Pattern Madness

[poadeleted20]

Finding one quasi-near me while I'm off. Supposed to be one coming up in Georgia, but nothing definite.

Still don't know where you are, but if you shoot me an email off-board, I'll put you on the list of folks to be notified next time we run one in the Eastern US. As I said, we should be able to mix an RV-6 in with Tigers, especially if it has a nosewheel.

 

[shenanigans]

Read it and weep.

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

 

[Troska]

I agree completely. The E/AB community is going to wreck it for everyone. All they can do is angrily deny that any sort of problems exist. With these sort of egos in the field, I doubt anyone can change the behaviors that make these aircraft so crash prone. The FAA will therefore do so in a regulatory fashion, and I think we'll all suffer afterwards.

What in Odin's name are you talking about?

While safely flying my homebuilt for 136 hours in the last year and half, what have I wrecked for you?

Did you READ the article you linked to? Can you point out where either Van or the FAA listed which factors they wanted to address? Builder error? Proficiency before first flight? Pilot idiocy? Unacceptable risk taking? How in the world can you claim to know EAB is ruining it, when IT hasn't been defined?

It is the same as on the Red board. There are a pile of us EAB people who do our best to safely operate our craft. You are not part of that pile.

You are part of the pile that makes vague, inflammatory statements encompassing the entire homebuilder community, to which you do not belong "E/AB community is going to wreck it for everyone".

I AM part of that community, and I for one am tired of you and others making these detrimental statements that include all of us as contributors to a problem that has not even been adequetely defined yet.

Keep driving the wedge.

Tim

 

[EdFred]

What in Odin's name are you talking about?

While safely flying my homebuilt for 136 hours in the last year and half, what have I wrecked for you?

Did you READ the article you linked to? Can you point out where either Van or the FAA listed which factors they wanted to address? Builder error? Proficiency before first flight? Pilot idiocy? Unacceptable risk taking? How in the world can you claim to know EAB is ruining it, when IT hasn't been defined?

It is the same as on the Red board. There are a pile of us EAB people who do our best to safely operate our craft. You are not part of that pile.

You are part of the pile that makes vague, inflammatory statements encompassing the entire homebuilder community, to which you do not belong "E/AB community is going to wreck it for everyone".

I AM part of that community, and I for one am tired of you and others making these detrimental statements that include all of us as contributors to a problem that has not even been adequetely defined yet.

Keep driving the wedge.

Tim

I only hate you because your plane is so damn bright when the sun is out.

 

[Troska]

I only hate you because your plane is so damn bright when the sun is out.

I went with flat black spray can paint now.

I don't ever have to wash it, just get another couple spray cans and spray over the the bird poo.

Tim

 

[wsuffa]

I went with flat black spray can paint now.

I don't ever have to wash it, just get another couple spray cans and spray over the the bird poo.

Tim

Auto primer grey would be attractive, too...

 

[steingar]

What in Odin's name are you talking about?

I'm talking about a pack of arrogant egotistical idiots who will ruin the entire thing for everyone.

While safely flying my homebuilt for 136 hours in the last year and half, what have I wrecked for you?

The only two times I flew in RV's, I witnessed every bad thing ever discussed in reference to them. I guess our experiences differ.

Did you READ the article you linked to? Can you point out where either Van or the FAA listed which factors they wanted to address? Builder error? Proficiency before first flight? Pilot idiocy? Unacceptable risk taking? How in the world can you claim to know EAB is ruining it, when IT hasn't been defined?

The FAA says the crash rate is too high. They said, point blank to a business owner, that if he (and his colleagues) didn't do something about it, they (the FAA would) and they were not too shy about threatening to put him out of business.

Obviously you haven't dealt with the government. They really aren't all that strident in their doings, at least not at this level. Usually threats are implied, and in very neutral language. What Van said in that post was very, very alarming.

The FAA doesn't care about how their concerns are addressed. They have only one goal, to decrease accidents of experimental aircraft (actually, they're trying to drive down the accident rate in GA, but E/Ab seems to be the red-headed stepchild, and for good reason). Grounding the E/Ab fleet would achieve that goal quite nicely.

It is the same as on the Red board. There are a pile of us EAB people who do our best to safely operate our craft. You are not part of that pile.

That was my observation. That the threads were identical, and that the only logical conclusion was sufficient regulation to ground the majority of the aircraft. Enjoy yours while you can.

