Famous (and infamous) people.. who are pilots

Rick Beato on YouTube has some good explanations of what happened to the music biz.

Writing today for someone else is the “best quality of life” job in music. The performers make money off of merchandising mostly. The songwriter gets better royalties usually.

Or so he and many others say.

His videos about YouTube “blockers” who issue DMCA takedowns of even demonetized videos, for use of their songs for educational or other fair purposes, are quite interesting.

I subscribe to him. Really good.
 
I subscribe to him. Really good.

I just wish my sound production “ear” was as good as his.

I hear that stuff, but getting the exact sound I want is hours of screwing around. He just says, “Oh that’s xYZ amp and cabinet, ZZX microphone, and a compressor.”

Which is probably why I don’t work as a recording producer. Hahaha. But I do love it as a hobby when I have way too much time to blow.

I have a guitar and mic setup here that identically mimics the acoustic guitar in “Breakfast At Tiffany’s” by Deep Blue Something... would love to know what they used in the studio.
 
I’ll agree on the writing. I think there’s a lot better performers in the folk niche that get little credit, because they suck at breaking out into pop culture and where the money is.

Just an opinion. No biggie if folks disagree.

Cant say he didn’t know how to ride a wave of hippies and sell albums to them very well, though. Ha. Including my parents.

Maybe also a bit of being sick of listening to the guy so much as a kid. Ha. I’d honestly rather watch Steve Martin play banjo.
Ha, yeah, I think that JD's appeal is generational. I liked his songs. I moved to Colorado (the first time) in 1979, and all I knew about it was Rocky Mountain High.
 
Cant say he didn’t know how to ride a wave of hippies and sell albums to them very well, though. Ha. Including my parents.
Hippies? I resemble that remark.
I’d honestly rather watch Steve Martin play banjo.
Another man whose musical talents are largely unappreciated.
 
Speaking of famous pilots in violation of their Alcohol SI, there was also Patrick Swayze.
 
In my formative years, I gravitated towards the likes of Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin - you get the idea. The Carpenters and John Denver - and later the post-Peter Greene Fleetwood Mac - all seemed hopelessly saccharine for my tastes. It was only later in life I came to appreciate them. Karen Carpenter singing “We’ve Only Just Begun” is truly heartbreaking given how her story played out.
 
Writing today for someone else is the “best quality of life” job in music. The performers make money off of merchandising mostly. The songwriter gets better royalties usually.
It is once you get big enough that you get a share of the PRO money. The big guys do well, the small guys get screwed.
His videos about YouTube “blockers” who issue DMCA takedowns of even demonetized videos, for use of their songs for educational or other fair purposes, are quite interesting.
Fair use doesn't obviate the ability for the rights holder to take action. It's an affirmative defense if it goes to court. Most people's assertion of fair use is bogus anyhow. And the fact that you're not getting paid by YouTube directly for your infringement makes it neither fair nor legal.
 
Fair use doesn't obviate the ability for the rights holder to take action. It's an affirmative defense if it goes to court. Most people's assertion of fair use is bogus anyhow. And the fact that you're not getting paid by YouTube directly for your infringement makes it neither fair nor legal.

Duh. Watch the videos.
 
If I had John Denver’s money I would’ve stayed out of questionable kit aircraft and stayed with certified aircraft. Might still be alive today. But that’s just me.
 
If I had John Denver’s money I would’ve stayed out of questionable kit aircraft and stayed with certified aircraft. Might still be alive today. But that’s just me.
He wasn't flying a kit aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Duh. Watch the videos.

I should have added that Rick makes no claims against anything you said, but I was on a video call when I replied @wsuffa — but there’s a very good reason I said the videos are telling as to the problems created by the stuff you mentioned.

Rick also points out why it’s all unnecessary and actually harms the artists.

Look em up. He’s in the biz, I’m not. He says it very well.
 
If I had John Denver’s money I would’ve stayed out of questionable kit aircraft and stayed with certified aircraft. Might still be alive today. But that’s just me.
Some people fly experiments to save money, but most do it because they perform and handle so much better than certified planes.
 
I agree with the reasons people go with experimental aircraft over certified. In JD’s case, vicegrips and bodily contortions required to switch tanks determined his fate, at least in this case.
 
