Pattern Madness

I'm thankful that I fly at night and don't have to deal with these wannabes.
 
Croissant Cruiser said:
Not a wannabe pal. Been there, done that for real. Not in a pretend fighter.
Click to expand...

Since there are many active and retired "fighter" pilots who fly these particular "experimentals"...............at what hour of the day, do they become pretend pilots?

And at the same time, there are those who would prefer to just quit flying altogether. Sounds like you at least fly in darkness.

A 777 pilot and myself, are taking a cross couuntry trip in a few days, in my RV. He doesn't read these forums. He doesn't know that I transform into a cowboy wannabe at sun up. In fact he likes the military paint scheme on my plane. I mentioned the "threads" and the wannabe portion. He said, "what's wrong with being a wannabe?". He'd like to fly an F-16 himself. And I'm sure that some of you might want to be flying a 777, on over sea routes as he does. So what's the big deal?

L.Adamson
 
steingar said:
Anything that doesn't faun over experimentals is uncivil to some.
Click to expand...

Yet another Steingar post not worthy of a response (to what he's saying). Please ignore. Don't feed the trolls.
 
L.Adamson said:
Since there are many active and retired "fighter" pilots who fly these particular "experimentals"...............at what hour of the day, do they become pretend pilots?

And at the same time, there are those who would prefer to just quit flying altogether. Sounds like you at least fly in darkness.

A 777 pilot and myself, are taking a cross couuntry trip in a few days, in my RV. He doesn't read these forums. He doesn't know that I transform into a cowboy wannabe at sun up. In fact he likes the military paint scheme on my plane. I mentioned the "threads" and the wannabe portion. He said, "what's wrong with being a wannabe?". He'd like to fly an F-16 himself. And I'm sure that some of you might want to be flying a 777, on over sea routes as he does. So what's the big deal?

L.Adamson
Click to expand...


Nope. 747-400 at my company goes WAY junior to me, as I have NO desire to fly that plane or the trips it does. I'm not in this business for the ego trip of flying the biggest or coolest plane. All of our planes pay the same anyway, so I like flying the short stuff that goes to my hometown. That way I'm home everyday vs, being half way around the world for up to two weeks.
 
Croissant Cruiser said:
Nope. 747-400 at my company goes WAY junior to me, as I have NO desire to fly that plane or the trips it does. I'm not in this business for the ego trip of flying the biggest or coolest plane. All of our planes pay the same anyway, so I like flying the short stuff that goes to my hometown. That way I'm home everyday vs, being half way around the world for up to two weeks.
Click to expand...

Fine........

The 777 pilot prefers to fly Idaho "backcountry" anyway. No ego trip. He just likes flight after the "job".

L.Adamson
 
RoscoeT said:
Yet another Steingar post not worthy of a response (to what he's saying). Please ignore. Don't feed the trolls.
Click to expand...

I'm no troll. But every time I post about experimental aircraft, everyone disagrees. Experimentals can be cool, but they are valued more than certified aircraft. They are just another option, and far more dangerous according to the FAA. Every time I post this the experimental crowd gets on their high horse and disagrees with the facts. And they call me uncivil, just because I post about the facts.

I was just called a troll for posting something other than glowing words about experimentals. Who exactly is being uncivil?
 
Croissant Cruiser said:
Nope. 747-400 at my company goes WAY junior to me, as I have NO desire to fly that plane or the trips it does. I'm not in this business for the ego trip of flying the biggest or coolest plane. All of our planes pay the same anyway, so I like flying the short stuff that goes to my hometown. That way I'm home everyday vs, being half way around the world for up to two weeks.
Click to expand...

What can Brown do for you?
 
steingar said:
Every time I post this the experimental crowd gets on their high horse and disagrees with the facts. And they call me uncivil, just because I post about the facts.
Click to expand...