You are part of the pile that makes vague, inflammatory statements encompassing the entire homebuilder community, to which you do not belong "E/AB community is going to wreck it for everyone".

O.K., let me be more specific. You and your ilk will wreck it for me. I would very much like to build or purchase an experimental aircraft in the future. However, I strongly believe that the FAA will clamp down, and I will be unable, thanks to you and your community. Once again we see angry denial.

I AM part of that community, and I for one am tired of you and others making these detrimental statements that include all of us as contributors to a problem that has not even been adequetely defined yet.

I don't give a rat's ass of what you are tired or not. The FAA says there's a problem. Your "defense" is nothing more than denial that the problem exists. I have seen nothing that suggests anyone in the E/Ab community takes this seriously, or is ready to embrace a safety culture. All I see is "there's no problem, we're wonderful".

Keep driving the wedge.

Tim

Like I said, enjoy the bird while you can. When it all goes away, if you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror.

 

[kyleb]

Regarding AA-1 engine upgrades:

Most of the engine upgrade STC's include a GW increase equal to the extra weight of the larger engine, resulting in no change in useful load. Some don't. Shop carefully.

You can keep the same range if you throttle back, but if you want to go fast, yes, there is a range penalty. There's also an STC for aux tanks giving an addition 10 gallons of fuel. That gives you more range/payload flexibility. But if you really want more range, payload and speed, you'd do better to trade up to a Tiger.

That sounds like the O-290 engine, the STC for which doesn't include a GW increase, so there's a significant useful load penalty. Not a good choice, and unsurprisingly, not very popular.

Yep, the airplane did have the 0-290 - a bad choice for several reasons, including supportability. I thought the airplane with that engine was a horrible set of compromises, but didn't know there was a GW upgrade available with other engine choices. That would make a difference.

 

[AEROBAT]

G

It's not just RVers EdFred. Apparently there is some disagreement somewhere.

We fly the pattern 500' high in the 121 environment.

Naval Air Station at New Orleans has a PUBLISHED overhead break pattern altitude of 1500' with normal TPA at 1000'.

Link: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KNBG

I'll add I don't hold an FFI card. I was taught formation by two military military instructors, on a former Squadron Commander - my uncle and father.

People keep saying this is an efficient way to enter the pattern and get down quick, but how does diving 500' in the pattern make things efficient?

 

[poadeleted20]

Regarding AA-1 engine upgrades:

Yep, the airplane did have the 0-290 - a bad choice for several reasons, including supportability. I thought the airplane with that engine was a horrible set of compromises, but didn't know there was a GW upgrade available with other engine choices. That would make a difference.

Anyone considering an engine upgrade for an AA-1x should check with David Fletcher at Fletchair and Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW before making their selection. They know all the options and all the strengths and weaknesses of each.

 

[poadeleted20]

People keep saying this is an efficient way to enter the pattern and get down quick, but how does diving 500' in the pattern make things efficient?

I think we've already gotten BUF to realize that it's not a good idea, and that it's not the way the military or the FAST/FFI folks teach it. And I don't think anyone else suggested it.

 

[Troska]

The only two times I flew in RV's, I witnessed every bad thing ever discussed in reference to them. I guess our experiences differ.

I said I've operated safely in my EAB for 136 hours so far. I asked what I wrecked for you. You answered with an anecdote about your experiences (n=2) in RV's. Again:While safely flying my homebuilt for 136 hours in the last year and half, what have I wrecked for you?

The FAA says the crash rate is too high. They said, point blank to a business owner, that if he (and his colleagues) didn't do something about it, they (the FAA would) and they were not too shy about threatening to put him out of business.

Let me be more specific: If the FAA hasn't identified what factor in the accidents they want addressed, what in specific are us EAB people doing, that you think we are doing on purpose and have our head in the sand about, that is a factor in the crashes.

Obviously you haven't dealt with the government.

Incorrect assumption, but inconsequential.

The FAA doesn't care about how their concerns are addressed. They have only one goal, to decrease accidents of experimental aircraft (actually, they're trying to drive down the accident rate in GA, but E/Ab seems to be the red-headed stepchild, and for good reason). Grounding the E/Ab fleet would achieve that goal quite nicely.

I, and most other EAB operators strive to operate in a safe manner. What exactly are we doing that you think we should be addressing. Give me a specific that applies to my operation.

That was my observation. That the threads were identical, and that the only logical conclusion was sufficient regulation to ground the majority of the aircraft. Enjoy yours while you can. .

