Transitioning to the Experimental World

[Jay Honeck]

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.

It used to be that flying small aircraft was viewed in the same light as riding a motorcycle. People EXPECTED some pilots to get hurt, and some pilots to die.

And it was okay. Sad, but accepted. Just like motorcycling.

Now, there's this huge move afoot (ironically, now that GA is virtually dead) to make it "safer", as in zero tolerance for injuries or deaths. Like motorcycling, the only way to accomplish this lofty goal is to ban the activity.

It's coming. The hand-wringing has only just begun.

 

[wabower]

In which case the RV owners should be very concerned, as their segment is currently in the Bulls-eye of the FAA's "clear and present danger" agenda.

It used to be that flying small aircraft was viewed in the same light as riding a motorcycle. People EXPECTED some pilots to get hurt, and some pilots to die.

And it was okay. Sad, but accepted. Just like motorcycling.

Now, there's this huge move afoot (ironically, now that GA is virtually dead) to make it "safer", as in zero tolerance for injuries or deaths. Like motorcycling, the only way to accomplish this lofty goal is to ban the activity.

It's coming. The hand-wringing has only just begun.

 

[Goofy]

I'm still in awe that the experimental world is still allowed to exist. Given the lattitude we have, freedom from govt. interference compared to the poor guys in the certified world, the obnoxious attitudes of some, well displayed here on this forum and the potential lobbying power of the GA manufacturers I'd say our days may be numbered. Sad to think our kids and grandkids won't have the opportunity to enjoy our world.

Had an interesting example of the obnoxious world of certified parts tonight. A buddy is rebuilding a C-150 and a simple little plastic transition from scat to defroster was quoted at $165......
He made one in 90 minutes for 50 cents in materials and got a taste of our world!!!
May have a convert.

 

[Bill Watson]

It used to be that flying small aircraft was viewed in the same light as riding a motorcycle. People EXPECTED some pilots to get hurt, and some pilots to die.

And it was okay. Sad, but accepted. Just like motorcycling.

Now, there's this huge move afoot (ironically, now that GA is virtually dead) to make it "safer", as in zero tolerance for injuries or deaths. Like motorcycling, the only way to accomplish this lofty goal is to ban the activity.

It's coming. The hand-wringing has only just begun.

Funny, seeing the same trends I get exactly the opposite impression. LSAs, ultralights, EAB Kit planes, all of that represents a calibrated effort to lower the bar that was set when airplanes and flying was a bleeding edge super high tech enterprise. Now anyone with the $$$ and ovaries can go out and risk there neck in the sky. Doesn't have to be a store bought certified aircraft. No, you can buy a QB kit, snap it together, modify it to your hearts content, get a designated examiner sympathetic to your cause to approve it and fly your butt off. Couldn't do that 30 years ago.

Then there's jetman.... where the hell did that come from? We have a bunch of terrorists take a jet and slam it into you know where... then some guy shows up with jets strapped to his back flying around like freebird. Yeah, extreme sports is the last step before terminal communal hang wringing and absolute prohibition of all that's fun and risky. Right. You can take your bike, rev it up to 120 and you aren't even touching the edge of what passes for extreme air sports these days.

Smile man! It's not doom and gloom and the end of civilization as it's never been. It's the age of extreme over the top sports that will shave your 120mph underbelly off on a rock 10,000' up in the Alps. Me? I'd just like a single engine (oh no!) PC12 to take me to the Bahamas over 60 miles of semi-non-frigid gulf stream. Call me a wuss and give me a dry daylight 8,000' runway at sea level.

Crikey!

 

[Jay Honeck]

Funny, seeing the same trends I get exactly the opposite impression. LSAs, ultralights, EAB Kit planes, all of that represents a calibrated effort to lower the bar that was set when airplanes and flying was a bleeding edge super high tech enterprise. Now anyone with the $$$ and ovaries can go out and risk there neck in the sky. Doesn't have to be a store bought certified aircraft. No, you can buy a QB kit, snap it together, modify it to your hearts content, get a designated examiner sympathetic to your cause to approve it and fly your butt off. Couldn't do that 30 years ago.

Then there's jetman.... where the hell did that come from? We have a bunch of terrorists take a jet and slam it into you know where... then some guy shows up with jets strapped to his back flying around like freebird. Yeah, extreme sports is the last step before terminal communal hang wringing and absolute prohibition of all that's fun and risky. Right. You can take your bike, rev it up to 120 and you aren't even touching the edge of what passes for extreme air sports these days.

Smile man! It's not doom and gloom and the end of civilization as it's never been. It's the age of extreme over the top sports that will shave your 120mph underbelly off on a rock 10,000' up in the Alps. Me? I'd just like a single engine (oh no!) PC12 to take me to the Bahamas over 60 miles of semi-non-frigid gulf stream. Call me a wuss and give me a dry daylight 8,000' runway at sea level.

Crikey!

