FAA, Let us make our planes safer!

AuntPeggy said:
In the meantime, GA is dying because it is too expensive and too unsafe.
Click to expand...
No, GA as you know it is dying. GA of the future is coming into it's own. Just one kit manufacturer, vans, has more new flying planes added to the register every year than cirrus, cessna, beech, and piper combined. The future you want is already happening right under your nose, you just don't want to see it.
 
JHW said:
No, GA as you know it is dying. GA of the future is coming into it's own. Just one kit manufacturer, vans, has more new flying planes added to the register every year than cirrus, cessna, beech, and piper combined. The future you want is already happening right under your nose, you just don't want to see it.
Click to expand...

:yes:

I hate to agree with you, but EAA and Oshkosh is really a huge thing, not just in the USA but silently the world is watching EAB here IMHO.
 
AuntPeggy said:
And that is part 2 of my complaint. Why should the STC owner put in a lot of time and money to get FAA approval for that STC?
Click to expand...
What alternative do you see? How would the STC owner be able to prove their safety claims without sufficient research -- just by saying "take our word for it"?
 
bartmc said:
Should we:

A) Fly our planes at whatever weight we want.
B) Have an STC process to increase GW if it's shown to be safe.
C) Take what's in the POH and live with it.

We're talking engineering data here. That's expensive. I have a quote from an engineer to look at some flood maps and push some government paperwork through for $20,000, and that's without a guarantee that FEMA will accept it, and no guarantee that FEMA will continue to accept the numbers later on if they change their mind.
Click to expand...


GW increases can effect all elements of flight that the aircraft was originally certificated to. Stall, spin, climb, blaked (go-around) landing etc. This requires careful oversight and probably an FAA designated pilot to perform a flight eval at the desired gross weight.

For instance the 50# weight increase on a 172 usually is nothing more than restricting flaps to 30 degress from 40, BECAUSE at 40 degrees with the extra weight it cannot meet the climb requirements for a go-around.
 
I just measured the thickness of an old 1995 FAR/AIM, it measures 1 3/8 " thick (1.375) then I measured a 2010 version of the same, it measures 1 3/4" thick (1.75) I'm too lazy to hunt around for a newer version, but I'll lay odds the latest is even thicker.

So, I'm wondering if all of those mind numbing rules and regulations have actually made flying safer since 1995 or less safe? More costly or less costly?

I don't know how that could be determined, since there are so many who have given up on flying altogether for one reason or another, but I have a hunch that many of those reasons could be traced directly to the FAA bureaucracy of rule governed robotrons.

I honestly doubt if the extra thickness of FAR/AIM has added anything at all to the safety record of aviation other than serving as a deterrent to people who might be interested in learning to fly, thus having fewer airplanes bumping into each other up there....

-John
 
JHW said:
No, GA as you know it is dying. GA of the future is coming into it's own. Just one kit manufacturer, vans, has more new flying planes added to the register every year than cirrus, cessna, beech, and piper combined. The future you want is already happening right under your nose, you just don't want to see it.
Click to expand...

I want an entire plane, in one piece. They make
"kits" not "planes" (Save for their LSA). If Vans decided to assemble and sell an RV-10 that fell under the exact same regulations that it would have if Jim Bob had tossed the kit together in his garage, I'd be interested. That's the insanity to me. The guy who designs it can't put it together but any guy with enough money to order a tail kit can?
 
bnt83 said:
AP here's a thought; you love Europe and all their Utopian regulations right? I suggest you talk to an EASA based aircraft owner and get back to us about how bad the FAA is. Many foreign countries MANDATE the recommended life limits the OEM set. Such as, the 12 year or 2000 TBO whichever is first, on the Lycoming in your Cessna. That would ground many aircraft in the USA.



For instance, I want a different piece of carpet in my baggage compartment than the airplane came with. Even tho the replacement piece passes burn cert testing, I cannot install is without the piece being approved by a CAMO (certified aircraft maintenance organization) or EASA.
Click to expand...
Brian, please do not assign an opinion to me that I have not stated. It is annoying. Please do not ask me to support or research an opinion that you have assigned to me and that I have not stated. That is really annoying.
 
JHW said:
No, GA as you know it is dying. GA of the future is coming into it's own. Just one kit manufacturer, vans, has more new flying planes added to the register every year than cirrus, cessna, beech, and piper combined. The future you want is already happening right under your nose, you just don't want to see it.
Click to expand...

This is so true.

Experimental aircraft are the future of GA. No mainstream aircraft manufacturer has matched their unique combination of wonderful performance, amazing support, and quality at a reasonable price.

It's amazing what happens when the ruling class is sent out of the room.