I'd still like to know your definition of the "experimental crowd". Seems that most of us were previously flying Cherokees and Cessnas..........just like you do now. My Lycoming engine, Hartzell prop, and TSO'd avionics are no more "experimental", than what you have on your Piper. My advantage is flush rivets, less drag, and much better performance when it comes to density altitude. Other than that, there is nothing particually experimental about it.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
I'd still like to know your definition of the "experimental crowd". Seems that most of us were previously flying Cherokees and Cessnas..........just like you do now. My Lycoming engine, Hartzell prop, and TSO'd avionics are no more "experimental", than what you have on your Piper. My advantage is flush rivets, less drag, and much better performance when it comes to density altitude. Other than that, there is nothing particually experimental about it.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that there really is nothing inherently dangerous about experimental aircraft themselves and that the reason for the higher accident rates must then fall on the types of pilots that fly them?

Just trying to figure out the point that you are making.
 
Stig,

What you are saying is partialy true unfortunately. I fly homebuilts [and anything else I can get my hands on] but some people have spent so much time building their plane they literaly have forgotten how to fly when they are finished. They spend 5 years building the Warp Drive MK. 3 and hop in to a plane that is unlike anything they have ever flown....and crash.

Even worse are people convinced that an auto engine is the way to go and end up with a heavy unreliable engine in a plane with a barely useable extreme forward C of G.
 
L.Adamson said:
I'd still like to know your definition of the "experimental crowd". Seems that most of us were previously flying Cherokees and Cessnas..........just like you do now. My Lycoming engine, Hartzell prop, and TSO'd avionics are no more "experimental", than what you have on your Piper. My advantage is flush rivets, less drag, and much better performance when it comes to density altitude. Other than that, there is nothing particually experimental about it.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Once again, anything but glowing praise is anathema to some. I'm "uncivil" because I don't sing the praises of your aircraft.
 
steingar said:
Once again, anything but glowing praise is anathema to some. I'm "uncivil" because I don't sing the praises of your aircraft.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt my opinion means less than nothing to you, but...

I think it's your method of obvious disapproval of experimental aircraft. I personally stopped reading your rants when you started talking speaking about experimental pilots by ranting about "our ilk." Lost me completely.

Dumb things happen in every cockpit, everyday from the 65 horse Champ's to the 290,000 horse 777's..

When human's stop flying, dumb things will stop happening in cockpits.
 
What's this yellow liquid all over the hangar floor?



Eeeeeeeeuw!
 
Last edited:
Maybe this is heresy on this thread, but I love airplanes. In fact, I love ALL airplanes!

I think flying them is great, whatever they are!
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe this is heresy on this thread, but I love airplanes. In fact, I love ALL airplanes!

I think flying them is great, whatever they are!
Click to expand...

Yeh, I don't think I've ever refused to fly one based solely on when I found out it as experimental/certified.
 
Last edited:
BellyUpFish said:
I have no doubt my opinion means less than nothing to you, but...

I think it's your method of obvious disapproval of experimental aircraft. I personally stopped reading your rants when you started talking speaking about experimental pilots by ranting about "our ilk." Lost me completely.

Dumb things happen in every cockpit, everyday from the 65 horse Champ's to the 290,000 horse 777's..

When human's stop flying, dumb things will stop happening in cockpits.
Click to expand...

You should definitely ignore anyone who doesn't follow your party line. All my posts have sprung from exactly two facts.

1. When I started flying, you had to be nuts to not own an experimental. They were the same price as certificated aircraft, but did much, much more. Now that has changed, as certificated aircraft have plunged in value. Experimentals are no longer the end-all they were, but are now another option for the savvy aviator.

2. The FAA considers them dangerous, and is likely to change the rules to their detriment if the accident statistics don't change.

Now, I will admit to posting one opinion on the Red board that is both uncivil and wholly my opinion. I think pilots are far to egotistical to change their ways, that the accident rate will not change significantly over time because of this, and the experimental movement is doomed because of it. I am very disappointed at this, as I myself would like to join the party when time and finances allow. I doubt I will have the opportunity.

