Transitioning to the Experimental World

[Geico266]

I don't know the whole story, and I don't think there is anyone who really does, but the stats for the exp planes is remarkably different than that for the certificated world. That's an ugly fact that can't be dismissed.

You are correct in that you don't know the whole story.

The statistics are only slightly higher for experimentals due to facts already stated. Only slightly higher does not warrant the term "ugly fact". The statistics clearly show homebuilders where to be more cautious and get transition training that up until recently was illegal. The rules were you could not train in an E-AB. That has changed and the accident level in that respect will come down.

Your continued misrepresentation of EAB only serves to continue the "old school" myths.

 

[Geico266]

Okay, I am biased towards EAB (experimental - amateur built) and I'll admit it, but this argument is a bit off. Not entirely wrong, just off enough to bear discussion.

So, the accident rate for EAB is higher than for certified aircraft, the data is pretty clear on that. But the data is also pretty clear (I believe Ron Wanttaja has demonstrated) that:
1) The first hours flown by a new EAB impacts the overall experimental safety statistics significantly (25% of ALL experimental accidents occur when the aircraft has less than 50 hours) , and
2) Non-builders who purchase experimental's and who do not get transition training greatly impact the safety statistics for EAB (Ron makes a great argument, but I'm not smart enough to summarize it well).

So, you can talk "data" all day long, but if you avoid two key risks that are well known and identified, you change the nature of the risk you are facing. It simply isn't "spin" to say that avoiding two key risks, lowers the risk of the activity. Safety of EAB has been examined closely. I don't think there is a valid argument that EAB are more safe, but I think there is pretty compelling evidence that is isn't as unsafe as a quick glace at the data indicates IF you are wise and AVOID a few key risk factors.

Well said.

 

[RichNY]

OK, sorry to interrupt your Vx/Vy 101 studies, as it's clear that you're having a hard time with them. And good luck on selling that story that "it wasn't me it was the checklist" that had them reversed.

I'm remembering my 35 yrs. of riding motorcycles. I rode through all the seasons including winter with snow. Dirt bikes, superbike racing, cross countries etc., well over 150,000 miles. Through the years I learned from my mistakes and got out alive.
Due to my natural riding ability and superior skill, 3 months after I first mounted a motorcycle, 35 yrs. ago, I knew everything about riding. I would instruct experienced riders whenever and wherever I'd meet them. There were those that were too old to listen and gain from my experience.
Then I crashed.
Luckily we didn't have the internet then and I only had to be embarrassed by those 3 other riders who witnessed my crash.

 

[AdamZ]

...
The advantage of non-certified avionics has also been driven home. The three access TruTrack autopilot in the -8 will fly us to the runway threshold, effortlessly, at a cost of just $3500. To get that safety and capability in the Pathfinder would have cost upwards of $15000, so we simply did without a device that most certainly could save our lives one day.

...

.

The above is one of the most attractive things about EAB IMHO.

As for the sniping, eh look guys Jay is just excited about his new plane, I think thats understandable. His terminology may not be 100% correct but it seems to me he's just excited to share his new bird and excitement.

Congrats on the sale of the Pathfinder BTW.

 

[docmirror]

Why did I know in my first post on the subject that everyone would want to cherry pick their data to refute clear statistical data. Dying or damaging a plane in your first taxi check or first ride is still dead or damage. It's part and parcel of the exp world.

It's like every exp guy in the world puts his fingers in his ears and goes 'la-la-la-la-la, I can't heeeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr yoouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu'.

Fine with me. Like I said, I fly exp planes, I like them, and want to see more cause I think they improve all aspects of GA. But - I'm also a realist. With greater performance, comes greater risk. With experimentation comes the potential for failure. I was wrong when I said the facts were ugly. I mispoke and I take it back. Facts stand for themselves, they have no visual impact.

 

[Bill Watson]

The advantage of non-certified avionics has also been driven home. The three access TruTrack autopilot in the -8 will fly us to the runway threshold, effortlessly, at a cost of just $3500. To get that safety and capability in the Pathfinder would have cost upwards of $15000, so we simply did without a device that most certainly could save our lives one day.

The above is one of the most attractive things about EAB IMHO.

As for the sniping, eh look guys Jay is just excited about his new plane, I think thats understandable. His terminology may not be 100% correct but it seems to me he's just excited to share his new bird and excitement.

As an EAB guy and long time reader of Jay's stuff, I got caught up in the excitement. Now I'm feeling a bit ill each time I read the latest updates to these threads.