You misunderstood. I was saying that your comments are the same here as on the Red Board, and that they don't have any positive contribution to either GA or EAB in specific. Repeatedly yelling "those EAB ilk better clean up their act" is neither constructive or educating.

O.K., let me be more specific. You and your ilk will wreck it for me. I would very much like to build or purchase an experimental aircraft in the future. However, I strongly believe that the FAA will clamp down, and I will be unable, thanks to you and your community. Once again we see angry denial..

I will ask you again, what exactly am I (and the ilk) doing to wreck it for you. I don't want to wreck anything for anyone. I'll stop the action if you'll identify it.

I don't give a rat's ass of what you are tired or not. The FAA says there's a problem. Your "defense" is nothing more than denial that the problem exists. I have seen nothing that suggests anyone in the E/Ab community takes this seriously, or is ready to embrace a safety culture. All I see is "there's no problem, we're wonderful". .

I built my plane to the best of my abilities. I had it inspected. I maintain it to the best of my abilities. I fly it to the best of my abilities. I received training before I flew it. I created a flight test plan, and I flew my plan. I carry insurance in case something does go wrong. I get recurring training and participate in WINGS. I've had spin training, upset training, acro training. I fly it regularly and stay proficient.

What do _I_ do, Steingar, that deserves you telling me I am the problem with my head in the sand, and I am wrecking EAB?

Like I said, enjoy the bird while you can. When it all goes away, if you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror.

I will enjoy it. If it all goes away, I'll sleep just fine knowing I did what I could to safely operate my EAB, and those other EAB operators that I've observed have participated with as much, if not more attention to safety than certified operators I've observed. (n>2)

I will also strive not to paint other cherokee drivers with the brush that you've created.

Tim

 

[AEROBAT]

Maybe the FAA will end up making some sort of rating/endorsement for AB planes like they did with taildraggers to try and reduce the accident rate. I hope not.

 

[PeteJE]

Maybe the FAA will end up making some sort of rating/endorsement for AB planes like they did with taildraggers to try and reduce the accident rate. I hope not.

What is scary is they can do anything they want as these planes operate with the freedom they do only under issued op limits that can be revoked / changed. 91.319 is pretty restrictive and without the expanded op limits the exp. plane are issued currently... yikes.

 

[shenanigans]

Let me be more specific: If the FAA hasn't identified what factor in the accidents they want addressed, what in specific are us EAB people doing, that you think we are doing on purpose and have our head in the sand about, that is a factor in the crashes.

The link I read seemed pretty clear. The problem is the rate of (fatal) accidents being far above the overall GA rate. The factors they want addressed are the ones that are causing that higher rate of accidents. As I read it, if they get to the point of detailing the specifics of all the factors and how they want them dealt with, it will be followed by them 'fixing' the problem themselves.

We complain a lot about the FAA over regulating everything. Now they take the opposite stance and say "here's the problem - go fix it"... and we hear complaints that they aren't micromanaging the solution process enough???

 

[Ken Kopp]

One of the problems with the accident rate stats is they are based upon voluntarily submitted surveyed flight hours and in lieu of completed surveys the FAA just estimates.

It is far easier to gain accurate information on the number of hours flown in production aircraft because the hours are logged during annual inspections, documented in flight schools and other commercial venues.

The FAA has no way of accurately estimating the true number of hours flown by EAB pilots. considering the actual number of fatal accidents as a fraction of EAB pilots is very low it doesn't take much statistical error in the estimation of total flight hours to throw the stats way, way off.... some guesses as to how many EAB pilots actually participate in the annual surveys is below 30% - but this is equally a guess. If the annual flight time estimates by the FAA are significantly lower than reality then the number of fatal accidents as a function of flight hours goes way up and a 10 year avg has them only marginally above those of GA. If the FAA had accurate flight time info the accident rate numbers wouldn't look as bleak.

Statistics do not prove trends unless the underlying data are accurate.

 

[Troska]

The link I read seemed pretty clear. The problem is the rate of (fatal) accidents being far above the overall GA rate. The factors they want addressed are the ones that are causing that higher rate of accidents. As I read it, if they get to the point of detailing the specifics of all the factors and how they want them dealt with, it will be followed by them 'fixing' the problem themselves.

We complain a lot about the FAA over regulating everything. Now they take the opposite stance and say "here's the problem - go fix it"... and we hear complaints that they aren't micromanaging the solution process enough???