Meanwhile, Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft continue to build 50-year old airplanes for a third of a million dollars, searching for customers with that rare combination of wealth and ignorance. It's sad to watch, really.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Because of the FAA restrictions on where and how I can fly an experimental.
Click to expand...
you haven't answered the question. What alleged restrictions on experimentals hamper your flying ?
 
bartmc said:
I want an entire plane, in one piece. They make
"kits" not "planes" (Save for their LSA). If Vans decided to assemble and sell an RV-10 that fell under the exact same regulations that it would have if Jim Bob had tossed the kit together in his garage, I'd be interested. That's the insanity to me. The guy who designs it can't put it together but any guy with enough money to order a tail kit can?
Click to expand...

Well, experimental planes are available in the same way as your Bonanza is: used.
 
Liability of aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers, parts suppliers, repair shops. There are tons of ridiculous instances where these companies are sued and lose millions and millions of dollars in a clear cut case of pilot error. This is a chronic problem in the US today.

Next up is the cost of fuel.

Then the FAA, which actually may improve because of the recently-passed GA revitalization bill.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Brian, please do not assign an opinion to me that I have not stated. It is annoying. Please do not ask me to support or research an opinion that you have assigned to me and that I have not stated. That is really annoying.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I assumed your political point of view endorses all that is the European model of politics, health care and aviation regulation.

 
John Baker said:
I don't know how that could be determined, since there are so many who have given up on flying altogether for one reason or another, but I have a hunch that many of those reasons could be traced directly to the FAA bureaucracy of rule governed robotrons.

I honestly doubt if the extra thickness of FAR/AIM has added anything at all to the safety record of aviation other than serving as a deterrent to people who might be interested in learning to fly, thus having fewer airplanes bumping into each other up there....

-John
Click to expand...

Yup. Not many here understand, because the crowd that is left is willing to jump to the current hoop height. They'll get it after they are unable to make the hoop, but not before.
 
To me the FAA is in the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" boat. We elinst them to regulate safety and the masses exposed to the airline industry are pretty safe, and the part 91 SEP drivers have to abide by about 1/10 of the crap which lowers costs and safety....so what do you do?
 
AuntPeggy said:
Because of the FAA restrictions on where and how I can fly an experimental.
Click to expand...

Are there restrictions? Seriously, I'm asking. I thought once the initial 25 hours of testing was completed, there were no restrictions, except for the first call to ATC identifying "experimental".
 
bluee said:
Are there restrictions? Seriously, I'm asking. I thought once the initial 25 hours of testing was completed, there were no restrictions, except for the first call to ATC identifying "experimental".
Click to expand...

I'd like to know too. I know little about EAB but much more about the other.
 
bluee said:
Are there restrictions? Seriously, I'm asking. I thought once the initial 25 hours of testing was completed, there were no restrictions, except for the first call to ATC identifying "experimental".
Click to expand...
as a practical matter, for not-for-hire flying, there are no restrictions aside from some countries restricting international flying to there.
 
wabower said:
How much of the safety stuff was installed by owners after they purchased their cars? What percentage of the auto fleet was produced in the 60's and 70's?

The FAA has relaxed the rules for shoulder harnesses and AOA's to allow for installation without hoop-jumping. How many planes have them now? Does yours?
Click to expand...


THIS!

I am very into vintage cars and without a doubt 95% of them are no more safer today than when built even though there are ZERO restrictions on upgrading them. I personally have some minimums when building a new project like dual bowl master cylinders as an example, but the bottom line is that most people just won't spend the money to revamp the suspension and brakes to allow the car to be driven like a late model car. I bet a lot of vintage car owners would still run bias ply tires if they were cheaper!!

I think aviation appears to be a LITTLE more proactive and willing to spend the money, but at the same time, a lot of the planes I've looked at seem to be pretty dated.
 
JHW said:
you haven't answered the question. What alleged restrictions on experimentals hamper your flying ?
Click to expand...

JHW said:
as a practical matter, for not-for-hire flying, there are no restrictions aside from some countries restricting international flying to there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering for me.
 
Gadgets will NEVER make-up for the shortcomings of the PIC and in many documented accidents, it can make things worse.
 
AuntPeggy said:
In the meantime, GA is dying because it is too expensive and too unsafe.
Click to expand...
It is not dying because it is 'unsafe'. It is dying because it is expensive.

The problem is that your angst with regulations is misguided. If you don't like the expense, you need to address your complaints with the lawyers. You actually have a better chance of getting the FAA to change regs than getting the legal profession to change its ways.
 
JHW said:
as a practical matter, for not-for-hire flying, there are no restrictions aside from some countries restricting international flying to there.
Click to expand...

I remember the non-commercial use. Out of curiosity, do you know which countries restrict experimentals?
 
bnt83 said:
To me the FAA is in the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" boat. We elinst them to regulate safety and the masses exposed to the airline industry are pretty safe, and the part 91 SEP drivers have to abide by about 1/10 of the crap which lowers costs and safety....so what do you do?
Click to expand...
Damned if they do, damned if they don't is right.

The problem with the idea of getting rid of the regulation (and why the FAA is so unlikely to agree) is that even with the current list of regulations, the accident files are full of folks who took it upon themselves to do their own thing, violated the already existing regs and their actions resulted in an accident. As long as stoopid people have the money to commit acts of aviation, the rest of us are going to be screwed with regulation.
 