Understanding Vx and Vy is primary training stuff. Not 'getting it' is scary.

The 2 axis Trutrak AP he has or will install is a great tool. I have one in the bird I built and have it fully integrated in to my navigation system. I routinely have it fly me down to DH. It took a lot of work and practice to get there. Much more than I would have ever thought. The benefits are great. But I know that without that work and practice, having it fly you down to a runway is not possible. Believing otherwise can get you killed if you are depending on such a capability. With just a little work and practice you can effectively use it fly the plane for you on a VFR cross country flight no doubt, but not much more. That's the truth.

Buying and flying EAB aircraft is perfectly legal, sane and a wonderful thing for personal aviation. Now that I've built one, I would feel comfortable buying someone else's. But I worry about buyers who may do less than due diligence on such a acquisition. The great part about certified aircraft is that you can just be a pilot with some assurance that the aircraft and it's maintenance meet a certain standard. EAB, not so much. The owner/operator needs to take a larger role.

Frankly, I believe Jay is a level headed and capable guy. The excitement and the little bit of risk taking discussed here is fine. However, his advocacy of 'incorrect stuff' and misrepresentation of less safe operations as safer operations, is dangerous, wrong headed and at the minimum needs to be countered. That's what all the sniping is about.

The alternative is to let all the wrong headed stuff and attitudes just fly with a laugh and a "that's just Jay". Let newer pilots pick it up and be influenced. But the very worst outcome is that Jay buys it for whatever reason and a bunch of people here start 2nd guessing themselves about whether they should have spoken up sooner and more strongly. This is just a version of the guy who routinely shows up on marginal days and scud runs his 'Bo to his cousins lakefront place on the otherside of the hills. Everyone talks behind his back about the stupid risks being run but no one ever speaks up. Hey, it's his life, right? Yeah, even when his wife and kids show up to empty the hangar.

Again, Jay has always struck me as a level headed guy. Even his longstanding VFR-only stance, which I've argued against in years past, is in retrospect a reasonable and mature stance to take for many pilots. It's good to set some personal boundaries and respect them. Jay will be fine and is doing fine in my opinion...

...Except for the influence he may have on others here on this board. If he is going to say stuff and it's dangerously wrong, he needs to be countered. Ironically in today's world, that's part of this forum's responsibilities.

Welcome to the age of denial

 

[jsstevens]

Why did I know in my first post on the subject that everyone would want to cherry pick their data to refute clear statistical data. Dying or damaging a plane in your first taxi check or first ride is still dead or damage. It's part and parcel of the exp world.

It's like every exp guy in the world puts his fingers in his ears and goes 'la-la-la-la-la, I can't heeeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr yoouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu'.

Fine with me. Like I said, I fly exp planes, I like them, and want to see more cause I think they improve all aspects of GA. But - I'm also a realist. With greater performance, comes greater risk. With experimentation comes the potential for failure. I was wrong when I said the facts were ugly. I mispoke and I take it back. Facts stand for themselves, they have no visual impact.

All the statistics are true. And they can be used to avoid bad parts of the safety envelope which makes an individual's flying safer. For example, VMC into IMC is a bad part of the aviation envelope regardless of certificated or experimental aircraft. As a low time, somewhat infrequent pilot, I don't fly in less than 5 mile vis and ceilings lower than 2500 feet. I'm safer than the statistics by staying out of those areas. Whole cloth statistics are true and useful as are subset slices AS LONG As YOU ARE HONEST about how you are slicing and how you stay out of the bad parts.

John

P.S. and edit: Before somebody chimes in and says: you're unsafe unless you get out there more and increase your comfort level with lower vis, etc. I am working within the limitation imposed by my life and my flight instructor repeatedly comments that I am a safe and responsible pilot. That is worth more to me than folks who have never flown with me evaluating my skills in absentia.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So I guess sitting behind an automated aircraft for 13 hours at a time is supposed to impress us? Nah. You misread, misunderstood and misrepresent what Jay said. Not useful. Stick to trying to stay awake while you rack up all these so-called hours you like to think make your opinion so valuable......

I'll let Airbus know the 320 flies for 13 hours because "Goofy" said so.

Any other useful information or would you like to make something else up?

BTW, didn't you promise to block me?

 

[Goofy]

I'll let Airbus know the 320 flies for 13 hours because "Goofy" said so.

Any other useful information or would you like to make something else up?

BTW, didn't you promise to block me?

Stay awake now...
Don't forget that frog plane thinks it can fly better than you......maybe it can!

 

[flyingmoose]

Stay awake now...

