Pattern Madness

Ron Levy said:
OK -- "clear space." Better?:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Actually, I liked "clearance" as well, because all the published material mentions getting a "clearance" for the OB maneuver. I have no real issues with it at a tower controlled field.
 
Tom-D said:
The last civil formation flying I witnessed looked more like a flag waving imitation, than a Blue Angles Delta formation.
Click to expand...

Even at Oshkosh, most of the formation flybys were pretty uninspiring. There were some of the pro sponsored show teams that had a high caliber of formation, but most all the adhoc formation flights were lacking, shall we say a geometric grace.
 
Henning said:
Final Answer?
Click to expand...

This message board has to be the most confrontational message board I've ever been a part of, so sure, why not.

Henning said:
Even at Oshkosh, most of the formation flybys were pretty uninspiring. There were some of the pro sponsored show teams that had a high caliber of formation, but most all the adhoc formation flights were lacking, shall we say a geometric grace.
Click to expand...

Get out there and do it better... :rolleyes:
 
Henning said:
Even at Oshkosh, most of the formation flybys were pretty uninspiring. There were some of the pro sponsored show teams that had a high caliber of formation, but most all the adhoc formation flights were lacking, shall we say a geometric grace.
Click to expand...
The Aeroshell team is always impressive as hell. The night airshow they did was pretty spectacular. Some of the warbirds doing the formation flybys before the airshow on Saturday were an absolute mess.
 
Henning said:
"Safety Pilot" is in the same plane with you and has access to the controls (required IIRC), completely different than turning it over to lead in another airplane.
Click to expand...
What regulation, legal interpretation, or other FAA guidance says that?

I don't think Chief Counsel has ever considered it, I'm gonna ask as I'd like to know the logic they use in making the determination.
Click to expand...
Before you do, why don't you get a lot more knowledgable about formation flying, say, by earning a FAST or FFI Wingman card. You might be able to make your letter a lot more cogent that way, and you might, in the process, discover your point isn't valid.

DOH! I let him drag me back into his porcine opera. :mad2:
 
Jim Logajan said:
If anyone is interested, I did a search for "overhead break", "overhead maneuver", and "overhead approach" in the NTSB Database and found just the following 3 mid-air collisions:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/lchyc145vrmxosmcyno1wx451/P08192011120000.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001207X03733&key=2

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030115X00072&key=2
Click to expand...
Let's see -- one under tower control, one before they entered the pattern (could just as easily happened trying to join the 45-downwind), and one where one of the planes did a climbing break (really bad idea) and involved a fast warbird entering from below the regular TPA. Not exactly what I'd call convincing evidence that a properly executed overhead pattern is unduly risky.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
What regulation, legal interpretation, or other FAA guidance says that?
Click to expand...

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—
(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.
Click to expand...

Actually, unless it's a simulated instrument flight, I don't see where it's possible at all to not have to see and avoid in VMC for a flight you are PIC of, and even there, there is limited exception to the controls issue, and that is only of one to allow it. I imagine you could do it with a safety pilot in your plane, but not without. Either way, it'll be interesting to hear what the interpretation is.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Does the Nall report break down the crashes into categories of cause?

How many of those crashes were pilots acting a fool?
How many of those crashes were structural issues?
Fuel issues?
Ability issues?
Etc..
Etc..
Click to expand...
They don't, but I do. I assign one of 43 different cause categories for each accident, with additional nomenclature for contributing factors. The categories include structural issues, fuel delivery problems, pilot inexperience, etc.

But "pilot acting like a fool" is hard to extract from the records. The NTSB may say that the accident was due to inadequate decision making, but it's hard to tell if the pilot was hot-dogging or just had a lapse in judgment.

Take this probable cause: "'The pilot's improper decision to switch off the ignition on approach and not attaining the proper touchdown point." (IAD03LA030)

Certainly don't agree with what he did, but the NTSB report doesn't mention any observers. It is "hot-dogging" if no one is watching?

Ron Wanttaja
 
BellyUpFish said:
This message board has to be the most confrontational message board I've ever been a part of, so sure, why not.
Click to expand...