No - please don't misunderstand why I asked if he read the article - I appreciate that the FAA is saying "here is a problem, we'll give you a shot at addressing it." I don't have a problem with what Van wrote or what the FAA is asking.

What I don't think is worthwhile is someone who is not a participant in the EAB community saying that I specifically need to clean up my act, and that all EAB particpants are part of the problem because they aren't fixing it.

That is why I asked if Steingar read what he posted, and if he would clarify what HE is talking about when he keeps saying "You are the problem - fix it".

Fix what? If he defines the problem as "EAB's crashing" - well then no ****, I'm going to do everything I can to not crash while participating risk/reward scenarios that make sense to me (not everyone is willing to take the risk/reward to fly a roll, for example). How does he define the problem that I am contributing to? I really have no idea.

And truly, I don't have any belief that I'll get through to people like him that think in broad absolutes. What I want to provide is a counterpoint for non-posters that are reading this thinking "maybe he is right, all those EAB people are impromptu-formation flying, hot dogging, arrogant, cloud-clearance busting overhead break participants!". EAB participants are not all like that, no matter how shrill and widespread his complaining is.

Tim

 

[AEROBAT]

In that Van's safety article they were saying that they couldn't tell how many hours per year the homebuilt fleet flys VS the certified GA fleet.

You would think the FAA would have a pretty good idea of the number hours the various types of aircraft fly per year. When you do your annual don't you have to submit the hours flown in the last year?

 

[kyleb]

In that Van's safety article they were saying that they couldn't tell how many hours per year the homebuilt fleet flys VS the certified GA fleet.

You would think the FAA would have a pretty good idea of the number hours the various types of aircraft fly per year. When you do your annual don't you have to submit the hours flown in the last year?

Nope. There is no paperwork other than a logbook entry on an experimental's condition inspection. Us rogue experimental types like to keep a low profile unless we're doing lomcevaks through a busy pattern. ;-)

 

[foka4]

I have to admit, I haven't read every post here, but I'm surprised by the tone of the thread.

I've flown (safely) with many long-time, well-respected POAers. I fly an RV. I have flown overhead breaks in the pattern over an airport, in Stearman biplanes, T-6 Texans, a P-51, RVs, and even a Cessna 140. I fly aerobatics. I fly IFR. I fly gliders. I fly taildraggers. I use aircraft for personal and business transportation. I strive to maintain currency, professionalism, and proficiency in all of my flying endeavors.

I'm just wondering, which group do I fit into?

M

 

[Ken Kopp]

Exactly right! There is no way for the FAA to even guess what the yearly EAB fleet flight hours are because there isn't a required paper trail to prove it. none, nada, zippo, zilch. Only what EAB pilots decide to provide during voluntary surveys. I can tell you most of those surveys go unanswered - which in retrospect is probably not helping us and the safety statistics look much worse than they really are as a result.

 

[Panew]

I'm talking about a pack of arrogant egotistical idiots who will ruin the entire thing for everyone.



The only two times I flew in RV's, I witnessed every bad thing ever discussed in reference to them. I guess our experiences differ.



The FAA says the crash rate is too high. They said, point blank to a business owner, that if he (and his colleagues) didn't do something about it, they (the FAA would) and they were not too shy about threatening to put him out of business.

Obviously you haven't dealt with the government. They really aren't all that strident in their doings, at least not at this level. Usually threats are implied, and in very neutral language. What Van said in that post was very, very alarming.

The FAA doesn't care about how their concerns are addressed. They have only one goal, to decrease accidents of experimental aircraft (actually, they're trying to drive down the accident rate in GA, but E/Ab seems to be the red-headed stepchild, and for good reason). Grounding the E/Ab fleet would achieve that goal quite nicely.



That was my observation. That the threads were identical, and that the only logical conclusion was sufficient regulation to ground the majority of the aircraft. Enjoy yours while you can.



O.K., let me be more specific. You and your ilk will wreck it for me. I would very much like to build or purchase an experimental aircraft in the future. However, I strongly believe that the FAA will clamp down, and I will be unable, thanks to you and your community. Once again we see angry denial.



I don't give a rat's ass of what you are tired or not. The FAA says there's a problem. Your "defense" is nothing more than denial that the problem exists. I have seen nothing that suggests anyone in the E/Ab community takes this seriously, or is ready to embrace a safety culture. All I see is "there's no problem, we're wonderful".