Keep making a fool of yourself

 

[Neal Howard]

Certified helicopters is a growing and profitable sector of the GA market.

It is also a rather specialized segment of the market... primarily applicable to government, corporate aviation, or the extremely wealthy individual only. No average Joe pilots like myself, or even the vast majority of my local aviation community will ever participate in the helicopter segment... we have exactly one helicopter at my field, and it belongs to a multi-millionaire as a toy.

A pretty good "barometer of the health" of GA as an industry could be found in the Garmin booth at Oshkosh this year. They're turning their new product development focus to the experimental & LS aircraft market in a big way. The rep I spoke with told me that their sales of certificated avionics is essentially flat, and the only "growth" sales, increasing on any kind of a curve, are in their experimental and portable product lines. He made the comment that something's got to pay for keeping the certified product lines' development and production going... insinuating that those are being subsidized by the sales of their experimental products. I asked him if he was joking and he said not entirely

 

[LDJones]

I hear cialis helps "when the time is right"

Oh, I'm definitely "up for it"! The bank account is the one that needs some stimulation!

 

[LDJones]

POF, the Mooney has push rod controls and flys like a dump truck.. Even a Pathfinder is better "harmonized."

Okay, I admit I've never driven a dump truck, but I've flown Mooney C, E, F, J, K, M, R, and S models and I thought all of them were pretty darn responsive!

Not RV-like by any stretch....but a "dump truck"??!

Now I want to go try a dump truck if they're that much fun to drive!

 

[frfly172]

It's about time garmin recognized the potential market in L/S EXP aircraft.Those two segments are what are keeping the industry competitive. They are also brining the cost of aviation down a little. As far as safety goes that's in the hands of the pilot too many people assume they can just jump into any aircraft and fly it.both segments safety records have to do with a lack of training on the pilots choice.

 

[Jay Honeck]

As an EAB guy and long time reader of Jay's stuff, I got caught up in the excitement. Now I'm feeling a bit ill each time I read the latest updates to these threads.

Understanding Vx and Vy is primary training stuff. Not 'getting it' is scary.

The 2 axis Trutrak AP he has or will install is a great tool. I have one in the bird I built and have it fully integrated in to my navigation system. I routinely have it fly me down to DH. It took a lot of work and practice to get there. Much more than I would have ever thought. The benefits are great. But I know that without that work and practice, having it fly you down to a runway is not possible. Believing otherwise can get you killed if you are depending on such a capability. With just a little work and practice you can effectively use it fly the plane for you on a VFR cross country flight no doubt, but not much more. That's the truth.

Buying and flying EAB aircraft is perfectly legal, sane and a wonderful thing for personal aviation. Now that I've built one, I would feel comfortable buying someone else's. But I worry about buyers who may do less than due diligence on such a acquisition. The great part about certified aircraft is that you can just be a pilot with some assurance that the aircraft and it's maintenance meet a certain standard. EAB, not so much. The owner/operator needs to take a larger role.

Frankly, I believe Jay is a level headed and capable guy. The excitement and the little bit of risk taking discussed here is fine. However, his advocacy of 'incorrect stuff' and misrepresentation of less safe operations as safer operations, is dangerous, wrong headed and at the minimum needs to be countered. That's what all the sniping is about.

The alternative is to let all the wrong headed stuff and attitudes just fly with a laugh and a "that's just Jay". Let newer pilots pick it up and be influenced. But the very worst outcome is that Jay buys it for whatever reason and a bunch of people here start 2nd guessing themselves about whether they should have spoken up sooner and more strongly. This is just a version of the guy who routinely shows up on marginal days and scud runs his 'Bo to his cousins lakefront place on the otherside of the hills. Everyone talks behind his back about the stupid risks being run but no one ever speaks up. Hey, it's his life, right? Yeah, even when his wife and kids show up to empty the hangar.

Again, Jay has always struck me as a level headed guy. Even his longstanding VFR-only stance, which I've argued against in years past, is in retrospect a reasonable and mature stance to take for many pilots. It's good to set some personal boundaries and respect them. Jay will be fine and is doing fine in my opinion...

...Except for the influence he may have on others here on this board. If he is going to say stuff and it's dangerously wrong, he needs to be countered. Ironically in today's world, that's part of this forum's responsibilities.

Welcome to the age of denial

What's sad about this forum (and actually with society in general nowadays -- it's not just POA) is that very few people read an entire thread and follow the PROGRESSION of thought that is involved. We are all too busy to bother -- I am just as guilty -- so we cherry pick a post or two and blast away, completely disregarding the fact that the thread (and original poster) has moved on from that original position.