He wasn't flying a kit aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

He was flying an Experimental Long EZ. A kit aircraft. The original builder had deviated from Rutan's plans and placed the fuel selector in a different location.
 
He was flying an Experimental Long EZ. A kit aircraft. The original builder had deviated from Rutan's plans and placed the fuel selector in a different location.
Plans-built, not a kit. Less standardization.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Plans-built, not a kit. Less standardization.

And the fuel selector location may not even have been specified on the plans. Lots of early homebuilt plans are vague on details and leave a lot up to the builder.
 
I agree with the reasons people go with experimental aircraft over certified. In JD’s case, vicegrips and bodily contortions required to switch tanks determined his fate, at least in this case.

Technically he sealed his fate. First thing you do in an unfamiliar type is make sure you can reach and operate everything.

If you can’t you fix it or get out of it.

Especially an experimental. They’re often built to the builder’s specific body size and frame.

Which really is well-known. Or should be, in about ten minutes of shopping for one.

But no new type should ever be “kick the tires and light the fires” or it’ll bite you eventually.

How hard it bites depends on what you can’t reach. :)

I will say, vice grips probably would have been enough to get me to step back out. That part is true.

That’s crap I only do on my tractor and not on a handle that can kill me. And I really do need a newer tractor! LOL.

In most solo types someone experienced in that type or better in experimental, that specific aircraft, stands next to the cockpit while you do that familiarization. They say stuff like “that handle sticks”, or “that knob has a tendency to come loose”. Little things you won’t find written down, usually.

You get to decide if those little things will become big things in flight for you before you ever start the engine.

If you can’t be bothered to check and fix anything that might, well... expect in-flight shenanigans.
 
And the fuel selector location may not even have been specified on the plans. Lots of early homebuilt plans are vague on details and leave a lot up to the builder.
From the NTSB report (LAX98FA008):

"According to the designer of the airplane and the drawings issued to the builder, the fuel selector is to be located just aft of the nose wheel position window between the pilot's legs."

"The seller reported that he had asked the builder why he had located it behind the pilot's left shoulder. The builder responded that he did not want fuel in the cockpit area."

Lot of horrible-sounding stuff about managing the fuel in this aircraft. No fuel gauges in the pilot's line of sight...they were in the rear cockpit, and a mirror was needed to read them.

However, lest we forget: The plane was over ten years old and had 850 hours. That's an average of 85 hours a year, which is about twice what the FAA surveys say homebuilts fly. It had more flight time than about 90% of the aircraft in my homebuilt accident database.

Three years prior to the accident, a man bought the airplane from the original builder. The NTSB report did not say whether the builder continued performing condition inspections, but in all likelihood, there had been a qualified A&P looking at the airport. Last inspection had been performed just three weeks prior to the accident.

Ron Wanttaja
 
In my formative years, I gravitated towards the likes of Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin - you get the idea. The Carpenters and John Denver - and later the post-Peter Greene Fleetwood Mac - all seemed hopelessly saccharine for my tastes. It was only later in life I came to appreciate them. Karen Carpenter singing “We’ve Only Just Begun” is truly heartbreaking given how her story played out.


Karen Carpenter had a voice that could make angels weep. Amazing tone. What a tragic life, though.

But a lot has to do with the appropriateness of the voice for the genre. Karen's voice was a perfect match for her style of music, but I don't think she could have sung hard rock like Ann Wilson (another amazing voice). Nor could she have done opera with the quality of Elizabeth Futral. And for female country vocalists, no one will ever compare with Patsy Cline.

It's just like success in any other walk of life - matching the talent to the task.
 
A good read is “ Musics broken wings”.

It details the story of all musicians that died in airplane

accidents up to 1985.
 
Bob Cummings.


While attending High School, Cummings was taught to fly by his godfather, Orville Wright. His first solo was on March 3, 1927. During high school, Cummings gave Joplin residents rides in his aircraft for $5 per person.

When the government began licensing flight instructors, Cummings was issued flight instructor certificate No. 1, making him the first official flight instructor in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cummings
beech-cummings.jpg

Actor Bob Cummings's N102D - 2-g.jpg
 
I remember "I Love Bob" and as a kid, enjoyed the (relatively) racy dialogue. Cummings was a meth addict for most of his adult life. No HIMS program at the time.
 