And when the hammer drops, those who argue with me the most vehemently can look in the mirror to see who's responsible. Except those of course who ignore all my little rants.
 
steingar said:
You should definitely ignore anyone who doesn't follow your party line. All my posts have sprung from exactly two facts.
Click to expand...

You should definitely get over yourself. I don't have a party line. I like experimental aircraft equally as well as I like certified aircraft.

All I commented on was your delivery, it's not that great. If you wish to argue AND change a persons mind, you need to change your way of doing so. That's all.

Catch more flies with honey, type thing.

1. When I started flying, you had to be nuts to not own an experimental. They were the same price as certificated aircraft, but did much, much more. Now that has changed, as certificated aircraft have plunged in value. Experimentals are no longer the end-all they were, but are now another option for the savvy aviator.
Click to expand...
Ok?

2. The FAA considers them dangerous, and is likely to change the rules to their detriment if the accident statistics don't change.
Click to expand...
Some thing needs to be done to change the stats, I totally agree.

I think pilots are far to egotistical to change their ways, that the accident rate will not change significantly
Click to expand...
You didn't differentiate here - are you talking experimental pilots are egotistical or all pilots?

I'll agree with you, pilots are egotistical. Threads just like this one are full of ego dripping posts - mine and yours included - it's not even funny.

And when the hammer drops, those who argue with me the most vehemently can look in the mirror to see who's responsible. Except those of course who ignore all my little rants.
Click to expand...
Sweet. Sounds like I'm exempt from taking the final exam in your course.
 
Sure our ego's can be a problem. Ego, coupled with the mistaken belief that ratings automatically make one a safer pilot can be deadly. Yes, Ratings do make everyone a better pilot. The more skills in your tools box the better. At the Same time we read accident report after accident report about highly rating pilots doing bone head things and dying. Their ratings helped the illusion that "they" were a better pilot.What is key is better judgement. I take two pieces of advice into the air with me, #1. From Dirty Harry, " A man's got to know his limitations." , I KNOW I am not a hot shot pilot & fly accordingly, & #2, From Bob Hoover, something I never forget but hope to fly in a manner to avoid needing, "Always fly the plane as far into the accident as you can". So is the RV guy rolling up thru the pattern with his tons of hours & ratings a safer pilot than a Chicken Pilot in a 172, making calls & flying the standard pattern? http://chickenpilot.blogspot.com/ Dave
 
Ddayle said:
So is the RV guy rolling up thru the pattern with his tons of hours & ratings a safer pilot than a Chicken Pilot in a 172, making calls & flying the standard pattern? http://chickenpilot.blogspot.com/ Dave
Click to expand...

You left out the chicken 172 pilot who stumbles all over the pattern, makes random nonsensical and erroneous calls such as announcing he is 3.5673 miles to the North-East when he is actually 5 miles to the South-West, or the chicken pilot who is too chicken to interact with other aircraft in the pattern that the orbit 5 miles off the end of runway 29 "waiting for the pattern to clear" while sitting right on the loc for 29. Or the guy who flies a 2 mile pattern in his 172 with other 172's in the pattern.

Who is the hazard? I've seen old ladies drive soo safely that they were dangerous.

Who's safe? The guy who does what he can to be safe, regardless if he's in a 172 or a Lear 60.
 
Be careful how you pick on pilots everyone. Some are students still learning, some are weekend flyers that dont get out as much as they should, and some are just brand new pilots. I've made accidental calls of 5 miles east instead of west, you fix it when you realize it and go on. I've also had people do stupid stuff in other airplanes too. Ultimately, there are people out there that just dont follow protocol and they should be told so if they are a danger to others but be careful how you judge. I haven't read the stats on experimental but from my point of view, I've met some extremely safe experimental pilots and some certified aircraft pilots I would never fly with and vice versa.
 