Not even close, though some threads get more confrontational than others. However, since perception is reality, it's probably appropriate to remind everyone of a couple of the board's rules of conduct:

Goals of the Forums
Show respect at all times.
Help build the Community.

The success of our forums depends upon the quality posts of our participants. To ensure our success we are posting these guidelines so that all participants of the forums understand what is considered unacceptable behavior in the forums, which can result in a temporary suspension or a permanent ban.

-Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person on or off the forum, especially in a personal way.

-Trolling is prohibited. Whenever someone is clearly, deliberately posting in a manner for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the other participants of the board, it is considered "trolling." The public posting of reputation comments received, which are considered by PoA to be personal and confidential, is considered ipso facto trolling. Trolling DOES NOT encourage further discussion in the long run; it only encourages personal attacks (if left unchecked).
Click to expand...

The complete set of Rules of Conduct are found under FAQ|Rules of Conduct|.

:)D:DI was going to suggest that we create an award for the thread that gets the most contentious posts the most quickly & nominate this thread, but that really wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of the RoC. :nono:)
 
wanttaja said:
You'd best check out the 2010 Nall Report, where they admit to statistical problems regarding homebuilts in the 2009 report. They counted Experimental Light Sport aircraft accidents as Amateur-Built, but didn't include the ELSA flight hours in the fleet total.

The Nall report assumes that the average GA aircraft flies 200 hours per year. It assumes that the average homebuilt flies 29. This obviously has an effect on comparative accident rates. AOPA claims to have gotten these numbers from the FAA.

I took a look at the accidents in my 1997-2008 homebuilt accident database, and the C172 accidents over the same time period. There's no separate category for "hot dogging," of course. But I've got one I call SALA ("Stupidity at Low Altitude") which includes classical buzz jobs as well as abrupt pull-ups after low passes, aerobatics down low, and flying into box canyons.

4.7% of the overall homebuilt accidents involved SALA, vs 4.5% of the Vans...close enough to be the same. The 172 rate was 3.2%.

One third of the SALA homebuilt accidents involved low-level aerobatics, vs. just 3% of the 172 cases. 89% of the homebuilt low-level aerobatics cases were fatal accidents.

The midair rate for Vans is a bit more than twice that of the overall homebuilt fleet. However, the midair rate for 172s is approximately between the two.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

There you go again, Ron, mixing facts and careful analysis into it. You just don't get it, do you?

On another note, I was in the bookstore yesterday. The good news is I saw your Kitplanes book. The bad news is it was in amongst the ones about paper airplanes.
 
steingar said:
There you go again, Ron, mixing facts and careful analysis into it. You just don't get it, do you?

On another note, I was in the bookstore yesterday. The good news is I saw your Kitplanes book. The bad news is it was in amongst the ones about paper airplanes.
Click to expand...

I always find Kitplanes among the rest of the real airplane mags. It doesn't surprise me either.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
I always find Kitplanes among the rest of the real airplane mags. It doesn't surprise me either.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Ron wrote a whole book about airplane kits, distinct from the eponymous (and poorly written, at least IMHO) magazine.
 
I've stayed out of this cat fight because I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But, I've read every post here and also over at the AOPA's closed thread...just for educational purposes AND because, after all, we all love a good fight don't we?

The only observation I'll make is this: Most of you RV guys (here and at AOPA both) aren't doing yourself any favors. The attitude you are displaying is really helping to prove the point of those who are disparaging you. You keep digging yourself deeper holes.

And this isn't coming from someone who doesn't like RVs. I love 'em and if my life ever slows down I hope to build one. But it would be an 8, 9 or a 10...not a 4 or a 6.
 
timwinters said:
I've stayed out of this cat fight because I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But, I've read every post here and also over at the AOPA's closed thread...just for educational purposes AND because, after all, we all love a good fight don't we?

The only observation I'll make is this: Most of you RV guys (here and at AOPA both) aren't doing yourself any favors. The attitude you are displaying is really helping to prove the point of those who are disparaging you. You keep digging yourself deeper holes.

And this isn't coming from someone who doesn't like RVs. I love 'em and if my life ever slows down I hope to build one. But it would be an 8, 9 or a 10...not a 4 or a 6.
Click to expand...

Perception is the new reality!