Like I said, enjoy the bird while you can. When it all goes away, if you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror.

you write fast,
but have you actually got any facts to back up your rage?

 

[PeteJE]

Exactly right! There is no way for the FAA to even guess what the yearly EAB fleet flight hours are because there isn't a required paper trail to prove it. none, nada, zippo, zilch. Only what EAB pilots decide to provide during voluntary surveys. I can tell you most of those surveys go unanswered - which in retrospect is probably not helping us and the safety statistics look much worse than they really are as a result.

They sure seem to have adopted a postion on their impressions of the statistics whether you agree with the stats or not. This is the problem. Argue them away or play their game to lower fatal rates?

 

[Tom-D]

Exactly right! There is no way for the FAA to even guess what the yearly EAB fleet flight hours are because there isn't a required paper trail to prove it. none, nada, zippo, zilch. .

You say that like there is one for the production produced aircraft.

Remember all aircraft are certified.. they are certified as X-AB and have an airworthiness certificate. as an EXP aircraft.

It is only the production built aircraft that must meet their type design or their properly altered condition, and be in a condition for safe operation, to be airworthy

 

[AEROBAT]

I would have to say that the IAC is very safety concious and half the planes you see at a meet are homebuilts.

I didn't realize reporting hours flown wasn't part of your annual on a homebuilt. I am in Canada so our regs are a bit different. Here you do your own annual and mail in the form [for a homebuilt]. I would think if you used Canadian accident data it would give a fairly close comparison to what is probably happening in the US in regards to homebuilt vs certified.

Where I live the last few fatal accidents seem to involve people losing control in IMC and pulling their wings off. It has been quite a while since the last homebuilt accident.

 

[Everskyward]

I would have to say that the IAC is very safety concious and half the planes you see at a meet are homebuilts.

I didn't realize reporting hours flown wasn't part of your annual on a homebuilt. I am in Canada so our regs are a bit different. Here you do your own annual and mail in the form [for a homebuilt]. I would think if you used Canadian accident data it would give a fairly close comparison to what is probably happening in the US in regards to homebuilt vs certified.

Where I live the last few fatal accidents seem to involve people losing control in IMC and pulling their wings off. It has been quite a while since the last homebuilt accident.

OK, here's a question. I was in Canada today (Kelowna) and looking through one of those newspapers which has airplanes for sale. I noticed that a large percentage were experimental or homebuilt. Is it more prevalent there or do you know?

 

[murphey]

No - please don't misunderstand why I asked if he read the article - I appreciate that the FAA is saying "here is a problem, we'll give you a shot at addressing it." I don't have a problem with what Van wrote or what the FAA is asking.

What I don't think is worthwhile is someone who is not a participant in the EAB community saying that I specifically need to clean up my act, and that all EAB particpants are part of the problem because they aren't fixing it.
Tim

In other words, anyone not part of a specific community/group/whatever is not allowed to comment, not allowed to offer suggestions, not allowed to point out flaws? This is along the same lines of a racial epithet that only those of that race are allowed to use. If the epithet is offensive when used by one race, it should be offensive no matter who is using the epithet.

[let me start an even bigger flame war]

If your logic were applied to other situations, we would not have the Civil Rights Act, the 13th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment.

There would be no Amendments to the Constitution following your logic.

[end potential flame war]

 

[RV Guy]

I had vowed not to dignify this often childish thread with another post but, I can not stand to let some of the inflammatory trash put out by Steingar to stand any longer without some rebuttal.

Mr Steingar sir (and any others that really care to support furthering safety and GA aviation in general, and not just exciting rage), may I kindly direct your attention to the following websites

http://www.lancairowners.com/
http://www.rvflightsafety.org/

These are two websites (among others) that represent efforts by the members of the EAB community to foster and promote safety within their type aircraft communities. These type clubs are being formed by people who volunteer their time and money to promote safe flying among their peers. These efforts are in response to, and work in close conjunction with, the FAA, EAA, Insurance underwriters and other national organizations. Their existence is recognized by the FAA as an effective approach towards working to improve AB safety.

While you are raving about the sky falling, many of us are doing something to address the issues.

