Setback for Fort Worth "Future Pilots" program for HS students

The family does so much to honor their son's memory by taking the high road.
 
Saw the broadcast and agree with SCCutler.

Parents saw something that really lit the fires of passion in their kid and were likely grateful for it.

So much else is out there to tempt kids into wrong doing.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Ugggh. Yes, LSA's are certified to a different standard. But the comments from this "pilot and aviation attorney" will be filtered by the public and media to just say "they're unsafe!!"

http://www.wfaa.com/news/Questions-about-plane-used-to-train-high-school-students-82660197.html
Click to expand...

LSAs are self-certified to a lesser standard, plain and simple.

And it's not too tough to argue that the mandatory, "light sport" sticker doesn't convey this information to the public.

But, I suppose sales would be adversely affected if the, "light sport" sticker were replaced by one that said, "not as good as a regular airplane".


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
LSAs are self-certified to a lesser standard, plain and simple.

And it's not too tough to argue that the mandatory, "light sport" sticker doesn't convey this information to the public.

But, I suppose sales would be adversely affected if the, "light sport" sticker were replaced by one that said, "not as good as a regular airplane".


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Yabut-

Nothing at all to suggest that the plane failed.

I bet it didn't.

In any event, asking a Plaintiffs' lawyer, one who makes his fortune suing and collecting from aircraft manufacturers, about the relative safety of an aircraft is not journalism.
 
SCCutler said:
Yabut-

Nothing at all to suggest that the plane failed.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you define, "failed." There's nothing to suggest a structural failure in flight, or an in-flight fire. But what about things like flight characteristics, spin recovery characteristics and so on? Sure, most accidents are caused by pilot error, but what about aircraft that facilitate pilots making errors?

In any event, asking a Plaintiffs' lawyer, one who makes his fortune suing and collecting from aircraft manufacturers, about the relative safety of an aircraft is not journalism.
Click to expand...

No, but they did quote a former FAA employee/DPE who gave an opposite opinion, so this story doesn't really fall into the category of hatchet job, IMO.


Trapper John
 
Drawing the conclusions they presented as conclusions (by whomever made them) is not reporting... especially from a clearly interested witness.
 
SCCutler said:
Yabut-

Nothing at all to suggest that the plane failed.

I bet it didn't.

In any event, asking a Plaintiffs' lawyer, one who makes his fortune suing and collecting from aircraft manufacturers, about the relative safety of an aircraft is not journalism.
Click to expand...
Did the plane "fail" to have a BRS in case of a training situation that went bad?
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Yup, it did. But so did every C150/C152/PA-28 that trained (or killed) a non-LSA pilot.
Click to expand...
But those are old technology, created 50 years ago. In this day in age should we be exposing our youth to such primitive and unsafe equipment? We would not put a baby in a 50 year old stroller would we? Would you let you HS aged child drive a 50 year old car? [/sarcasm]

Well that is what I think the argument would go like. The phrasing will be that there could have been 'more' done by the flight school to prevent this type of outcome.
 
BRS wouldn't help someone in a stall/spin in the pattern. The plane could have a defect in its handling, a "gotcha" in its flight characteristics that has not yet some to light. I doubt it, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility, and there is precedent.
 
steingar said:
BRS wouldn't help someone in a stall/spin in the pattern.
Click to expand...


Why not?


The FAQ on the BRS website says:

Q. How low can the parachute work?
A. The altitude required is a function of speed more than height. FAA certified tests have shown that full parachute inflation could occur as low as 260-290 feet above the ground.

Anecdotal reports suggest it has been helpful as low as 100'.
 
smigaldi said:
But those are old technology, created 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

Old technology certified to a higher standard, though. And that's where I think the chink in the armor is for flight schools in situations like these. Unless a student is explicitly pursuing a Sport Pilot certificate and signs off that he/she knows that the LSA is not certified to "normal and customary" standards, renting out an LSA could bite them in the butt.

Anyone that's even been in a deposition can see the questions coming at the FBO/flight school...


Trapper John
 
N801BH said:
I believe this is the same crash.......

If so it would explain alot of things.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CEN10FA107&rpt=p
Click to expand...