.
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna cross post this because it's quite relevant.

This is an excerpt from a more complete text (quoted in full at the bottom) on Dick VanGrunsven's, founder and owner of Van's aircraft, posting on the Vans facebook page.
If cowboy flying is quite commonplace among RV pilots, then maybe and occasional accident is an acceptable statistic. However; the two 2009 accidents mentioned above, combined with three other accidents of this type during 2009, resulted in three deaths. From this, the RV accidents from this cause alone resulted in a higher than the GA average fatal accident rate for the year. In other words, if all RV accidents with other causes were eliminated, we’d still have a worse rate than non-commercial GA, just due to the Cowboys alone. This is obviously unacceptable.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty condemning counter to those who deny it's a problem and/or state, "no worse than any Cessna or Mooney or...." It's like buying a Harley, you buy it for whatever reason you have and use it however you want, but you will never detach the "1%er" reputation from the Harley brand even if you are not affiliated with an outlaw club. Your bike will always carry that stigma to some extent, and in reality, that is why most unaffiliated Harley riders buy them, image, image is the basis for imagine.... There is some of that "bad boy" image thing that goes with the RV. So now the community grows and you naturally end up with a wienie measuring contest of "Who's the baddest bad boy". Problem is, most of them shy away from using the ruler so they use their plane as a prosthesis.... RVs will always carry the stigma of "Cowboy Pilots", and sadly, the marque comes from the "Inept Cowboy Pilots". If you didn't want a plane with that Stigma, you shouldn't have bought an RV. If an RV is the plane you want because it best meets your mission, who the f- cares what the stigma is? Hell I own and fly an old 310! There's enough stigma there I've got stigmata. I don't care a bit because I have a beautiful plane that I love to fly that meets all my mission requirements for a traveling plane.

RECKLESS FLYING

RV Accidents resulting from reckless flying, daredevil antics, showing off.

Overly aggressive pilots are often referred to as “Cowboys”, so I’ll use that term for pilots who engage in low level aerobatics, low level maneuvering (abrupt or otherwise), buzz jobs, steep pull-up climbs, etc. Generally, an aggressive form of flying not normally performed with general-purpose private aircraft.



I could easily contrive hypothetical examples of how “cowboy” flying could result in accidents. Rather, I have chose several examples of RV accidents copied directly from NTSB reports. Two of them occurred on the same day. In Cowboy Western parlance, this could be titled, “Bad Day at Black Rock”.

1. “The accident airplane departed third in a flight of four airplanes. The pilot of the first airplane was observed doing a roll during climb-out. The second airplane climbed out normally. As the third and accident airplane was on initial climbout the airplane was observed to do a roll. As the airplane’s wings rolled back to a level attitude, the airplane impacted into trees and subsequently the ground. The pilot exited the airplane unassisted, but was later airlifted to a hospital. Following the accident, continuity was established to all of the airplane’s flight controls. Due to the pilot’s injuries, he could not be interviewed by investigators or submit an accident report form.”



I’m still shaking my head over this one. So many lessons to be learned! Too many unknowns.



A - Had pilot #1 planned to do a departure roll. Had it been discussed with the others, or was it spontaneous? Had he practiced and done this before?

B - Did pilot #3 attempt his rolling maneuver as a copycat response to #1, or had he preplanned this?

C - Had pilot #3 ever performed a low level departure roll before?

2. “ An experimental amateur built RV-6A, , registered to and operated by a private individual, crashed into trees in Englewood, Florida. The certificated private pilot was killed, the passenger received serious injuries, and the airplane sustained substantial damage.”

“Witnesses at a local gathering referred to as the “Redneck Roundup,” stated that a white single engine airplane flew over their heads at what they estimated to be 300 feet and then the airplane did what some witnesses referred to as a “barrel roll” and others referred to as a “loop”. The airplane disappeared from sight. Organizers of the roundup stated that there was no air show scheduled to be performed at the gathering.”