Talk about splitting hairs... What’s the difference?
More variation in plans-built aircraft. Those building kits will do modifications, but they BUY kits so they have to do the least design and engineering work themselves. Plans-built, the builder ends up solving a lot of problems on their own, and there's more potential for variations that have a higher degree of hazard.

Take someone who buys an RV-7 kit. He's not likely to change, for instance, the airfoil shape or way the skin attached to the ribs, because the kit came with pre-built ribs, the rivets holes are at least pilot-driven. Yet the builder of a Long-EZ can alter the airfoil at will, since they're going to carve it out of blocks of foam.

I once saw a Mustang II (plans-built design) that had different leading-edge profiles for the two wings...one was obviously sharper than the other. Much rarer, with a kit-built design.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Seems we have a bunch of great writers that can't carry much of a tune in a bucket with the lid nailed shut. Take folks like Kristofferson, Nelson, Cash, etc.

Still, they make money because the general rule is; "it's not the singer, it's the song."

Modern culture seems to have abandoned that somewhat as now we have a lot of talentless people making money because they know how to "celebrity" themselves.

But these are just one old man's opinions ...

I was wondering how many pages in before someone mentioned Kristofferson.
Army fling wing pilot and flew Gulf Coast to the rigs for Petroleum Helicopters International.
 
I was wondering how many pages in before someone mentioned Kristofferson.

I also mentioned Cash (Johnny) but I only know him as a pilot in an episode of Columbo where he was a televangelist under the name of Tommy Brown. I don't think that really counts ...
 
More variation in plans-built aircraft. Those building kits will do modifications, but they BUY kits so they have to do the least design and engineering work themselves. Plans-built, the builder ends up solving a lot of problems on their own, and there's more potential for variations that have a higher degree of hazard.

Take someone who buys an RV-7 kit. He's not likely to change, for instance, the airfoil shape or way the skin attached to the ribs, because the kit came with pre-built ribs, the rivets holes are at least pilot-driven. Yet the builder of a Long-EZ can alter the airfoil at will, since they're going to carve it out of blocks of foam.

I once saw a Mustang II (plans-built design) that had different leading-edge profiles for the two wings...one was obviously sharper than the other. Much rarer, with a kit-built design.

Ron Wanttaja
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation - learned something new!
 
More variation in plans-built aircraft. Those building kits will do modifications, but they BUY kits so they have to do the least design and engineering work themselves. Plans-built, the builder ends up solving a lot of problems on their own, and there's more potential for variations that have a higher degree of hazard.

Take someone who buys an RV-7 kit. He's not likely to change, for instance, the airfoil shape or way the skin attached to the ribs, because the kit came with pre-built ribs, the rivets holes are at least pilot-driven. Yet the builder of a Long-EZ can alter the airfoil at will, since they're going to carve it out of blocks of foam.

I once saw a Mustang II (plans-built design) that had different leading-edge profiles for the two wings...one was obviously sharper than the other. Much rarer, with a kit-built design.

Ron Wanttaja
In Denver’s plane, the builder relocated the fuel selector, deviating from the plans, and that caused or contributed to the crash. Even in a match-drilled Van’s RV “assembly” (rather than “fabrication”), a builder might very well decide to do something like that, and has the freedom to do it if he can sell it to the DAR. As the builder of Denver’s LongEZ did.

Home builders deviate from the plans all the time, kit or fabrication.
 
In Denver’s plane, the builder relocated the fuel selector, deviating from the plans, and that caused or contributed to the crash. Even in a match-drilled Van’s RV “assembly” (rather than “fabrication”), a builder might very well decide to do something like that, and has the freedom to do it if he can sell it to the DAR. As the builder of Denver’s LongEZ did.
The builder also made other modifications, such as installing an engine that wasn't approved by RAF. It led to CG issues that were solved by installing forty pounds worth of batteries in the nose.

Home builders deviate from the plans all the time, kit or fabrication.
That's one of the great things about homebuilts...whether you construct from plans, a kit, or buy an already-flying airplane, you can deviate from the designer's intent however you wish.

But I believe it's less common in kits than in plans-built aircraft.

Why does someone build a plane from plans? It might be that the plane caught their eye, it might be that the performance or other features match what they think they need. When they start building, they know they'll have to exchange thousands of hours of their free time to possess the plane. And I honor them for it.