Members of these organizations volunteer their time to participate in committees such as the GA JSC and the EAA Type Club Coalition. Flyers like Stu McCurdy and Ron Levy (Cap’n Ron) devote their time and passion to take active rolls in safely expanding the spectrum of aviation activities that many of us, particularly AB guys, are interested in exploring. We all understand that we have a responsibility to the aviation community at large and to our fellow pilots and many of us AB idiots are actually working to make that happen - not writing accusatory BS on some half cocked forum thread about things we don’t know everything about.

No angry denying here. We all need to get better. As I recall it was a 172 that brought down the airliner at Brown Field in San Diego. Name calling (“pack of arrogant egotistical idiots” ) within the community won’t help. Working together, training and getting smarter will help.

Keep the rest on the playground, butt breath.

 

[AEROBAT]

OK, here's a question. I was in Canada today (Kelowna) and looking through one of those newspapers which has airplanes for sale. I noticed that a large percentage were experimental or homebuilt. Is it more prevalent there or do you know?

My home strip there are 6 RV's, one Midget Mustang, one Pietenpal, one Zenith 150, one T-18, one Calvalier, one Sirroco, one Europa, one Avid two ultralights, a Murphy Super Rebel on amphibs and a one seat turbine helicopter.

Four C-150's, a Cessna 120 a 170, four 172's a twin comanche, a Cessna 421, a Jetranger, an A-star. L-39 a Navion a T-crate, Piper super cub, four Piper 140's one Bonanza.

That is not typical however as you go into the city certified far out number the homebuilts but some of the certified planes are under owner maintenance.
I forgot, there is a Hughes 500 and a 182 at our strip as well as a 210.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm guessing all the anti-overhead break crowd are staunch opponents of airshows as well? I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that airshows with CLOSED patterns have killed more individuals than OB's into "busy" ga fields..

Airshows are done in closed airspace by folks who've earned low-level waivers and they're all involved in the planning and accept the risk/reward.

Not even close to the same thing as an RV doing an overhead into a bunch of folks who aren't participating.

 

[BellyUpFish]

Airshows are done in closed airspace by folks who've earned low-level waivers and they're all involved in the planning and accept the risk/reward.

Not even close to the same thing as an RV doing an overhead into a bunch of folks who aren't participating.

Quality cherry pick. A+ for your efforts.

 

[Troska]

In other words, anyone not part of a specific community/group/whatever is not allowed to comment, not allowed to offer suggestions, not allowed to point out flaws? This is along the same lines of a racial epithet that only those of that race are allowed to use. If the epithet is offensive when used by one race, it should be offensive no matter who is using the epithet.

[let me start an even bigger flame war]

If your logic were applied to other situations, we would not have the Civil Rights Act, the 13th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment.

There would be no Amendments to the Constitution following your logic.

[end potential flame war]

No. You're not even close. Read your own quote of what I wrote.

"...I specifically..." = referring directly to me.

Steingar, who doesn't know me, has never met me, has never flown with me, has said:

O.K., let me be more specific. You and your ilk will wreck it for me. I would very much like to build or purchase an experimental aircraft in the future. However, I strongly believe that the FAA will clamp down, and I will be unable, thanks to you and your community. Once again we see angry denial.

Motorhome driver goes down the road, sees a guy on a Honda 954 go blazing by him crossing a double yellow in shorts, t-shirt, and flip-flops riding a wheelie. We all know those sport bike riders are crazy right? So Motorhome driver goes on a Deals Gap forum and says to forum member "919rider4fun" -> "Hey dipweed, you and your ilk will wreck it for me, you're breakin the law, and the law is on the way".

If you can't see how that isn't at all the same thing as the rant you want to have, I can't help you.

Tim

 

[steingar]

The good news is during Rod Hightower's visit to my fair metropolis last night I asked him, pretty point blank, what EAA's response was going to be to this situation. I am very glad he is at the helm of the organization (the hereditary Presidency bothered me profoundly).

He said that there were hotspots in the accident statistics, including first flights, and 50 hours for most E/Ab aircraft. Light Sport has a strong uptick on base to final turns, and really hot airplanes, like Lanceairs, have bad habit of making smoking craters.

The response of EAA is to any arrange curriculum based training for those beginning to fly their experimental aircraft. The thought is to identify them from new registrations with the FAA or with new insurance policies. They are working through type clubs to try and generate appropriate training materials and personnel to administer them, and trying to get insurers to discount policies from those who have received training. They have also set up a coalition of manufacturers and aviation associations, both to further the training goals outlined above, and possibly counter regulatory initiatives from the FAA.