You're probably right. Out in the real world, (AKA: Not on these forums), there probably isn't a soul who gives a rat's ass about whether we live or die in our little airplanes.

And that's as it should be.

 

[Skylane81E]

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"?

Good god I hope you are, you just aren't lugging it because, well you are at low power and descending.

 

[Skylane81E]

You're probably right. Out in the real world, (AKA: Not on these forums), there probably isn't a soul who gives a rat's ass about whether we live or die in our little airplanes.

And that's as it should be.

I'll buy this, WE should care (it is our asses up there after all) but when it is just our ass on the line I'm ok with letting the PIC accept more risk if he so chooses.

Put a paying passenger in the mix and things change of course, but this is why you can't use an RV (or any other EAB) in a commercial operation, and that's fine, but pleasure flying doesn't quite fit into that:wink2:

 

[nauga]

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

I think he probably trained you to, whether you do it or not is up to you.

Below Vy is 'behind the power curve' using accepted definitions for Vy, 'the power curve', and 'below'. YMMV, especially in the experimental world when someone else did the book performance numbers for you. Vy for my RV-4 is around 100-110 KIAS, I can pretty much guarantee nobody would land my airplane at that speed and I verified in flight test that this is on the backside of the power curve. Flaps down changes the speed where you transition to backside somewhat but the end result is the same.

Nauga,
with TMPAW EGTL

 

[Jay Honeck]

The traditional definition of "landing behind the power curve" means flying down short final with power such that, should the powerplant fail, you would stall, crash and burn well short of the runway.

In other words, pulling the plane through the final stages of the landing sequence with power, rather than gliding to the numbers.

We most assuredly are not using this potentially suicidal technique to land our new airplane.

 

[gismo]

I think he probably trained you to, whether you do it or not is up to you.

Below Vy is 'behind the power curve' using accepted definitions for Vy, 'the power curve', and 'below'. YMMV, especially in the experimental world when someone else did the book performance numbers for you. Vy for my RV-4 is around 100-110 KIAS, I can pretty much guarantee nobody would land my airplane at that speed and I verified in flight test that this is on the backside of the power curve. Flaps down changes the speed where you transition to backside somewhat but the end result is the same.

Nauga,
with TMPAW EGTL

IIRC, Vy is typically quite a bit faster than the minimum power required speed. AFaIK this because in a climb a portion of the thrust is directly providing lift so the airplane behaves as if it were lighter. The speed for minimum power is typically called the max endurance speed and it's below that where more power is required to maintain altitude or the same constant rate of descent. It should be exactly your best L/D (max range) speed divided by 1.316. Since Vy is typically close to Vy, if your Vy is around 100 KIAS, at the same weight your max endurance speed is likely close to 75 KIAS.

 

[gismo]

The traditional definition of "landing behind the power curve" means flying down short final with power such that, should the powerplant fail, you would stall, crash and burn well short of the runway.

In other words, pulling the plane through the final stages of the landing sequence with power, rather than gliding to the numbers.

We most assuredly are not using this potentially suicidal technique to land our new airplane.

While that might indeed be a consequence of flying "behind the power curve" this phase has a specific technical meaning and that it when your airspeed is below the speed which requires the least amount of power to sustain unaccelerated flight (max endurance airspeed). And unless you're landing with excessive speed you clearly must go below that speed at some point prior to touchdown.

What you're describing is usually called "dragging it in" when taken to extremes but it's also true that unless you are flying somewhat above max endurance speed with the throttle closed you will not reach the same touchdown point that you are shooting for if the engine quits. You might end up on the runway but short of your aiming point if the power failure occurs close in but from 500 AGL even that's not likely. A long time ago the FAA correctly concluded that the risk of injury from an overshoot far exceeds the risk for injuries caused by engine failures on final that result in a short landing.

And in any case losing the engine in no way has to result in a stall, can I assume that bit about stall/crash/burn was intended to be over the top?

 

[Jay Honeck]

And in any case losing the engine in no way has to result in a stall, can I assume that bit about stall/crash/burn was intended to be over the top?

Are you accusing me of hyperbole, sir?

I always describe flying behind the power curve that way, ever since some troll on rec.aviation accused me of having a "death wish" for practicing precision spot landings using the aforementioned behind-the-power-curve technique.

Is it dangerous? Hell-the-eff yes. But if you watch the Alaskan spot landing contest, that's how they manage to plop their plane on a postage stamp sized target.

We do NOT land the -8 this way. The thing lands so short as it is, there is simply no need.

 

[nauga]

IIRC, Vy is typically quite a bit faster than the minimum power required speed.

Whoops, my apologies, you are absolutely correct (I was drawing a horizontal line for power available in my mind's eye). Be that as it may it's common and easy to fly a backside approach (every carrier-based pilot spends years practicing them), and I suspect the RV-8A when flown well can do so easily.

Nauga,
who doesn't fly by FUD