Kits? Well, they get selected the same way. But when they start building, I think the majority of the builders JUST WANT THE DAMN PLANE. Companies wouldn't SELL quick-build kits if people weren't buying them. They wouldn't hold "Two Weeks to Taxi" programs if there weren't people in a hurry to get their new kit flying. And I honor them, as well.

But everybody understands that if you decided to modify the design of a kit aircraft, it's going to add to your build time. If it's something the builder feels strongly about, they'll just go ahead. But most builders just want the damn plane.

We don't know how many "Quick Build" kits are sold vs. "regular" build. But there's a hint in the registrations for Carbon Cubs. "Normal" kit versions of the Carbon Cub have a model number with "CCK", airplanes sold as part of their builder assist program are "CCX". You can check the FAA registry to determine the population size for each.

From my January 2020 FAA database, there are 113 CCK models (traditional kits) vs. 116 CCX (Builder assist) models. And note that the builder assist program came in later; the oldest CCK model in the registry is a 2009 model, vs. 2015 for the first CCX one. Equal fleet size in half the time.

Now...if someone buys a complete kit, they're not likely to want to, for instance, throw out the whole fuel system and install their own design. This is probably even truer with a quick-build kit, and I'd bet the "Two Weeks to Taxi" programs don't allow much variation as well.

So I think modern kits are more likely to be subjected to fewer significant builder-initiated design changes than plans-built aircraft are.

The Vans airplanes are probably the exemplar of modern homebuilt aircraft kits, and their safety record is very good. It ALSO improves when you get to the later model airplanes, which had more-complete kits and the availability of quick-build kits.
upload_2020-12-19_0-50-33.png


Ron Wanttaja
 
flew Gulf Coast to the rigs for Petroleum Helicopters International.
There's an interview out there where Kristofferson talks about his flying in the GOM. I believe he finished up Me and Bobby McGee on one of he commutes from Morgan City to Nashville. Know/knew several people who roomed/worked with KK and as far as I know are still in contact with him.

Old PHI = Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
New PHI = PHI Aviation
 
That’s a really good overview, thank you. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. The current Van’s concept of match drilling, final drilling, quick-build, and the wide variety of pre-made parts availability makes Van’s aircraft more of an “assembly” than a “fabrication”, or so they say. I think that’s a key to their sales, their safety record, and consistency of their airplanes. My experience with E-AB comes from owning, but not building, an RV-9A. I’ve poured over the construction plans and builder’s notes and spent hours on VAF. I’ve spent an hour sitting in the tail cone trying to contort myself for the installation of an AHAHRS bracket. I have my floor out right now trying to fish some AOA tubing into the cockpit. The kit itself definitely makes an RV builder less likely to deviate from the plans, but VAF posts certainly demonstrate that it does happen. Building is not my thing, and the more I read over there, the more convinced I am that that’s true for me, but for some, being way outside the box is a big part of the hobby, even with Van’s.
 
Owning a used RV isn't much different from buying a used Cessna, except you're probably getting a much newer and better performing airplane for the same money. Buying some other plans built homebuilts might be no different, e.g. a homebuilt Cub may or may not be identical to a factory Super Cub, or it may be wildly different. It's up to the buyer/owner to assess whether he has the aeronautical and mechanical ability to deal with it.

The first homebuilt I bought, the builder had shortened the wings, redesigned the control linkages, installed a completely different engine, different landing gear, and numerous other things. It also had over 400 TT, so I felt comfortable that the modifications had been reasonably tested. Even so, I spent quite a bit of time changing things the way I wanted them.

To the original subject, I have no idea what John Denver's level of mechanical ability was, or whether he would have been able to easily deal with his plane's idiosyncrasies had he survived.
 
I’ve spent an hour sitting in the tail cone trying to contort myself for the installation of an AHAHRS bracket.

Installing my ADSB "out" and needed the bottom mounted UAT antenna 40" from the transponder antenna. That required going pretty deep into the tail:

Install ADSB.jpg
 
Wow! Nice! I didn’t have to go nearly that deep. Even so, I found myself wondering if I could teach my 7 year-old granddaughter to drill and rivet.

eta: between my Avionics guy, my A&P, and my CFI, I'm the smallest. Tailcone is my baby, sadly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top