Those angrily criticizing my posts really don't get it. Just because you operate your aircraft in a safe fashion doesn't mean there isn't a problem with your community. If I may use a similar situation, I am a long time biker. You could easily make the same accusation of me, my community (bikers) have a tremendous rate of crashes, both non fatal and fatal, that approaches that of aircraft. I would not angrily deny it. However, I can identify why this situation exists, and I even take personal action to try and reduce the accident rate in my own community. I doubt my actions amount to much, but I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn't try.

 

[RV Guy]

Steingar - the tone of this post is much more civil and constructive - the benefit of civility is the part that you and those of your ilk, are just now apparently seeing.

I have volunteered some of my own time to participate in the process you describe and as part of that I have been in meetings with Mr Hightower. His descriptions of what is going on are accurrate. See my previous post above.

I was taught many behaviors in the military that are potentially dangerous – shooting firearms with the intent to kill, flying an airplane into harms way to deliver hurt on an enemy etc etc.
Reason tells me that I should not practice most of these behaviors on the general public because they are imprudent and dangerous.

Entering an aerodrome via a safely and properly executed, legal overhead entry is not one of them.

That some on this thread feel threatened by this behavior I find close minded, laughable and a bit sad.

I agree to continue to actively endeavor to make sure that my fellow pilots (most of whom are RV pilots) practice this behavior in a responsible and proper and safe manner.
I ask that you endeavor actively to instruct your fellow pilots (most of whom are spam can pilots) to please desist from flying 1.5 mile downwinds, entering busy traffic patterns NORDO, and taking the active while I am rolling final.

If we both do that, we can all enjoy our chosen activities in a safer manner and will no longer feel compelled to call each other idiots or arrogant A holes. This course of action, unlike childish anonymous name-calling on the internet, will actually promote GA safety.

Thanks for your consideration.

PS It is not the EAA that is arranging training. They are supporting and endorsing it. It is community members (your peers, that you are so eager to deride), many of whom with military backgrounds that enjoy flying overhead entries, that are doing it.

 

[EdFred]

Entering an aerodrome via a safely and properly executed, legal overhead entry is not one of them.

Please define safely, because it seems there is a disconnect.

 

[RV Guy]

Yes, there often is a disconnect. Dis-connects are not limited to this particular manuever. This is not the place to cure that in a few words on the internet.

If you sincerely want to know, Go find someone that knows how to do it and ask. Maybe ask an RV guy at your next pancake breakfast who just flew one (a safe, courteous military style OH entry). Please be sure that he is qualified to give a creditable answer.

Thanks.

 

[EdFred]

Yes, there often is a disconnect. Dis-connects are not limited to this particular manuever. This is not the place to cure that in a few words on the internet.

If you sincerely want to know, Go find someone that knows how to do it and ask. Maybe ask an RV guy at your next pancake breakfast who just flew one (a safe, courteous military style OH entry). Please be sure that he is qualified to give a creditable answer.

Thanks.

I'm asking you. How do you do it?

 

[steingar]

Steingar - the tone of this post is much more civil and constructive - the benefit of civility is the part that you and those of your ilk, are just now apparently seeing.

I have volunteered some of my own time to participate in the process you describe and as part of that I have been in meetings with Mr Hightower. His descriptions of what is going on are accurrate. See my previous post above.

I was taught many behaviors in the military that are potentially dangerous – shooting firearms with the intent to kill, flying an airplane into harms way to deliver hurt on an enemy etc etc.
Reason tells me that I should not practice most of these behaviors on the general public because they are imprudent and dangerous.

Entering an aerodrome via a safely and properly executed, legal overhead entry is not one of them.

That some on this thread feel threatened by this behavior I find close minded, laughable and a bit sad.

I agree to continue to actively endeavor to make sure that my fellow pilots (most of whom are RV pilots) practice this behavior in a responsible and proper and safe manner.
I ask that you endeavor actively to instruct your fellow pilots (most of whom are spam can pilots) to please desist from flying 1.5 mile downwinds, entering busy traffic patterns NORDO, and taking the active while I am rolling final.

If we both do that, we can all enjoy our chosen activities in a safer manner and will no longer feel compelled to call each other idiots or arrogant A holes. This course of action, unlike childish anonymous name-calling on the internet, will actually promote GA safety.

Thanks for your consideration.

PS It is not the EAA that is arranging training. They are supporting and endorsing it. It is community members (your peers, that you are so eager to deride), many of whom with military backgrounds that enjoy flying overhead entries, that are doing it.