My contention that getting to pattern altitude in 12 seconds was "safer" than a Vy climb was disproved early on in that thread. I learned, accepted, and moved on -- but I am still seeing posts like this one that obviously was written by someone who read the first few posts, and nothing more.

And, of course, there's no point in posting this, either, since few will read this far into a thread, either!

Yet another reason POA is a colossal waste of time, but what the heck -- I've got to do something between guests, and Yahoo news gets old quickly.

 

[RV10flyer]

Jay,

Congrats on the RV. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transitioning as you have already found out. Even some of the EAB guys will look down on you for not building your own. Take it slow, read all of the manuals that the seller should have given you, learn your new plane inside and out, learn your limits and its limits and understand the emergency procedures(written and unwritten). When I came on board here, a few probably assumed I was just another "RV Cowboy". It was the same at my airport for awhile. I have not forgotten where I came from in 172 rentals and still admire anything that flies. I have tried not to brag or show off too much. I know it is difficult with a new plane. I always remember that there is always someone out there that is faster or bigger. I also remember that any plane or pilot can get behind the power curve, yes even an RV. I have read many reports on EAB crashes...improper maneuvering near the hard stuff as well as fuel/flight control malfunctions are pretty common themes. I think most of us just want to see you on here years from now and not read about you elsewhere. Take care, fly safe and double check all of the self-locking nuts on those harmonious control rods.

 

[Bill Watson]

What's sad about this forum (and actually with society in general nowadays -- it's not just POA) is that very few people read an entire thread and follow the PROGRESSION of thought that is involved. We are all too busy to bother -- I am just as guilty -- so we cherry pick a post or two and blast away, completely disregarding the fact that the thread (and original poster) has moved on from that original position.

My contention that getting to pattern altitude in 12 seconds was "safer" than a Vy climb was disproved early on in that thread. I learned, accepted, and moved on -- but I am still seeing posts like this one that obviously was written by someone who read the first few posts, and nothing more.

And, of course, there's no point in posting this, either, since few will read this far into a thread, either!

Yet another reason POA is a colossal waste of time, but what the heck -- I've got to do something between guests, and Yahoo news gets old quickly.

I'm in the somewhat non-productive habit of reading every post and did so her. Yes, it is a colossal waste of time. The 'progression' of thought is a nice concept but what I remember is a spirited statement of your position, an aggressive defense and somewhere along the way, while dodging the snipers you quietly caved. I missed it. I know you caved only because you repeatedly reminded people you had. I bet I'm not alone.

POA is influential but it's not the FARS. Entertaining and at times informative, it's fun to read while one carries on with their real life but it's not required reading. It's a bull pen of sorts, the office water cooler if you will. You can't necessarily believe what you hear but it's worth listening closely to the war stories of the veterans and the old hands. You are one of them like it or not.

Everyone needs to take their forum responsibilities seriously. If someone makes a questionable point strongly, it needs to be countered strongly and repeatedly. A loud and factually stated consensus on a given point may save a life.

Someone referenced the VAF (Vans Air Force) forum discussion covering similar ground. It's worth a read for anyone who missed it. (and I just happen to still have it up so here it is...)
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=77750

Anyway.... time for my 2nd condition inspection.

 

[Goofy]

Keep making a fool of yourself

Can't blame you alphabets for poo pooing our world - you can't sick us with those five figure annuals, oh boo hoo.

Oh, and speaking of Airbus...

 

[wanttaja]

So, the accident rate for EAB is higher than for certified aircraft, the data is pretty clear on that.

Well... the problem is, there really isn't any good, clear data. All the comparisons of homebuilt vs. production accident rates depend on a number of assumptions, and the results can change quite a bit depending on how one slices the assumptions.

Let's pick on Jay for a moment (can't argue with tradition . When he owned his Pathfinder, the FAA assumed he was flying it about 200 hours per year when it came time to predict the total GA flight annual flight hours. Now that he owns an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, the FAA assumes he flies 29 hours per year.

Now, spiffy flight suit and new kneeboard aside, the RV-8 hasn't changed Jay and Mary's use of aircraft that much. There'll be more hours this year, of course, but once they settle into ownership, they'll probably fly about the same number of hours.

But the FAA doesn't see it that way. When they estimate the total fleet hours for the homebuilt and certified aircraft at the end of year, Jay's RV-8A will count for less than 30 hours of flying time.