3. “According to the pilot, while on a cross country flight, he descended and overflew a lake along his route of flight. Flying into the setting sun at low level over the lake, the right landing gear struck a marked power line, about 70 feet above the lake’s surface, which separated the right landing ger and broke an engine mount on the airplane (RV-4). The pilot turned immediately for a nearby airport and completed the forced landing which collapsed the left main landing gear and damaged the firewall.. The pilot reported there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane. A witness stated that the power lines were marked by orange balls, while the pilot stated that the balls were red and “dark”. When asked how the accident could have been prevented, the pilot stated that “yellow or white balls could have been easier to see”.



My only comment is a Homer Simpson quote: “Doh”.

Were these instances of rare flying practices, which went awry, or were they “business as usual” flying which went awry? How widespread is this practice, and how many cowboy RV pilots are there?

Since the early days of aviation such showing off has been a part of aviation. Over time as GA airplanes have become more utilitarian cross country vehicles, and these show-off antics have become less common. Now, it seems to be a practice most often associated with “hot little homebuilts”. Is this part of the homebuilt “culture”?



I’ve been guilty of this myself, mostly in the distant past. It is a complex subject because of attitudes and pressure within our culture. We build these airplanes to be intentionally different than common GA pattern ponies. We want airplanes in which we can enjoy and “express” ourselves. But, we need to establish safe limits of “self expression”.

Why are show-off antics more prevalent in RVs and similar homebuilts? Probably one reason is that they have the requisite performance and maneuverability to perform these maneuvers; more so than most GA aircraft. Many builders choose RVs because they are aerobatic, maneuverable, climb well, and go fast. Some pilots apparently perceive them to be Walter Mitty fighters which just beg to be used to “beat up the aerodrome” after a mission. After all, most airport bums seem to enjoy these impromptu airshows, and this audience approval serves to encourage and reward the cowboys for their flying behavior. Fun for all?

If cowboy flying is quite commonplace among RV pilots, then maybe and occasional accident is an acceptable statistic. However; the two 2009 accidents mentioned above, combined with three other accidents of this type during 2009, resulted in three deaths. From this, the RV accidents from this cause alone resulted in a higher than the GA average fatal accident rate for the year. In other words, if all RV accidents with other causes were eliminated, we’d still have a worse rate than non-commercial GA, just due to the Cowboys alone. This is obviously unacceptable.

How can we eliminate the Cowboy accidents? How can we alter behavior? Education may help, as well as may peer pressure and culture change.

It has been my experience, both personal and otherwise, that cowboy flying is favored and encouraged by airport bystanders. But what if we could change that cultural element? Don’t ask me how I know, but it’s my feeling that most Cowboy pilots fly over-aggressively as a means of seeking attention, recognition, or acceptance. If not, they would not choose an airport, a farm home, or a gathering of people as a spot to demonstrate their aerial prowess. If they were doing this type of flying strictly for their own satisfaction, they could do so out in the hinterlands, out of sight of all others. The need for attention is a human trait, and can have both positive and negative manifestations.

What would happen if the cowboy got nothing but ostracism from his peers? What if several pilots, preferably respected ones, took him aside in the manner of an intervention, and explained a few facts to him:

a. What you just did was dangerous, both to yourself and to others. Statistics bear this out.

b. What you just did was stupid; it reflects badly on pilots in general, and particularly on A-B aircraft and pilots.

c. What you just did was a violation of FARs. We are not going to report you this time, but in the interest of aviation safety, someone might do so in the future. Then you would get a chance to talk with your friendly FAA man, not just us.



What do you think can be done? I hate to sound like a bad guy by even suggesting getting in someone’s face or “ratting” to the FAA. However, I think that peer pressure is perhaps the best tool available. It’s just a matter of bringing about a widespread attitude change and finding means of bringing peer pressure to bear.



I see a definite “cultural” element here. Maybe a bit of Anti-Authority also.
Click to expand...
 
timwinters said:
I've stayed out of this cat fight because I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But, I've read every post here and also over at the AOPA's closed thread...just for educational purposes AND because, after all, we all love a good fight don't we?

The only observation I'll make is this: Most of you RV guys (here and at AOPA both) aren't doing yourself any favors. The attitude you are displaying is really helping to prove the point of those who are disparaging you. You keep digging yourself deeper holes.