No matter what you do, angrily denying that a problem exists will do nothing to solve it.

If I may further my analogy, I detest motorcycle stunters, especially those who perform their acts on the street. They create the perception that motorcycles are dangerous. Now, motorcycles are indeed dangerous, but most of the crashes and fatalities arise from other sectors. The less we have that points out the dangers, the less likely municipal government will clamp down and spoil the fun.

My analogy easily applies to experimental aircraft. Overhead breaks, impromptu aerobatics, and other stupid pilot tricks are not where the accident statistics lie. They do foster the perception that experimental aircraft are dangerous, however. We are in a far more delicate position than bikers. We are far more visible. One aerobatic airplane ending its routine by creating a crater in the middle of a grade school will be enough to doom the entire sector, and you know it.

 

[poadeleted20]

He said that there were hotspots in the accident statistics, including first flights, and 50 hours for most E/Ab aircraft.

I'm glad someone finally picked up on this. I get the impression that the FAA is most concerned by the number of accidents involving E-AB aircraft during the pilot's first 10 hours or so in type. Many of those involve aircraft whose flight characteristics are significantly different than the aircraft in which the pilot learned to fly or had been flying recently. Another problem is builder modifications of the design or less-than-excellent attention to detail in construction which result in unanticipated adverse flight characteristics or other issues (like John Denver and the change of placement of the fuel selector) which are discovered only when the plane bites the pilot on an early flight.

Some E-AB communities have programs to provide training in type for pilots new to the type, and to provide experienced test pilots to check out newly-built aircraft before the owner flies it him/herself. However, there are difficulties with that. For single-seat aircraft, it's often not possible to obtain a 2-seat version in which training can be given before flying the single-seater, either because there isn't one, or because of the FAA's limitations on giving flight training in an Experimental aircraft which the instructor provides. Sometimes you can get around that, e.g., Van's recommendation to get some dual in an original slick-wing AA-1 Yankee before flying a single-seat RV. In addition, owners are sometimes reluctant to hire someone to come in and fly their new baby, because of either cost, personal attachment, or ego.

But all that aside, if the E-AB community as a whole doesn't make itself less visible to the FAA in that regard, the FAA will do something about it -- "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down," and all that.

 

[Troska]

One thing that EAA does help with is the Flight Advisor program. I utilized this resource, and I found it very helpful prior to first flight.

I wouldn't argue that more can't be done, but there is a first step out there that is available. It would be interesting to see how many people participate in it before their first flight.

In my case, in addition to being useful, it was a requirement if I wanted my insurance to apply to Flight no.1.

As a kudos to the RV community, several different local RV pilots offered me stick time in their aircraft prior to my first flight. I don't have an RV, but the controls are similarly light and responsive.

Idea for improvement: Didn't they used to have mandatory inspections of the aircraft during the build process? They don't anymore, and I can't think of a reason to object to it. I know nobody wants more regulation, and there are plenty of options for "non-official" inspections, but I'm almost at loss of what else can be done.

Other Ideas?

Tim

I'm glad someone finally picked up on this. I get the impression that the FAA is most concerned by the number of accidents involving E-AB aircraft during the pilot's first 10 hours or so in type. Many of those involve aircraft whose flight characteristics are significantly different than the aircraft in which the pilot learned to fly or had been flying recently. Another problem is builder modifications of the design or less-than-excellent attention to detail in construction which result in unanticipated adverse flight characteristics or other issues (like John Denver and the change of placement of the fuel selector) which are discovered only when the plane bites the pilot on an early flight.

Some E-AB communities have programs to provide training in type for pilots new to the type, and to provide experienced test pilots to check out newly-built aircraft before the owner flies it him/herself. However, there are difficulties with that. For single-seat aircraft, it's often not possible to obtain a 2-seat version in which training can be given before flying the single-seater, either because there isn't one, or because of the FAA's limitations on giving flight training in an Experimental aircraft which the instructor provides. Sometimes you can get around that, e.g., Van's recommendation to get some dual in an original slick-wing AA-1 Yankee before flying a single-seat RV. In addition, owners are sometimes reluctant to hire someone to come in and fly their new baby, because of either cost, personal attachment, or ego.

But all that aside, if the E-AB community as a whole doesn't make itself less visible to the FAA in that regard, the FAA will do something about it -- "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down," and all that.