The explanation I received is that this is compensating for the inactive homebuilts on the rolls; that Jay's airplane essentially represents "N" homebuilts, and the numbers are averaged out.

But, again, a stream of assumptions. The FAA registration database is in sad shape, though the re-registration process helps to some extent. There are thousands, perhaps over ten thousand, homebuilts on the FAA registry that are not counted as such.

~25 years ago, a friend of mine built an RV-6: N16JA. Look up its registration. Guess what, it's not a homebuilt. Classification is "unknown," not Experimental, and its category is "None" instead of Amateur-Built.

Now, look up N16JA in the NTSB records. An accident in 2004 (well after my friend sold it, I hasten to add).

You want to BET that N16JA was listed as a homebuilt in the 2004 accident statistics, even though it wasn't otherwise counted as a homebuilt? So the homebuilt accident rate gets its numerator incremented, without the denominator reflecting the additional aircraft.

I went through the FAA rolls a while back, and found about 11,000 aircraft with homebuilt-like names that were not listed as Experimental. That's about 1/3 the number of airplanes in the officially-recognized homebuilt fleet. No question the statistics would look better if they were included.

Another factor is that the FAA/NTSB/AOPA aren't considering comparable use. A Kitfox and a Mooney do NOT have the same mission. Their accident rates are undoubtedly different, but the question is, how much is the "homebuilt" nature of the Kitfox contributing to its rate? How about the little grass strips it flies into, or the series of touch-and-goes the owner flies? Can we blame a higher accident rate solely on the fact that the Kitfox doesn't comply with standard airworthiness?

You really shouldn't. But that's the way its done. A combination of a string of assumptions, coupled with some *missing* assumptions, and we can't really narrow down on the difference in the accident rates.

I've done the comparison myself, using solely the fleet size of the aircraft types. It has its problems as well; many of the aircraft listed are non-existent or inactive...on both sides of the airworthiness coin. But it probably has the shortest string of assumptions.

The last time I ran the Overall vs. Homebuilt comparison (a number of years ago), homebuilts had a 43% higher accident rate, dropping to about 16% if aircraft still in their test periods were not included. AOPA, in their annual Nall report, says the homebuilt accident rate is about seven times higher than production-type aircraft. The truth no doubt lies somewhere in the middle.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Perezhr]

Okay, I admit I've never driven a dump truck, but I've flown Mooney C, E, F, J, K, M, R, and S models and I thought all of them were pretty darn responsive!

Not RV-like by any stretch....but a "dump truck"??!

Now I want to go try a dump truck if they're that much fun to drive!

He was probably fighting the PC (wing leveler) and did not know it

 

[PW_Plack]

Why did I know in my first post on the subject that everyone would want to cherry pick their data to refute clear statistical data. Dying or damaging a plane in your first taxi check or first ride is still dead or damage...It's like every exp guy in the world puts his fingers in his ears and goes 'la-la-la-la-la, I can't heeeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr yoouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu'.

You seem to be the one with plugged ears.

If Phase 1 is completed before I buy and I've had transition training, how am I still subject to the risks of Phase 1 or lack of transition training?

The idea that eliminating known risk factors creates a lower risk environment is a foundational principle of insurance underwriting. It is not cherry picking.

 

[moonshine]

A pretty good "barometer of the health" of GA as an industry could be found in the Garmin booth at Oshkosh this year. They're turning their new product development focus to the experimental & LS aircraft market in a big way. The rep I spoke with told me that their sales of certificated avionics is essentially flat, and the only "growth" sales, increasing on any kind of a curve, are in their experimental and portable product lines. He made the comment that something's got to pay for keeping the certified product lines' development and production going... insinuating that those are being subsidized by the sales of their experimental products. I asked him if he was joking and he said not entirely

I bet G500H and G1000H make Garmin more profits than G3X and G900X
Wouldn't be a popular thing to say at Oshkosh though

 

[Bill Watson]

It is also a rather specialized segment of the market... primarily applicable to government, corporate aviation, or the extremely wealthy individual only. No average Joe pilots like myself, or even the vast majority of my local aviation community will ever participate in the helicopter segment... we have exactly one helicopter at my field, and it belongs to a multi-millionaire as a toy.

A pretty good "barometer of the health" of GA as an industry could be found in the Garmin booth at Oshkosh this year. They're turning their new product development focus to the experimental & LS aircraft market in a big way. The rep I spoke with told me that their sales of certificated avionics is essentially flat, and the only "growth" sales, increasing on any kind of a curve, are in their experimental and portable product lines. He made the comment that something's got to pay for keeping the certified product lines' development and production going... insinuating that those are being subsidized by the sales of their experimental products. I asked him if he was joking and he said not entirely

One of my 'old boy' neighbors whose current a/c is a nice C-150 decided to get his rotor wings at age 65+. He did it and I will forever be impressed.