And this isn't coming from someone who doesn't like RVs. I love 'em and if my life ever slows down I hope to build one. But it would be an 8, 9 or a 10...not a 4 or a 6.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree. Especially when I notice that the two most vocal RV/OB/etc. apologists in this conversation appear to have joined this board largely (if not only) to jump into this discussion.

Seems like someone jumped over to the red board and/or Van's Airforce board and said, "Hey, those guys are complaining about OB and RV's over there, let's go get 'em!"

:rofl:
 
Rndmtrvlr said:
I gotta agree. Especially when I notice that the two most vocal RV/OB/etc. apologists in this conversation appear to have joined this board largely (if not only) to jump into this discussion.

Seems like someone jumped over to the red board and/or Van's Airforce board and said, "Hey, those guys are complaining about OB and RV's over there, let's go get 'em!"

:rofl:
Click to expand...

perception is wonderful, it makes you feel good.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=75546



2548
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
Not even close, though some threads get more confrontational than others. However, since perception is reality, it's probably appropriate to remind everyone of a couple of the board's rules of conduct:
Click to expand...

LOL.. I said this has to be the most confrontational board I've ever been a part of and your first post to this thread is to let me know that its "not even close." See my point?

wsuffa said:
The complete set of Rules of Conduct are found under FAQ|Rules of Conduct|
Click to expand...

It does no good to remind folks of the rules if they are not enforced. There have been multiple personal attacks that have been allowed.

As I've had time to think about it, this is the second most confrontational board I'm a member of. Only surpassed by FlightInfo.com and that is no award I'd want my board to win.
 
Rndmtrvlr said:
I gotta agree. Especially when I notice that the two most vocal RV/OB/etc. apologists in this conversation appear to have joined this board largely (if not only) to jump into this discussion.
Click to expand...

Guilty. I'm only here due to a post at another site.
 
Henning said:
If cowboy flying is quite commonplace among RV pilots, then maybe and occasional accident is an acceptable statistic. However; the two 2009 accidents mentioned above, combined with three other accidents of this type during 2009, resulted in three deaths. From this, the RV accidents from this cause alone resulted in a higher than the GA average fatal accident rate for the year. In other words, if all RV accidents with other causes were eliminated, we’d still have a worse rate than non-commercial GA, just due to the Cowboys alone. This is obviously unacceptable.
Click to expand...

One of the crashes in 2009 involved a good friend of mine. He was a great guy, but he was a cowboy's - cowboy.

One day, there were 3 or 4 of us all standing on the ramp after a local breakfast - all RV drivers - and he departed and gave us a quick show. One of us standing there said "I wish he'd quit doing that, he's going to get himself or someone else killed."

Well, fast forward to 2009. Death. The picture I posted of the Cj and the RV-8 was taken at the moment of impact. Look at the ailerons of the CJ, they're deflected incorrectly for the direction of turn the CJ is making.

There are cowboys in every community.
There are pilots in cockpits every day that probably shouldn't be there.

I posted the example of a guy who landed in a Aero Commander single who in the span of 5 minutes broke more civil and FAA regulations than I've ever seen out of anyone. He went as far as to set his own aircraft on fire. Not show the slightest bit of concern for it. Get back in it and fly it to Florida, with 2 passengers.

Are there cowboys in the RV community? Yes.
Do they need to be reigned in? Yes.

There are idiots everywhere. Sitting and screaming in their face that they are idiots is not going to change anything.
 
BellyUpFish said:
There are idiots everywhere. Sitting and screaming in their face that they are idiots is not going to change anything.
Click to expand...


The acts themselves weren't what got the screaming started really over there, it was the DENIAL from those that were defending, deflecting and denying. In one post stating incredulity then posting "well yes but..." when things were pointed out. It was the mental dishonesty that got things riled up. Bruce thinks safety is a good thing. Here's a guy who went from Navy large plane commander to doctor so he could afford to keep flying. He became a very senior AME, gets a lot of people in a bind with their medicals out even now that he's retired from his real practice. He's an active CFI-I MEI and basically really loves aviation. He's also a pessimistic worrier, problem there is he actually sits in meetings with FAA people regarding policy (he was instrumental in authoring and getting enacted the changes to the SSRI rules) and has a feeling for how they think, and they have a history of reacting to accidents with a lot of extra rules.

