Pattern Madness

L.Adamson said:
edit: Note: there were numerous people in attendance, when the FAA official made his comments. It wasn't a face to face with Van. And Van isn't attempting to get back at them either. Van is quite concerned about "hot shot" pilots these days. He writes about it often.
Click to expand...

If I implied otherwise, please accept my apologies.
 
BellyUpFish said:
An example of the accuracy of FAA officials - I've been hearing from FAA officials in news print, tv media and in person about how the rest rules for 121 flying are going to change. They keep finding reasons not to change them.
Click to expand...

Correction on this: They've found plenty of reasons to change them. Their political bosses find the reason$ no to change them. $$$$$

Government in general has the biggest conflict of interest issues ever created in a large corporation but makes sure we sheep are more scared of the ones they pretend to regulate as long as it gets them more votes next year. And when they really drop the ball they just print money to bail out those they were supposedly regulating.

18% of the country now holds a government job. Factor in that most of their families will vote to help them keep that job, and you have the country's largest special interest. 36% of voters will already vote pro-government and it's still growing.

Once we hit 25% of the workforce working for government you'll hit 50% of the voters and then it's game over. Whatever government wants, it will vote for itself.
 
denverpilot said:
18% of the country now holds a government job. Factor in that most of their families will vote to help them keep that job, and you have the country's largest special interest. 36% of voters will already vote pro-government and it's still growing.
Click to expand...

That might actually be correct, if you factor in every state and local government, as well as all the police, firemen, teachers and everyone else who works for them. Obviously all a bunch of shiftless layabouts.
 
denverpilot said:
18% of the country now holds a government job. Factor in that most of their families will vote to help them keep that job, and you have the country's largest special interest. 36% of voters will already vote pro-government and it's still growing.
Click to expand...

I believe you may be underestimating the "captive audience" factor. Those who actually are employed by the government are one side of the coin. The flip side are those who depend on government-issued welfare checks. They'll vote, by and large, for whatever keeps the money coming.
 
DaleB said:
I believe you may be underestimating the "captive audience" factor. Those who actually are employed by the government are one side of the coin. The flip side are those who depend on government-issued welfare checks. They'll vote, by and large, for whatever keeps the money coming.
Click to expand...
Well that explains why big business supports the Republicans then! Gotta keep that corporate welfare rolling in. Wouldn't want a CEO to go without a new yacht this year!
 
steingar said:
I think I am badly misunderstood in this. I am probably the biggest booster imaginable to the Ex/Ab movement. I go to Oshkosh every year, I love the things. I see a credible threat to their continued existence, and I get very loud and quite abrasive, not because I don't like them, but because I don't want to see a few hotshots ruin it for everyone. Often what I get back is people touting how great their aircraft are, and it gets very frustrating.
Click to expand...

Well, I obviously misunderstood you. From my previous post, it's just about you come off. I understand you now, and your posts will be viewed in a different light. :)

I come off pretty harshly through text as well. I am a pretty big "wise-acre" LOL. I'm generally always kidding or being "loveablely sarcastic" as my wife always puts it, so I come across as very well, PRICKly on the internet.

I totally understand your point of view and have a different outlook on your posts after having read your last one. Thanks. :)

denverpilot said:
Correction on this: They've found plenty of reasons to change them. Their political bosses find the reason$ no to change them. $$$$$
Click to expand...

You're right. It's $$. Still doesn't matter to me who has the reasons not to change them. The fact of the matter is they have found reason not to change them. The FAA is always like that. The 1500 hour rule they're soo proud of, it won't happen.
 
ScottM said:
It could. If it does, is it the longest thread in any PoA Forum?
Click to expand...
The joke thread is the longest. I think the fail thread is number two.

But it has been an interesting discussion. And it has increased the active membership.
 
silver-eagle said:
The joke thread is the longest. I think the fail thread is number two.

But it has been an interesting discussion. And it has increased the active membership.
Click to expand...

I would have never been here without this thread. I dunno if that's a good or a bad thing for the forum.
 
steingar said:
According to the President of the EAA, the hotspots are first flights, 50 hours, anything unduly hot (like Lanceairs) and the turn from base to final for LSA.
Click to expand...
The question is, what can the FAA do, regulation-wise, to improve the accident rate in these categories?

I have direct experience here. I was a member of an FAA Flight Safety Board last year, examining how the EX-AB safety record could be improved. There were about twenty-five members, mostly FAA, with representatives from the EAA, AOPA, and some of the builder's groups. We met four times, mostly in Kansas City.

The main problem is that there were few key aspects that could be pointed to, as a cause. And the few that were found had no real solutions.

"More training," some of the FAA participants declared. "We should require that homebuilt owners get ten hours of instruction in type before carrying passengers."

The trouble is, how does the builder of a Smythe Sidewinder find an airplane to take dual in? How does he "rent" the airplane when the FAA doesn't allow that sort of use? Where does he find a qualified CFI?