Rotorway made an EAB chopper available to anyone so inclined. I just think it's a limited market due to limited interest relative to costs and utility. Helicopters are to the aviation community like aircraft are to the general public, . Personally I'm into flying like a bird rather than participating in some kind of gyroscopic physics demo. Heck, I'm still adjusting to needing the vibrator up front.

Big Dog Garmin seems to kick-ass wherever they decide to play. When I was outfitting my '10, they were an option, but at that time they were a professionally installed-only option. I did it my self and went with Grand Rapids Technology which worked out fine. But it was clear that the Garmin options then and now are the best available to EABers. However the price tag is 100% greater than most other options. It really is a testament to where the action is in personal aviation. There product rep needs to learn how to stay on the reservation though.

 

[Skylane81E]

Can't blame you alphabets for poo pooing our world - you can't sick us with those five figure annuals, oh boo hoo.

Oh, and speaking of Airbus...

Nope, just a nice big bill for a condition inspection, if its broke its broke

 

[Jay Honeck]

I honestly don't understand what is happening to our society WRT this new obsession with "safety". Why would anyone outside of an insurance company's actuarial office care if one class of aircraft is slightly "less safe" than another?

It's like people suddenly whining about how "unsafe" football is. OF COURSE football is unsafe -- the game has not changed. In fact, that's the point of the game.

Flinging yourself bodily through the sky will always carry a risk. So long as the design is sound, the wings are firmly attached, and all the moving parts are healthy, flying is safe enough. The rest is up to me.

Hell, that's what I like best about flying. And motorcycling. And owning a business. Hmmmm...I think I'm sensing a pattern here.

 

[PW_Plack]

I honestly don't understand what is happening to our society WRT this new obsession with "safety"...

It's part of a bigger trend away from feeling personally responsible for your own outcomes, IMO.

The irony, for me, is that it's harder than ever to read the owners manual and find the warnings that aren't crying "wolf" amid all the boilerplate which should be covered by common sense.

Experimental Amateur Built aircraft are one of the few remaining areas in which we have a choice to entrust our safety to manufacturers and pay them handsomely for it, or save tons of money by committing to behaving safely on our own. That's a choice you no longer get when buying a lawnmower.

 

[wanttaja]

I honestly don't understand what is happening to our society WRT this new obsession with "safety". Why would anyone outside of an insurance company's actuarial office care if one class of aircraft is slightly "less safe" than another?

In some cases, it's the hope to improve the "less-safe" item. A few years ago, RV-6As were having more landing flipovers than the taildragger variety. Could have just shrugged it off (many did, blaming the pilots), but Van's came up with an improvement to the nosewheel structure that reduced the tendency.

About twenty years ago, a homebuilt wing folded when the pilot did a abrupt pull-up during a high-speed pass. Investigation revealed that the wing failed well beyond the design limits. However, the designer investigated and found that a slight change to the component that failed got the design about a G and a half additional margin. IIRC, the weight cost of the change was less than a pound.

Stepping back to the homebuilts vs. Production issue, take a look at this graph:

It compares the normalized number of accidents over a ten year period. "Normalized", in this case, is the number of accidents which would have occurred if the aircraft fleet sizes had been the same (e.g, if the fleet size was half that of the homebuilts, the number of accidents was doubled).

Notice that the accidents due pilot judgment were roughly the same, between the homebuilts, Cessna 172s, and my PA-28 set (-140, -161, -180, and -181). The homebuilts and the 172s were about equal for pilot stick-and-rudder errors.

Notice, though, how the mechanical issues really stand out on the homebuilts. This is spread pretty equally across a number of areas; engines, fuel systems, landing gear, ignition, etc. That makes it a bit tougher to improve.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[denverpilot]

...and its virtually impossible to get behind the power curve, thanks to instant acceleration with the application of power.

Personally I like landing slower than best L/D speed, but hey... You want to land that fast, go ahead.

Saying this as hopefully a friend, Jay... You really need to take an Aerodynamics class.

I suspect you're purposefully behind the power curve on every landing. If not you're going to be buying a lot of brake pads.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Personally I like landing slower than best L/D speed, but hey... You want to land that fast, go ahead.

Saying this as hopefully a friend, Jay... You really need to take an Aerodynamics class.