More than anything I, and I bet he, see as the the real problem in all that exchange was the level of denial involved. Aviation does not brook mental dishonesty in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The acts themselves weren't what got the screaming started really over there, it was the DENIAL from those that were defending, deflecting and denying. In one post stating incredulity then posting "well yes but..." when things were pointed out. It was the mental dishonesty that got things riled up. Bruce thinks safety is a good thing. Here's a guy who went from Navy large plane commander to doctorso he could afford to keep flying. He became a very senior AME, gets a lot of people in a bind with their medicals out even now that he's retied from his real practice. He's an active CFI-I MEI and basically really loves aviation. He's also a pessimistic worrier, problem there is he actually sits in meetings with FAA people regarding policy (he was instrumental in authoring and getting enacted the changes to the SSRI rules) and has a feeling for how they think, and they have a history of reacting to accidents with a lot of extra rules.

More than anything I, and I bet he, see as the the real problem in all that exchange was the level of denial involved. Aviation does not brook mental dishonesty in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have no idea what you're talking about "over there." Vans board? I don't know who Bruce is.

I was speaking just based on this thread.

I try not to get involved with the online bickering too much and have been sucked into this thread, more over the attitude exhibited toward those who disagree than with the disagreement itself.
 
BellyUpFish said:
One of the crashes in 2009 involved a good friend of mine. He was a great guy, but he was a cowboy's - cowboy.

One day, there were 3 or 4 of us all standing on the ramp after a local breakfast - all RV drivers - and he departed and gave us a quick show. One of us standing there said "I wish he'd quit doing that, he's going to get himself or someone else killed."

Well, fast forward to 2009. Death. The picture I posted of the Cj and the RV-8 was taken at the moment of impact. Look at the ailerons of the CJ, they're deflected incorrectly for the direction of turn the CJ is making.

There are cowboys in every community.
There are pilots in cockpits every day that probably shouldn't be there.

Are there cowboys in the RV community? Yes.
Do they need to be reigned in? Yes.

There are idiots everywhere. Sitting and screaming in their face that they are idiots is not going to change anything.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the loss of your friend.

What you describe has been a classic debate over on the Red Board, too (even in certified aircraft): pilots know of unsafe behavior, and the big question is "do I drop a dime on this guy or what?" That debate usually descends into namecalling also.

Unfortunately, the behavior usually ends in the way your friend did. I always wonder if saying something directly face-to-face would have helped...
 
BellyUpFish said:
Ok, I have no idea what you're talking about "over there." Vans board? I don't know who Bruce is.

I was speaking just based on this thread.

I try not to get involved with the online bickering too much and have been sucked into this thread, more over the attitude exhibited toward those who disagree than with the disagreement itself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no, I was referring to a thread on the AOPA board which spawned all of this and the threads on VAF. Bruce is Dr Bruce Chien who made the remarks that caused the VAF to go to "War" and do what they do at most pancake breakfasts, attract attention and cause confusion....:rofl: (JK, couldn't resist, I'm evil....)

Edit: Here's a link to the thread I was referring to, you may need to be an AOPA member to access it:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.ph...90#post1410790
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The acts themselves weren't what got the screaming started really over there, it was the DENIAL from those that were defending, deflecting and denying. In one post stating incredulity then posting "well yes but..." when things were pointed out. It was the mental dishonesty that got things riled up. Bruce thinks safety is a good thing. Here's a guy who went from Navy large plane commander to doctor so he could afford to keep flying. He became a very senior AME, gets a lot of people in a bind with their medicals out even now that he's retired from his real practice. He's an active CFI-I MEI and basically really loves aviation. He's also a pessimistic worrier, problem there is he actually sits in meetings with FAA people regarding policy (he was instrumental in authoring and getting enacted the changes to the SSRI rules) and has a feeling for how they think, and they have a history of reacting to accidents with a lot of extra rules.

More than anything I, and I bet he, see as the the real problem in all that exchange was the level of denial involved. Aviation does not brook mental dishonesty in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Actually, the good Dr. (who I had a lot of respect for).................went off the real deep end that day. There are a limited number of supporters, who feel they need to make excuses. Yet a large majority were seriously appauled by the prejudice that was spewing forth.