Even where potential solutions were found, the benefits just weren't there. For instance, one of the concerns was the accident rate among recent purchasers of flying homebuilts. A couple of the senior FAA types were advocating requiring that newly-purchased homebuilts be placed into the phase 1 flight test limitations again (e.g., no passengers) for ten to twenty hours.

Nice idea, but such a restriction isn't really justified by the statistics. Over the ten-year period covered by my own analysis, there were about 750 accidents involving purchased homebuilts. Of those where the pilot had ten hours or less in the aircraft, only four passengers were killed. So such a rule (if the homebuilt world strictly abided by it) would save just one life every two years.

So, what could the FAA do?

Require check-outs before carrying passengers? Per above, they'd have to devise some way to do this for less-common types.

Increase the test period for new homebuilts? The accident rate drops to "normal" at the 40-hour point as it is (albeit it jumps up a bit from 40-60 hours as planes start flying cross-country--VFR to IFR, running out of fuel, etc.--and mechanical problems start arising from use).

Require annual inspections be performed by A&Ps? Many A&Ps won't touch homebuilts. In any case, my statistics show maintenance errors cause less than 5% of homebuilt accidents. Not much leverage, there.

About 55% of homebuilt accidents are due to pilot error (including judgment errors). The percentage is even higher if NTSB "Probable Cause" is used (the NTSB blames the pilot if the investigator feels a forced landing could have been safely made after an engine failure, where my records reflect the cause as mechanical error). The next leading cause..."Undetermined Engine Failure"... is about 8.5% of the total.

So the biggest bang for the buck, here, is pilot training. Which, considering the wide nature of the homebuilt fleet, is the most difficult to regulate.

The FAA would certainly be capable of instituting a shotgun policy with no real basis in reality. But the aviation groups will oppose, and those members of Congress on our side will get involved. Without some sort of statistical justification, FAA officials know they'll come out looking pretty bad.

Van is right to be concerned. One out of every six homebuilts on the rolls is an RV; 30%-40% of new homebuilts every year are RVs. This means the investigators are seeing a lot of RVs, and the sins of the homebuilt fleet are likely to unfairly attached to the RV line.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Saw a RV-7 coming in from the east (very aligned with straight-in final for RWY 24) and guess what he did?

For all the practice this guy gets in overhead breaks I'd think he could actually make it look pretty.

Painted to look like Crazy Horse--CHECK
Invasion Stripes--CHECK
Cool flying helmut--CHECK
Flight suit--CHECK
 
Richard said:
Saw a RV-7 coming in from the east (very aligned with straight-in final for RWY 24) and guess what he did?

For all the practice this guy gets in overhead breaks I'd think he could actually make it look pretty.

Painted to look like Crazy Horse--CHECK
Invasion Stripes--CHECK
Cool flying helmut--CHECK
Flight suit--CHECK
Click to expand...
Don't be hating on helmets...

Ryan
 
steingar said:
According to the President of the EAA, the hotspots are first flights, 50 hours, anything unduly hot (like Lanceairs) and the turn from base to final for LSA.
Click to expand...
I do not understand the LSA reference. Did he elaborate?

Past Saturday I was flying Arrow to KSRR, on my first solo (just cleared 10 hours for insurance on retract rental). I was late to descend, so I slipped from 10.5 to 7.5 and exited over the field, made my first ever overhead entry and ended too close to runway. I thought at the time that Fish must be pulling this stuff in his RV on every landing... Living in a glass house, am I here? When I banked to make my 180 for landing, I felt the G - about 1.7 by the butt-o-meter. That bled the speed very nicely and put me right on the centerline... And then on the ground I remembered that accelerated stall existed. Oops. Decided never do that again. Fat lot of good would being perfectly coordinated do me in case of a stall -- and I bet the investigators would suspect my footwork.

It is just as easy to crash a certificated airplane when you get complacent like I did. At least in the LSA that I rent there is an AoA indicator (and it's not optional - comes from the factory). Also, it's sooo easy to slow down: just pull the throttle, drop more flaps. Impossible to fall behind it. So I dunno... It just seems strange to me that LSA get bad statistic here.
 
zaitcev said:
It just seems strange to me that LSA get bad statistic here.
Click to expand...

I suspect (assuming that the original claim was true) that the statistic comes from the fact that a lot of LSA's run out of airspeed at the drop of the hat - low weight, high drag. When I flare, it's game over - I couldn't float down the runway if my life depended on it. This could cause problems from people used to flying, say, a forked tailed doctor killer where you have to work to get rid of speed.
 
zaitcev said:
I do not understand the LSA reference. Did he elaborate?
Click to expand...

He didn't but I think I can. As I understand it, the LSA's are, or at least have been, largely flown by pilots transitioning down from larger aircraft. As such, the LSAs are actually quite a handful, as they are light, and things will happen quickly. I suspect a lot of landing accidents are due to exactly what the good Captain Thorpe was saying, and the LSAs have a lot.

Why accidents from base to final? That's where airplanes truly bite the unprepared pilot. At least, that's my take, based on readings and whatnot. Ron could obviously do far better, but this sort of thing is what he does for a living, or a big time hobby, or something.
 