I suspect you're purposefully behind the power curve on every landing. If not you're going to be buying a lot of brake pads.

You say the most inadvertently funny things sometimes.

Do you really think, after transition training with a known expert in the field, that we are landing "behind the power curve"?

 

[Jay Honeck]

In some cases, it's the hope to improve the "less-safe" item. A few years ago, RV-6As were having more landing flipovers than the taildragger variety. Could have just shrugged it off (many did, blaming the pilots), but Van's came up with an improvement to the nosewheel structure that reduced the tendency.

It makes perfect sense for manufacturers to improve the breed by beefing up areas that are known to be deficient -- that's not what I'm referring to.

The FAA's obsession with the safety of homebuilts smacks of a rudderless federal agency searching for a new mission. Just as EPA didn't cease to exist once air pollution was resolved, the FAA will NEVER be satisfied until there are zero incidents or accidents.

The fact that this will mean we will have no airplanes flying at all won't bother them in the least.

 

[jesse]

You say the most inadvertently funny things sometimes.

Do you really think, after transition training with a known expert in the field, that we are landing "behind the power curve"?

At some point during the landing? Yes,
Yes I do. At least I sure hope you are.

 

[denverpilot]

At some point during the landing? Yes,
Yes I do. At least I sure hope you are.

Me too. Again, I repeat... Get thee into an aerodynamics class, Jay.

Most aircraft are landing at speeds well below best L/D speed.

Your friends are attempting to be helpful not hurtful. You have a huge hole in your knowledge base in your head.

I've been "called on" stuff I didn't know here, too. Seriously.

I don't know if anyone has built a reasonable L/D graph that approximates your particular RV model, but I'm guessing someone has. Go look at it carefully and tell me if your approach and landing speeds are above best L/D or below it.

Now shade in the part of the graph you believe to be "behind the power curve".

Crack a book or a website. It'll help your flying. Not being mean. Being serious here.

If you're more interested in applied science than the graphs and math, go add a glider rating. You'll be surrounded by Instructors who spend every flight teaching these concepts to powered pilots and noobs who haven't had it "click" yet.

That too will solidify it and greatly improve your powered flying.

Lots of ways to gain this knowledge both practical and book. You don't need to sit through heavy math physics courses to do it.

It reaps huge rewards. Knowing this cold will easily explain why that engine-out pushover has to be so abrupt and further down than most people think. Best L/D is going to wind past FAST with nothing turning on the front of the airframe to overcome D!

Too many pilots out there forget that D is always present and think D only comes from devices like flaps. I ain't saying that's you but more as a PSA: Understand the lift graph! Understand why some airfoils have a very sharp parabola and others a docile less steep one. Understand where Vx and Vy fall on the graph. Etc.

It's really really important stuff and glossed over by many in the Private Pilot certification process into, for lack of a better term, "sound bites" or "rules of thumb".

I was fortunate enough to start my aviation life at a college where no one got out of doing the math. I hate advanced math.

Because of that background, I see serious deficiencies in how aerodynamic realities forced by the laws of physics are not taught to non-professional powered aircraft pilots and suspect through no particular fault of your own, you're in that bucket.

Note how many people come here afraid of stalls, afraid of spins, generally afraid of being anywhere near the lower edge of that L/D curve. There is a tendency in training to put a boogie man logo down there on the curve and say, "There be Dragons here" instead of teaching it, then following up with practical application of the knowledge.

Barry Schiff has some stuff that's just whacked in some of his writing but his general goal in the majority of his work was to educate pilots on how pros "fly the numbers" and why. Have you read "The Proficient Pilot" series? There's a number of practical application type scenarios in there you can take your airplane up and fly it to grasp how to apply the physics and knowledge, although sometimes Schiff still glossed over the math and science. Recommended with some limited reservations, if you're dead set against a formal study of basic aerodynamics.

My brain gave up at the math for fluid dynamics. I won't pretend to be an aeronautical engineer. No hubris here. Just want to see ya grow that knowledge base in your head. It'll make you a better aviator. (As opposed to just a pilot.)

Fair enough?

 

[kyleb]

You say the most inadvertently funny things sometimes.

Do you really think, after transition training with a known expert in the field, that we are landing "behind the power curve"?

Did someone suggest a course in aerodynamics?

Nail, hammer, head...

 

[RotorAndWing]

Did someone suggest a course in aerodynamics?

Nail, hammer, head...

 

[Bill Watson]

I honestly don't understand what is happening to our society WRT this new obsession with "safety". Why would anyone outside of an insurance company's actuarial office care if one class of aircraft is slightly "less safe" than another?