BellyUpFish said:
You left out the chicken 172 pilot who stumbles all over the pattern, makes random nonsensical and erroneous calls such as announcing he is 3.5673 miles to the North-East when he is actually 5 miles to the South-West, or the chicken pilot who is too chicken to interact with other aircraft in the pattern that the orbit 5 miles off the end of runway 29 "waiting for the pattern to clear" while sitting right on the loc for 29. Or the guy who flies a 2 mile pattern in his 172 with other 172's in the pattern.

Who is the hazard? I've seen old ladies drive soo safely that they were dangerous.

Who's safe? The guy who does what he can to be safe, regardless if he's in a 172 or a Lear 60.
Click to expand...
Obviously this cat is NOT flying a standard pattern as are all your examples. Mistakes are a part of learning and usually all a pilot need say is the magic words. "student pilot" and everyone suddenly becomes much nicer and more helpful & forgiving. Society means we have agreed there should be a standard set of rules of conduct. Being pilots we are even more bound to this convention. Follow the established rules, patterns and customs and everyone can get along fine. It is those who fail to conform either by a complete lack skill & knowledge to achieve the standard, or those who deviate because they feel themselves above the rules affecting "mortal " pilots that pose the greatest risks. and I more than completely agree about the old ladies & men driving so slowly & timidly that they become a hazard. Dave
 
Ddayle said:
Obviously this cat is NOT flying a standard pattern as are all your examples. Mistakes are a part of learning and usually all a pilot need say is the magic words. "student pilot" and everyone suddenly becomes much nicer and more helpful & forgiving. Society means we have agreed there should be a standard set of rules of conduct. Being pilots we are even more bound to this convention. Follow the established rules, patterns and customs and everyone can get along fine. It is those who fail to conform either by a complete lack skill & knowledge to achieve the standard, or those who deviate because they feel themselves above the rules affecting "mortal " pilots that pose the greatest risks. and I more than completely agree about the old ladies & men driving so slowly & timidly that they become a hazard. Dave
Click to expand...

I agree.. I also think the day we stop making mistakes in the air is the day we stop flying.
 
steingar said:
2. The FAA considers them dangerous, and is likely to change the rules to their detriment if the accident statistics don't change.
Click to expand...

I really do hope, that you've read exactly what has been said by FAA officials. We've been following this for months now. Has the FAA said "we condsider E-AB" aircraft to be dangerous?

No, they did not. They pointed out the fatal accident statistics that are higher for experimentals which include homebuilts, and warbirds. There are a number of reasons, as the statistics are defined. Even these statistics are argued to a point, since biz jets (with a high number of hours flown) are included in the certified GA catagory.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
I really do hope, that you've read exactly what has been said by FAA officials. We've been following this for months now. Has the FAA said "we condsider E-AB" aircraft to be dangerous?

No, they did not. They pointed out the fatal accident statistics that are higher for experimentals which include homebuilts, and warbirds. There are a number of reasons, as the statistics are defined. Even these statistics are argued to a point, since biz jets (with a high number of hours flown) are included in the certified GA catagory.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Go check out Van's facebook page. An FAA official told him and a few other kitmakers in no uncertain language that if someone didn't do something to drive down the rate of fatal accidents in their aircraft that the FAA would, and it would likely drive them (the kitmakers) out of business.

I am only factually reporting the FAA's take, and you argue. If that doesn't show just how jaded your mindset, I don't know what will.
 
steingar said:
Go check out Van's facebook page. An FAA official told him and a few other kitmakers in no uncertain language that if someone didn't do something to drive down the rate of fatal accidents in their aircraft that the FAA would, and it would likely drive them (the kitmakers) out of business.

I am only factually reporting the FAA's take, and you argue. If that doesn't show just how jaded your mindset, I don't know what will.
Click to expand...

I was going to link to the Van's facebook page. But I figured you had already read it. I read it quite a while ago............just like I previously said. Van says what's on his mind, as well as the FAA official's very well.