After revisiting this thread, I think there are some that are just envious of little planes that are fun to fly, maybe with a little irrational fear thrown in for good measure.
 
I am more mindful of crosswind limitations in LSA than of base-to-final. Remos' POH says 15 knots demonstrated, but it would require dipping the upwind wing quite a lot and then roll down runway like that. I do not trust my skills to be up to it. I wonder if some LSA pilots get into a situation when they are low on fuel and must land while the afternoon winds start gusting.

Perhaps there's a split in statistics between S-LSA, E-LSA, and Experimental. Looks like the President of EAA would most need to protect E-AB airplanes from over-regulation. But I came to assume that "LSA" means S-LSA. The best sellers among those fly very much like normal airplanes, just lighter. But his fleet defies generalization.

It would be mind-blowingly cool to fly Ron's FlyBaby, but I cannot even think about attempting it. The high drag I can handle - I think. But it's a tailwheel. And there's one seat, so checkout training is impossible.
 
I was told specifically the turn from base to final was a hotspot for fatal LSA accidents, and I do consider my source unimpeachable. I have given my own interpretation, admittedly based on very little and possibly not correct.

That said, it is really easy to see someone get too slow and try to use rudder to correct base to final. Lots of people do in larger aircraft, you just can't get away with as much in aircraft with more responsive rudders. The crosswind limitation you've mentioned is not that much less than many certificated aircraft.
 
steingar said:
I was told specifically the turn from base to final was a hotspot for fatal LSA accidents, and I do consider my source unimpeachable. I have given my own interpretation, admittedly based on very little and possibly not correct.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I understand. I'll be more careful with that turn, as I should.
 
steingar said:
I was told specifically the turn from base to final was a hotspot for fatal LSA accidents
Click to expand...

Isn't that the most dangerous spot in the pattern? Kills more than anywhere else, I've always heard.. Especially hard on low time or complacent pilots.
 
steingar said:
That said, it is really easy to see someone get too slow and try to use rudder to correct base to final.
Click to expand...

If there are people who are trying to steer with the rudder, that seems odd to me, because I was taught to use the rudder for coordination, not steering.
 
Palmpilot said:
If there are people who are trying to steer with the rudder, that seems odd to me, because I was taught to use the rudder for coordination, not steering.
Click to expand...
The old gentleman who teaches Complex in my FBO told me lead turns with the rudder. As airplane starts rolling due to coupling, continue with aileron as necessary and use rudder to center and maintain the ball. My primary instructor was ok with just doing what you said.
 
Palmpilot said:
If there are people who are trying to steer with the rudder, that seems odd to me, because I was taught to use the rudder for coordination, not steering.
Click to expand...

Slipping base to final is a very common cause for fatal airplane accidents. You can get slow, get into a cross controlled stall from which you have insufficient room to recover.
 
Richard said:
Saw a RV-7 coming in from the east (very aligned with straight-in final for RWY 24) and guess what he did?

For all the practice this guy gets in overhead breaks I'd think he could actually make it look pretty.

Painted to look like Crazy Horse--CHECK
Invasion Stripes--CHECK
Cool flying helmut--CHECK
Flight suit--CHECK
Click to expand...

Hey Dude:needpics:
 
steingar said:
Slipping base to final is a very common cause for fatal airplane accidents. You can get slow, get into a cross controlled stall from which you have insufficient room to recover.
Click to expand...
I think you mean skidding.....not slipping.
 
zaitcev said:
The old gentleman who teaches Complex in my FBO told me lead turns with the rudder. As airplane starts rolling due to coupling, continue with aileron as necessary and use rudder to center and maintain the ball. My primary instructor was ok with just doing what you said.
Click to expand...

This can tend to be airplane dependent. In alot of older airplanes (from the 40's and 50's) you pretty much need to lead with the rudder to perform an effective turn because of the adverse yaw. Later airplanes were designed and built with features like differential aileron travel which greatly reduces/cancels out the adverse yaw. That's why you can get away with not using your feet in a PA28 for example.

On the other hand, in my 1948 170, if I don't use the rudder at the beginning of the turn and just try to use ailerons....I'm going to be waiting a hell of a long time for the airplane to respond. In a DC-3 it is even worse.....if you don't lead with the rudder and just try to use ailerons, you will probably travel a couple of miles before she even thinks about turning.
 
steingar said:
Slipping base to final is a very common cause for fatal airplane accidents. You can get slow, get into a cross controlled stall from which you have insufficient room to recover.
Click to expand...

Which brings up another thing I was taught, which was to maintain good airspeed control in the pattern.
 
Richard said:
Saw a RV-7 coming in from the east (very aligned with straight-in final for RWY 24) and guess what he did?

For all the practice this guy gets in overhead breaks I'd think he could actually make it look pretty.

Painted to look like Crazy Horse--CHECK
Invasion Stripes--CHECK
Cool flying helmut--CHECK
Flight suit--CHECK
Click to expand...

jealous-women-04.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top