On January 24, 2010, the airplane wreckage was transported to a secure facility for further examination. A preliminary examination of the wreckage revealed that a flashlight was found in the tailcone section. The flashlight and tailcone area exhibited transfer marks near the stabilator push-pull tube linkage. The forward rod end of the stabilator push-pull linkage was fractured.​

uh-oh...​


Trapper John​
 
After some additional web surfing this does appear to the the same crash..

Boy, do I feel bad for some mechanic..... So Sad. :yikes::nonod::nonod:
 
Gotta eat my words. BRS might have racked up and extra save for this one. Yeah, some mechanic's life is over. I hope that never happens to me. Actually, it did, though I caught it in time. Does that lower my chances of having it happen again?

What a horrible tragedy.
 
gismo said:
What evidence suggests the flashlight was left in the plane by a mechanic? Pilot's carry flashlights too.
Click to expand...

Good point, but ....................... Can a flashlight roll all the way into the tailcone ?:dunno:
 
The flashlight revelation sorta puts the kibosh on the "expert" (plaintiffs' lawyer) claim that the light sport aircraft was dangerous, doesn't it?
 
N801BH said:
Good point, but ....................... Can a flashlight roll all the way into the tailcone ?:dunno:
Click to expand...

I can't speak to this particular LS aircraft but the answer is yes for some I've seen. Modern standard category airplanes usually seal the cockpit from the tailcone to limit airflow between the two, mostly to allow for heating the cabin but many LS airplanes don't bother trying to separate these areas completely.
 
The ONLY saving grace here is that the memory of some CFI and probably a young one at that won't be tarnished.

And no it didn't have to be a mechanic I can see some pilot resting a small flashlight on the Stabs and it rolling in or whatever. Just tragic.
 
SCCutler said:
The flashlight revelation sorta puts the kibosh on the "expert" (plaintiffs' lawyer) claim that the light sport aircraft was dangerous, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
I think it adds doubt to the explanation that LS are inherently dangerous. But is the flashlight the truly the proximate cause?
 
gismo said:
I can't speak to this particular LS aircraft but the answer is yes for some I've seen. Modern standard category airplanes usually seal the cockpit from the tailcone to limit airflow between the two, mostly to allow for heating the cabin but many LS airplanes don't bother trying to separate these areas completely.
Click to expand...

Then there's the ones that have the control linkages right out in the open. :hairraise: No thank you...
 
SCCutler said:
The flashlight revelation sorta puts the kibosh on the "expert" (plaintiffs' lawyer) claim that the light sport aircraft was dangerous, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Adds to the argument "let's wait to see what the investigation finds".

Bruce Landberg agrees with your opinion of the lawyer and other expert's early opinions, in this ASF blog post on AOPA from Feb 3rd:

http://blog.aopa.org/asfblog/?p=749&WT.mc_id=100205epilot&WT.mc_sect=blog

News flash!!!! LSA’s may not be quite as dangerous as some attorneys and their purported “experts” thought.

<snip>

The local newspaper quoted an attorney who noted that LSA aircraft were built to “relaxed standards” implying that they were less safe than FAA-type certificated aircraft. A self-proclaimed expert who sells services to the legal profession also noted that he was seeing more LSA accidents recently. Relative to what? More LSA aircraft are entering the fleet and flying more hours so with greater exposure there might well be more accidents even with a reduction in rate. Is it responsible to make such pronouncements in this context?

<snip>

I understand the media’s desire for instant analysis but perhaps accuracy should come first. Better to say we don’t know than to believe the speculations of those who stand to gain financially from these tragedies. Choose your sources carefully. Maybe lawyers could practice a bit more restraint in talking to the media – you’ll get your day in court, if there’s a case. But then maybe I’m being naive.
Click to expand...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Exactly. Adds to the argument "let's wait to see what the investigation finds".

Bruce Landberg agrees with your opinion of the lawyer and other expert's early opinions, in this ASF blog post on AOPA from Feb 3rd:

http://blog.aopa.org/asfblog/?p=749&WT.mc_id=100205epilot&WT.mc_sect=blog
Click to expand...
And let us exercise that caution ourselves and not run to the other extreme that this was all the flashlight's fault. There is still investigations under way. As in most accidents I'll bet we will find a chain of events and issues that led to this crash.
 
smigaldi said:
And let us exercise that caution ourselves and not run to the other extreme that this was all the flashlight's fault. There is still investigations under way. As in most accidents I'll bet we will find a chain of events and issues that led to this crash.
Click to expand...