JHW said:
so it's because of your frequent flights to europe and asia that you dismiss E/AB as impractial?
Click to expand...
It is also because I don't want restrictions on where or how people are allowed to fly in equally safe aircraft.

I don't want restrictions on who can or cannot build the aircraft. There ought to be a way to buy an affordable factory-build aircraft that can be maintained and improved safely within the law.

You see, I'm not specifically aiming my complaint upon my own needs. I am basing it on the problem of letting GA be as safe as possible. For you as well as for anyone else who wants to fly.

This is not a personal situation. It is not about me.
 
I think some of these comments are jokes, but I don't know for sure. It is just a recent sample of the mindset we get from FAA regulations on keeping our aircraft safe.

Can I replace the battery in my airplane? Can I have the line guy do it?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1224400#post1224400

Is this a safe replacement for a gust lock? Is it legal?
weirdjim said:
A 16 penny nail, a bit of aluminum rod, and a small piece of aluminum sheet, plus an hour or so to weld them all together?

However, if you are trying to hold the yolk together I suggest a medium fire and a bit of butter in the pan before you crack the egg.

Jim
Click to expand...

Is it really OK to glue on a rudder pedal pad to a Cherokee? Is it OK to reattach it with zip ties. In any case, is it airworthy with or without the rudder pedal attached by an A&P?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1223519#post1223519

Does it require an STC to touch up the lettering on the buttons of Bendix/King avionics?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1219368#post1219368
 
AuntPeggy said:
It is also because I don't want restrictions on where or how people are allowed to fly in equally safe aircraft.

I don't want restrictions on who can or cannot build the aircraft. There ought to be a way to buy an affordable factory-build aircraft that can be maintained and improved safely within the law.

You see, I'm not specifically aiming my complaint upon my own needs. I am basing it on the problem of letting GA be as safe as possible. For you as well as for anyone else who wants to fly.

This is not a personal situation. It is not about me.
Click to expand...
Who are you to decide what is 'equally safe'???
 
Fearless Tower said:
Who are you to decide what is 'equally safe'???
Click to expand...

Exactly. So letting any "safe" mod fly will improve safety?:rofl:


Do you carry a LEGAL fire extinuisher and not some outdated hunk of junk that came from the woodshed, if one at all AP?


EAB will easily satisfy the dynamic crash testing requirements of part 21 23?

If Vans could SHOW compliance with part 23 they could easily get a Type Certificate. Then then need a Production Certificate to approve the facilities, tooling and quality process to begin production.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Exactly. So letting any "safe" mod fly will improve safety?:rofl:


Do you carry a LEGAL fire extinuisher and not some outdated hunk of junk that came from the woodshed, if one at all AP?


EAB will easily satisfy the dynamic crash testing requirements of part 21?
Click to expand...
Which is safer? Carrying an old fire extinguisher or none at all?
 
I'm kinda watching this as entertainment, but how can you push for the freedom to be safer yet claim that an old extinguisher is better than nothing?

Technically the steam gauges are better than nothing, therefore everything you've posted to date on this thread is irrelevant.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Which is safer? Carrying an old fire extinguisher or none at all?
Click to expand...


One of my closest friends has this same mentallity with an old STUPID dry chemical bottle. The fact is this could easily kill you.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Which is safer? Carrying an old fire extinguisher or none at all?
Click to expand...
That can depend on a lot of things. That old extinguisher might be no better than nothing at all. Problem is that you won't know until it is too late.
 
bnt83 said:
BTW isn't a 406 elt required for entry into canada now?
Click to expand...

Not the last time I flew there, they keep pushing the requirement out. I suspect it will keep getting delayed until we're all required to have one on this side of the border. CBP/TSA/DHS has done enough to stifle GA activity across the border, the 406 requirement would decapitate it.
 
jmn444 said:
I'm kinda watching this as entertainment, but how can you push for the freedom to be safer yet claim that an old extinguisher is better than nothing?
Click to expand...
That is the problem.....the OP is demonstrating the reason that the rules exist in the first place.......pretty effective actually....if that was her point in starting the thread.
 
§ 23.851 Fire extinguishers.

(a) There must be at least one hand fire extinguisher for use in the pilot compartment that is located within easy access of the pilot while seated.
(b) There must be at least one hand fire extinguisher located conveniently in the passenger compartment—
(1) Of each airplane accommodating more than 6 passengers; and
(2) Of each commuter category airplane.
(c) For hand fire extinguishers, the following apply:
(1) The type and quantity of each extinguishing agent used must be appropriate to the kinds of fire likely to occur where that agent is to be used.
(2) Each extinguisher for use in a personnel compartment must be designed to minimize the hazard of toxic gas concentrations.

And of course it must be mounted in a way that it will stay in place during a crash to whatever load limit that is (10G?)

How many folks don't have one in their plane?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top