My first reply to that thread, in which I linked an airshow/formation thread, was extremely polite. As things continued downhill, I didn't exactly help it, but it was far out of control..........let alone anything I said. In the end, it had to be stopped........which was done. Of course, some protest that action too.

And yes, I signed up, because of this discussion.

L.Adamson
 
Henning said:
Sorry, no, I was referring to a thread on the AOPA board which spawned all of this and the threads on VAF. Bruce is Dr Bruce Chien who made the remarks that caused the VAF to go to "War" and do what they do at most pancake breakfasts, attract attention and cause confusion....:rofl: (JK, couldn't resist, I'm evil....)
Click to expand...

While the good Doc means well I'm sure, he came across very poorly and that is unfortunate.

I don't have an RV. I don't plan to build an RV. But I was taken back by the personal nature of the posts. They came across as personal attacks on pilots just because they flew RVs. Again unfortunate.

I am a very conservative pilot. I fly with my child and grandchildren on a regular basis. Safety is paramount to our family. There are hotdog pilots everywhere. I've seen them in all types over the past thirty years, but to condemn a whole community for the actions of a few is ludicrous. It is mob mentality. Geeze, some posters were condemning the airplane itself.

The RV will not lead to the fall of general aviation. It is an object. It has no power. But the bickering I've seen here and on the other board will.
 
Panew said:
perception is wonderful, it makes you feel good.
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

BellyUpFish said:
This message board has to be the most confrontational message board I've ever been a part of
Click to expand...

I found that statement particularly amusing since it was the VAF who came to this board en masse less than a week ago specifically to confront those who were bad talking RVs. How would you know this board is confrontational? Have you read the other few hundred thousand posts that are here? I gotta ask...who's confronting who?

We were all quite happy here less than a week ago before the VAF arrived en masse to defend one's honor. And we'll all be quite happy in another week after you tire of this game and move on like I'm sure the majority will...though you're more than welcome to stay and hang out.

One things for certain. You guys excel at mass arrivals regardless of the venue. :goofy:
 
Henning said:
This is a pretty condemning counter to those who deny it's a problem and/or state, "no worse than any Cessna or Mooney or...." It's like buying a Harley, you buy it for whatever reason you have and use it however you want, but you will never detach the "1%er" reputation from the Harley brand even if you are not affiliated with an outlaw club. Your bike will always carry that stigma to some extent, and in reality, that is why most unaffiliated Harley riders buy them, image, image is the basis for imagine.... There is some of that "bad boy" image thing that goes with the RV. So now the community grows and you naturally end up with a wienie measuring contest of "Who's the baddest bad boy". Problem is, most of them shy away from using the ruler so they use their plane as a prosthesis.... RVs will always carry the stigma of "Cowboy Pilots", and sadly, the marque comes from the "Inept Cowboy Pilots". If you didn't want a plane with that Stigma, you shouldn't have bought an RV.
Click to expand...

A few days back, you wrote:

You realize that just calling it "Van's Air Force" automatically makes it sound like all of you are wannabe kooks though. All the "RV-Mustang" paint jobs don't help a bunch to deter from the Walter Mitty image.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And today, you're farther pushing a self fullfilling image, by stating that we measure our manhood by our plane purchase. Of course, if you were to read through all forums that have to do with Van's aircraft...........such as I have for the last 17 years, you'd see that none of these subjects ever come up.

Nope, most RV owners are just parents, commercial pilots, engineers of all types, business owners, managers , blue collar and people who are interested in the build. It does take quite a bit of time & dedication to commit to building one.

L.Adamson

edit: fixed the italics
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
We were all quite happy here less than a week ago before the VAF arrived en masse to defend one's honor.
Click to expand...

I was happy at the AOPA red board. Been a member of the AOPA since '93.
Being VAF didn't hurt a bit, until now.

L.Adamson
 
timwinters said:
Have you read the other few hundred thousand posts that are here? I gotta ask...who's confronting who?
Click to expand...

I actually drew my conclusion based on other threads, not this one.

I wouldn't go as far as to label all posters here bad apples based on one "cowboy" thread. :wink2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top