It's like people suddenly whining about how "unsafe" football is. OF COURSE football is unsafe -- the game has not changed. In fact, that's the point of the game.

Flinging yourself bodily through the sky will always carry a risk. So long as the design is sound, the wings are firmly attached, and all the moving parts are healthy, flying is safe enough. The rest is up to me.

Hell, that's what I like best about flying. And motorcycling. And owning a business. Hmmmm...I think I'm sensing a pattern here.

The safety thing is more like continuous improvement to me...

....just like football which has been changing. Changing faster now than ever before. Before our time it was played with leather beanies and everybody was missing teeth. Now every one has a dripping mount protector hanging from the cage of their reinforced helmet. There are penalties for, God forbid, unnecessary roughness! Let alone roughing the kicker or roughing the passer, etc. Now there's a focus on preventing concussions where previously concussions were paid for. I heard this morning that ESPN in conjunction with Frontline just killed a piece they did on concussions after an angry NFL went after them. Since the NFL pays ESPN some ungodly number of $$$ to carry games, I'll bet that was some meeting.

Jay, you need to get our more. Or maybe stay in more and watch more TV. Or maybe you are doing it just right. In any case, I'd argue that 'society' and our safety culture leans towards getting right over time. But I'm a progressive optimist type so clearly I'm full of it.

 

[denverpilot]

The safety thing is more like continuous improvement to me...

That's fine if one recalls that the curve gets steeper toward the end and the ability to improve marginal safety is limited by available resources.

There's a point where the objective measure of safety doesn't show enough improvement for the resources expended.

How flat is that fatal accident curve in aviation nowadays over say, a five decade period? How does that curve compare to the funding curve for those tasked with mandating safety requirements? Is one going up steeply with no appreciable change in the other?

I'm just asking. Not assuming the answer. Feel free to investigate on your own. There's no such thing as cheaper or free "continuous improvement".

 

[kyleb]

That's fine if one recalls that the curve gets steeper toward the end and the ability to improve marginal safety is limited by available resources.

There's a point where the objective measure of safety doesn't show enough improvement for the resources expended.

How flat is that fatal accident curve in aviation nowadays over say, a five decade period? How does that curve compare to the funding curve for those tasked with mandating safety requirements? Is one going up steeply with no appreciable change in the other?

I'm just asking. Not assuming the answer. Feel free to investigate on your own. There's no such thing as cheaper or free "continuous improvement".

Are you suggesting we've harvested the low hanging fruit. And probably the layer or two above them as well? I tend to agree.

 

[Bill Watson]

That's fine if one recalls that the curve gets steeper toward the end and the ability to improve marginal safety is limited by available resources.

There's a point where the objective measure of safety doesn't show enough improvement for the resources expended.

How flat is that fatal accident curve in aviation nowadays over say, a five decade period? How does that curve compare to the funding curve for those tasked with mandating safety requirements? Is one going up steeply with no appreciable change in the other?

I'm just asking. Not assuming the answer. Feel free to investigate on your own. There's no such thing as cheaper or free "continuous improvement".

Can't argue with that and I certainly don't can't answer the questions. But I think we all know that while 'big' aviation has established very high levels of safety, 'little' aviation seems like there are plenty of opportunities to improve.

Ballistic chutes in certified planes remains a high resource 'improvement' with questionable payback. But collecting high quality accident information, doing accurate analysis and using better information to improve the safety of GA aircraft and pilots seems always justified to me. Sometimes it's just a matter of telling pilots how they are killing themselves and allowing us to reflect on it.

The improvements in avionics come with much cost but once some of those costs are sunk as in launching the GPS network, a lot of safety improvements can be had for little additional cost. I'm thinking there's always room for some level of continuous improvement just because we collectively get smarter and have better tools. I mean, never flying off the map or leaving a needed plate at home is worth buying a tablet loaded with everything you could possibly need on any and every flight. Especially since you can play games, do email and post on POA using the same device.

 

[wabower]

I'd be confident in cross-examination of anybody who thinks the low-hanging GA fruit has been plucked.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Fair enough?

Nope. If you REALLY meant that we are "flying behind the power curve" in a positive way (which, of course, you did not), well, you're wrong there, too.

What you were referring to in your post was that we were "flying behind the power curve", AKA: hauling it in on power alone, due to some ignorance on my part. This is a great way to kill yourself, and I assure you that this is NOT happening.

Your assumption was just wrong. It's okay.