L.Adamson
 
Sorry I'm late to the party, but it took me awhile to read all the posts.
 
steingar said:
Go check out Van's facebook page. An FAA official told him and a few other kitmakers in no uncertain language that if someone didn't do something to drive down the rate of fatal accidents in their aircraft that the FAA would, and it would likely drive them (the kitmakers) out of business.

I am only factually reporting the FAA's take, and you argue. If that doesn't show just how jaded your mindset, I don't know what will.
Click to expand...

What position in the FAA did the official hold? Was it some random FAA official or ?
 
BellyUpFish said:
What position in the FAA did the official hold? Was it some random FAA official or ?
Click to expand...

Very good questions, and you are right for asking, and I am wrong for being unable to answer. I am referring to a post from Van's facebook page where he describes a meeting with an "FAA official". Don't know who or with what authority. However, Van indicated that he felt the "official" represented the FAA took the "official" quite seriously. Can't find the link.

Nor do you need it. Accident statistics, especially fatals, are far higher for Ex/Ab than for certificated. The FAA has gone on a very public crusade to improve the safety rate for GA. Ex/Ab is the red-headed stepchild. You do the math.
 
steingar said:
Very good questions, and you are right for asking, and I am wrong for being unable to answer. I am referring to a post from Van's facebook page where he describes a meeting with an "FAA official". Don't know who or with what authority. However, Van indicated that he felt the "official" represented the FAA took the "official" quite seriously. Can't find the link.
Click to expand...

This is not a flame, but an honest question. How often do you deal directly with the FAA and their officials?

An example of the accuracy of FAA officials - I've been hearing from FAA officials in news print, tv media and in person about how the rest rules for 121 flying are going to change. They keep finding reasons not to change them.

I've also sat with 2 FAA "officials" and asked them point blank questions. Neither knew the direct answer and both contradicted themselves and each other and eventually deferred to answer the question later.

Often times, on FAA official will make HIS opinion sound like law, because he is the FAA.

I have a very good friend who is an FAA official and he will tell you how "screwed up" the FAA is.

steingar said:
Nor do you need it. Accident statistics, especially fatals, are far higher for Ex/Ab than for certificated. The FAA has gone on a very public crusade to improve the safety rate for GA. Ex/Ab is the red-headed stepchild. You do the math.
Click to expand...

You're right here. You can't argue with the numbers. However, you can present them in a manner to skew your audience. There are also multiple reasons why one category may have more accidents than another.

This thread was started dude to "hot shot" pilots. How many of those exp crashes were due to this? How many were due to pilot error? How many were due to "experimental" experimentals? In order for the stats to make sense, we need to know what is in them.

Again, I'm not arguing there are not hot shots in exp aircraft. I think it's a lot like driving a 450 horse Trans Am to a 90 horse Civic. Occasionally, you may drive a tad more aggressively since you have the ability to do so. A 172 typically doesn't bring out the "WOW, this thing is fun to fly" like something like a T-28 (experimental) or a Harmon Rocket might, and thus people fly them differently. They can be flown differently while at the same time, be flown safely.

I drive a 450rwhp Trans Am pretty regularly on the street and mix in fix with normal grocery getter Mini Van's.
 
BellyUpFish said:
This is not a flame, but an honest question. How often do you deal directly with the FAA and their officials?
Click to expand...

Far more often than you might think, which is why I am very, very concerned about the situation.

BellyUpFish said:
An example of the accuracy of FAA officials - I've been hearing from FAA officials in news print, tv media and in person about how the rest rules for 121 flying are going to change. They keep finding reasons not to change them.

I've also sat with 2 FAA "officials" and asked them point blank questions. Neither knew the direct answer and both contradicted themselves and each other and eventually deferred to answer the question later.

Often times, on FAA official will make HIS opinion sound like law, because he is the FAA.

I have a very good friend who is an FAA official and he will tell you how "screwed up" the FAA is.
Click to expand...