It was a rechargeable flashlight. And it's guilty. As charged.
 
"The forward rod end of the stabilator push-pull linkage was fractured."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To break one of those that poor pilot was doing some serious struggling to gain control....:yesnod:

Really sad.

Ben
 
N801BH said:
After some additional web surfing this does appear to the the same crash..

Boy, do I feel bad for some mechanic..... So Sad. :yikes::nonod::nonod:
Click to expand...

A week after a plane crash killed a teenager and a flight instructor, the Fort Worth public school district has suspended its contract with the company that provided aviation training to high school students.
Classes in aircraft engine maintenance and repair will continue, district spokesman Clint Bond said. However, they won't be conducted by CRP Future Pilots until the program is reviewed.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose it is possible the flashlight was left there by a high school student in the maintenance program?
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Bruce Landberg agrees with your opinion of the lawyer and other expert's early opinions, in this ASF blog post on AOPA from Feb 3rd...
Click to expand...

Well, one would expect Landsberg to try to put on a positive spin...

More LSA aircraft are entering the fleet and flying more hours so with greater exposure there might well be more accidents even with a reduction in rate.

...but I don't think being economical with the truth is productive in the long run:

The second surprise: Accident-wise, how well are LSA pilots stacking up against general aviation pilots? The answer is...not so well. “We’ve determined the frequency of loss in tricycle-gear LSA to be twice as bad as the general aviation fleet. Compared to Cessna 152s and 172s, Piper Cherokees, Grummans and so on, an S-LSA has the potential for an accident twice as often as a general aviation airplane.” Furthermore, Adams reported, tailwheel S-LSA models have a frequency of loss 4.5 times as bad as their GA counterparts!

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pil...ance-excogitations-on-lsa-crashes-part-1.html


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
...but I don't think being economical with the truth is productive in the long run:

The second surprise: Accident-wise, how well are LSA pilots stacking up against general aviation pilots? The answer is...not so well. “We’ve determined the frequency of loss in tricycle-gear LSA to be twice as bad as the general aviation fleet. Compared to Cessna 152s and 172s, Piper Cherokees, Grummans and so on, an S-LSA has the potential for an accident twice as often as a general aviation airplane.” Furthermore, Adams reported, tailwheel S-LSA models have a frequency of loss 4.5 times as bad as their GA counterparts!

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pil...ance-excogitations-on-lsa-crashes-part-1.html


Trapper John
Click to expand...

"It turns out, after accounting for all other factors, that pilot experience is the major culprit. Here’s surprise #3: If you conclude, as I did, that new, low-time sport pilots are the ones whanging in on a regular basis, conclude again. It’s exactly the opposite: High-time pilots are the ones bending the birds out there!"

According to the article pilots used to driving trucks (paraphrasing a bit) can't handle cross winds and gusts in light aircraft with low wing loadings. And they are pranging the Cub-Clones at a real high rate. Given that Cubs (and Airknockers, T-crafts, and...) have been around a lot longer than the LSA rules, I don't think you can blame the new rules.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
"It turns out, after accounting for all other factors, that pilot experience is the major culprit. Here’s surprise #3: If you conclude, as I did, that new, low-time sport pilots are the ones whanging in on a regular basis, conclude again. It’s exactly the opposite: High-time pilots are the ones bending the birds out there!"

According to the article pilots used to driving trucks (paraphrasing a bit) can't handle cross winds and gusts in light aircraft with low wing loadings. And they are pranging the Cub-Clones at a real high rate. Given that Cubs (and Airknockers, T-crafts, and...) have been around a lot longer than the LSA rules, I don't think you can blame the new rules.
Click to expand...
I think this has a lot to do with psychology and goes along with my theory that the thing that is easiest is the thing someone has done most often, recently. Someone who has been flying a bigger, more complex airplane might think that LSAs are simple, like toys, and should be easy to fly. However the control forces, sight picture and power available aren't what they are used to. I also wonder how many people are inclined to say, "30 knots, that's no problem, I've done it many times before!" but don't consider that a smaller, lighter airplane isn't capable of handling it in the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top