and 200th installation require additional testing?
 
AuntPeggy said:
And you have to get an individual STC and 337 for each and every installation. Do the 2nd and 200th installation require additional testing?
Click to expand...


The STC is nothing more than a certificate that proves compliance when properly installed. Since someone PAYED to generate the STC, the STC holder is entiled to whatever sum of $ he/she wishes to charge for people to use their engineering work.
 
JHW said:
then you've made your bed, so lie in it. I just don't get these tirades that some up periodically from various quarters. Everything you want, and more, is ripe for the picking in the E/AB world. You are the one turning your back on it.
Click to expand...
Because of the FAA restrictions on where and how I can fly an experimental.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Because of the FAA restrictions on where and how I can fly an experimental.
Click to expand...
I've ridden in E/AB planes in and out of the washington ADIZ, into JFK and O'Hare, the hudson corridor, to canada, mexico, over cuba to grand cayman. What is it you're doing that you think it can't be done in a homebuilt ?
 
wabower said:
That's the point. If the regulatory environment had been the same for cars and planes, the changes would have been about the same. The voluntary upgrades by carmakers have been things the public wanted to buy, not the safety features that have been mandated by regulators.

I installed seat belts in a '54 Ford in '58 because the plastic seatcovers were slick and I couldn't turn left without sliding across. I didn't see another set of belts in a car until they became mandatory some years later. Many valuable auto safety features have been available for years as after-market add-ons, including rear-view cameras and sensors for cars, trucks and SUV's, but very few used vehicles have them installed. Dunno the current status, but have heard rumblings that DOT may soon require them.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know how many installations of various items were done voluntarily vs. when they became mandatory.
 
AuntPeggy said:
And you have to get an individual STC and 337 for each and every installation. Do the 2nd and 200th installation require additional testing?
Click to expand...
No, but the cost you personally pay for your STC is a _very_ small fraction of what the STC owner had to pay to go through the process to convince others that their product is safe, and they also took a risk that the STC might not ever be permitted.

Extreme case in point: The Cessna 182 (certain models, at least) has a maximum gross weight of 2950 pounds. A company sells an STC to increase that to 3100 pounds without any hardware modification. A piece of paper that allows me to carry additional weight, as long as I'm willing to pay $750 for it. Quite an expensive piece of paper, no? Well, maybe not, since the company that owns the STC put in a lot of time and money to get FAA approval for that STC, and since they succeeded they are due their payback. If things worked according to your view of "it's already been shown to be safe, so we shouldn't have to pay ourselves" -- do you think that STC would have ever been researched, knowing there could be no return on investment?
 
JHW said:
I've ridden in E/AB planes in and out of the washington ADIZ, into JFK and O'Hare, the hudson corridor, to canada, mexico, over cuba to grand cayman. What is it you're doing that you think it can't be done in a homebuilt ?
Click to expand...

Something for money?
 
bartmc said:
Something for money?
Click to expand...
Is she operating a 135 gig in her C-172 ?

what we commonly see here and elsewhere is that people don't want to solve a problem, they want to throw a temper tantrum. When it is pointed out that a ready solution exists, they will find more and more arcane reasons that it's not acceptable.
 
C182P said:
No, but the cost you personally pay for your STC is a _very_ small fraction of what the STC owner had to pay to go through the process to convince others that their product is safe, and they also took a risk that the STC might not ever be permitted.

Extreme case in point: The Cessna 182 (certain models, at least) has a maximum gross weight of 2950 pounds. A company sells an STC to increase that to 3100 pounds without any hardware modification. A piece of paper that allows me to carry additional weight, as long as I'm willing to pay $750 for it. Quite an expensive piece of paper, no? Well, maybe not, since the company that owns the STC put in a lot of time and money to get FAA approval for that STC, and since they succeeded they are due their payback. If things worked according to your view of "it's already been shown to be safe, so we shouldn't have to pay ourselves" -- do you think that STC would have ever been researched, knowing there could be no return on investment?
Click to expand...
And that is part 2 of my complaint. Why should the STC owner put in a lot of time and money to get FAA approval for that STC?
 
AuntPeggy said:
And you have to get an individual STC and 337 for each and every installation. Do the 2nd and 200th installation require additional testing?
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing what an STC is.

To get an STC, testing is required. Once the owner has the STC, he can sell it to you (as is his right). To install the STC'd part on your plane, you need a 337 form with the STC paper attached as evidence. No further testing required.

Now if you decide to do a 337 without STC, testing may be required and if I want to duplicate it (also on a 337) the same testing may be required.
 
JHW said:
Is she operating a 135 gig in her C-172 ?

what we commonly see here and elsewhere is that people don't want to solve a problem, they want to throw a temper tantrum. When it is pointed out that a ready solution exists, they will find more and more arcane reasons that it's not acceptable.
Click to expand...
In the meantime, GA is dying because it is too expensive and too unsafe.
 
AP here's a thought; you love Europe and all their Utopian regulations right? I suggest you talk to an EASA based aircraft owner and get back to us about how bad the FAA is. Many foreign countries MANDATE the recommended life limits the OEM set. Such as, the 12 year or 2000 TBO whichever is first, on the Lycoming in your Cessna. That would ground many aircraft in the USA.



For instance, I want a different piece of carpet in my baggage compartment than the airplane came with. Even tho the replacement piece passes burn cert testing, I cannot install is without the piece being approved by a CAMO (certified aircraft maintenance organization) or EASA.
 
AuntPeggy said:
And that is part 2 of my complaint. Why should the STC owner put in a lot of time and money to get FAA approval for that STC?
Click to expand...

Should we:

A) Fly our planes at whatever weight we want.
B) Have an STC process to increase GW if it's shown to be safe.
C) Take what's in the POH and live with it.

We're talking engineering data here. That's expensive. I have a quote from an engineer to look at some flood maps and push some government paperwork through for $20,000, and that's without a guarantee that FEMA will accept it, and no guarantee that FEMA will continue to accept the numbers later on if they change their mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top