Notice that most of these are low-ranking officials trying hard not to stick out their necks. Now think about what I've been saying. Someone officially from the FAA threatened Van in front of witnesses in very, very plain language. You have to understand what kind of guts that takes. That someone can't very well weasel out of what they said. And Van no doubt has the ear of his Representative and/or Senator (being a major manufacturer in their district/state) to get back at them. That FAA person felt very strongly that the FAA had their back. Either that, or it was a very stupid soon to be ex-FAA person.

You raise a good point though. This could just be a bunch of bluster, and then it all blows over. But what are the chances that someone in the FAA thinks up a bunch of daft new rules that just about ruin Ex/Ab? Given how screwed up the FAA is, what do you think the chances are that the new rules actually intelligently address the problem at which they were directed? Once such rules are enacted, they're nearly impossible to get rid of. What have we got to loose?

BellyUpFish said:
You're right here. You can't argue with the numbers. However, you can present them in a manner to skew your audience. There are also multiple reasons why one category may have more accidents than another.

This thread was started due to "hot shot" pilots. How many of those exp crashes were due to this? How many were due to pilot error? How many were due to "experimental" experimentals? In order for the stats to make sense, we need to know what is in them.
Click to expand...

According to the President of the EAA, the hotspots are first flights, 50 hours, anything unduly hot (like Lanceairs) and the turn from base to final for LSA. He said the EAA was trying to coordinate type clubs and manufacturers to promote increased curricular training prior to flights of novel experimental aircraft. They hope to capture new aircraft in FAA registries and new insurance policies. They also hope to get insurers to give discounts to training recipients, something in which he said the insurers were quite interested.

BellyUpFish said:
Again, I'm not arguing there are not hot shots in exp aircraft. I think it's a lot like driving a 450 horse Trans Am to a 90 horse Civic. Occasionally, you may drive a tad more aggressively since you have the ability to do so. A 172 typically doesn't bring out the "WOW, this thing is fun to fly" like something like a T-28 (experimental) or a Harmon Rocket might, and thus people fly them differently. They can be flown differently while at the same time, be flown safely.

I drive a 450rwhp Trans Am pretty regularly on the street and mix in fix with normal grocery getter Mini Van's.
Click to expand...

You analogy makes sense, so let me give you my own. I ride a fire-breathing sportbike. I ride like an adult (sort of) when I do, which this summer hasn't been much.

Most sportbikes are sold to those much younger and far wilder than myself. Many are used for stunts. The lifespan for bikes like mine can be measured in weeks. They can easily be insured, but it costs a small fortune. Even me, a old codger who's been riding bikes since the Reagan Presidency. We all pay for the hotshots.

The hotshots auguring in may or may not contribute meaningfully to the accident statistics. I would have to say they do, since the number of fatal accidents per year is fairly small for GA (in the triple digits somewhere). But they are visible. One only need to point at them to justify new regulation.

I think I am badly misunderstood in this. I am probably the biggest booster imaginable to the Ex/Ab movement. I go to Oshkosh every year, I love the things. I see a credible threat to their continued existence, and I get very loud and quite abrasive, not because I don't like them, but because I don't want to see a few hotshots ruin it for everyone. Often what I get back is people touting how great their aircraft are, and it gets very frustrating.
 
steingar said:
Someone officially from the FAA threatened Van in front of witnesses in very, very plain language. You have to understand what kind of guts that takes. That someone can't very well weasel out of what they said. And Van no doubt has the ear of his Representative and/or Senator (being a major manufacturer in their district/state) to get back at them. That FAA person felt very strongly that the FAA had their back. Either that, or it was a very stupid soon to be ex-FAA person.
Click to expand...

Actual article from Van, in regards to the above --- Safety corner

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=211451808865199&comments

L.Adamson

edit: Note: there were numerous people in attendance, when the FAA official made his comments. It wasn't a face to face with Van. And Van isn't attempting to get back at them either. Van is quite concerned about "hot shot" pilots these days. He writes about it often.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top