EXPs have a bad month

Thanks for posting Tom.

In reading the article it seems reasonable transition and cross training into a new model of experimental could reduce the number of accidents. All too often pilots new to an aircraft model think they can jump in and fly away.

When I was flying ultra lights it seemed the pilots likely to crash were the ones coming from GA to ULs without any training at all. The mind set of "I'm a pilot, I can fly anything" is pretty arrogant, and dangerous.

Let's all be careful out there. We don't need to lose any more pilots. :no:
 
Experimentals will continue to lead in the raw numbers of accidents because it is the remaining segment of personally owned GA that is actively flying... The majority of personal owned, certified aircraft on my field are not moving out of the hangars... Of of over 60 planes only 6 to 8 are actively flown...
My mechanic gets planes in for the annual that have put 2 or 3 hours on the tach from the year before... One had 1.0 hours, and one had ZERO... Over half the planes on the field are now out of annual...

Avgas is now $6.10 at the pump and is 50 cents lower than near by airports... If the airport sells more than $30 gas in a day it has been a good day...

We can be lulled into complacency on this forum because we are the fraction of a percent of the pilots who fly actively... Those who don't, do not inhabit forums like this... GA is dying in the USA and it is not a slow death...
 
The FAA drew a line in the sand and we hit it. Month's nearly over, so perhaps we won't surpass it. Perhaps. I have a really bad feeling about this.
 
Dr. O said:
Experimentals will continue to lead in the raw numbers of accidents because it is the remaining segment of personally owned GA that is actively flying... The majority of personal owned, certified aircraft on my field are not moving out of the hangars... Of of over 60 planes only 6 to 8 are actively flown...
My mechanic gets planes in for the annual that have put 2 or 3 hours on the tach from the year before... One had 1.0 hours, and one had ZERO... Over half the planes on the field are now out of annual...

Avgas is now $6.10 at the pump and is 50 cents lower than near by airports... If the airport sells more than $30 gas in a day it has been a good day...

We can be lulled into complacency on this forum because we are the fraction of a percent of the pilots who fly actively... Those who don't, do not inhabit forums like this... GA is dying in the USA and it is not a slow death...
Click to expand...
Understand your point, but can't say I really agree with it. Most of the EAB crashes aren't from pilots who are flying a ton. There are plenty of parked EABs that sit and don't frequently fly just like there are plenty of standard category airplanes that remain earthbound. In the past year I really have not seen too many EABs flying. Even with high gas prices, I see far more standard category aircraft in the air than EABs.
 
I think that it is a combination of the good weather, and the builders pushing to get flying. they would't be trying to fly in December. More pilots flying, = more accidents.
 
Tom-D said:
I think that it is a combination of the good weather, and the builders pushing to get flying. they would't be trying to fly in December. More pilots flying, = more accidents.
Click to expand...

That, but it also reflects the growing number of experimentals joining the GA fleet, third of all new aircraft last I checked. Only game in town if you want brand snaking new airplane, unless you have way deeper pockets than anyone I know.
 
steingar said:
The FAA drew a line in the sand and we hit it. Month's nearly over, so perhaps we won't surpass it. Perhaps. I have a really bad feeling about this.
Click to expand...

So what happens when we exceed the number that someone at the FAA arbitrarily pulled out of a warm dark place?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So what happens when we exceed the number that someone at the FAA arbitrarily pulled out of a warm dark place?
Click to expand...
The FAA has, in the past, threatened to implement policies that they feel would improve EX-AB safety.

An example was a proposal to put all newly-purchased homebuilts back into Phase 1 flight limitations (e.g., no flight in congested airspace, no passengers, etc.) for 10-20 hours.

The NTSB study also had some recommendations, where the FAA could gain some interagency karma by implementing.

Ron Wanttaja
 
'Small sacrifices must be made.' Oh wait, never mind risk is against the law in this finally civilized land.
 
I have been warning about this for about two years.
(Oh, never mind.....)
 
bbchien said:
I have been warning about this for about two years.
(Oh, never mind.....)
Click to expand...

Me too Bruce. Every since an FAA apparatchik brazenly threatened to his face to put Richard VanGrunsven out of business. They're serious, and we're not.

Lotta folks are running around with blinders on. Mark my words, this will not end well.
 
When did taking a known risk and dying from it become illegal?

Eliminate risk from life, and you have eliminated living.
 
Mafoo said:
When did taking a known risk and dying from it become illegal?

Eliminate risk from life, and you have eliminated living.
Click to expand...

True, but you will have satisfied a growing demographic in this country who see risk as something to be avoided. It's not an attitude that built our country, but it is one I see taking over. Sad really.
 
Accident rate is irrelevant. Once we let them get exps, certified will be next. Again accident rate doesnt matter it will always be to high and demand govt action. The only defense of ga is general liberty, throwing exps under the bus wont appreciably prolong the ride for certified ga. I already converted to euro style flying so Im good, you folks enjoy the decline.
 
steingar said:
The FAA drew a line in the sand and we hit it. Month's nearly over, so perhaps we won't surpass it. Perhaps. I have a really bad feeling about this.
Click to expand...

It's the FAA's fault. They should have drawn the line in the sand at zero. People will reach for whatever bar you set.

:dunno:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
They should have drawn the line in the sand at zero.
Click to expand...

You've just accidentally articulated where its headed. ;)

And if anyone thinks they're risk-takers compared to the general public, a read of Robin Olds book will show just how risk-averse we've all become.

There's stuff in there the modern pilot will both smile at, and also feel their careful safety-culture indoctrinated brain curling up and crying in a corner over.
 
One of the things that the EXP community doesn't often take into account are the different skill sets involved between building a plane, and flying it. I've known guys who can build great things, shape metal, form wood, and produce beautiful curves in all types of materials. But - those skills don't always translate to the dynamics of flight, and particularly flight of a plane which has never flown before.

Sure, it's likely that the guy building it and flying it for the first time will have a set of skills that somewhat cover both, but engineering/manufacturing and the seat of the pants feeling of the plane in flight are two distinct things.

I don't know how many of the accidents were related to first 40 hours, but being Sept, I'm guessing it was significant.

Yes, the FAA can and will come down hard if the community does not meet their arbitrary and capricious 'number'. I can see a situation where every flight of a new homebuilt needs to be pre-approved by a paper pusher at the FSDO. They could require an inspection of any system on any plane that uses the NAS and is not currently certified. In that situation, I feel confident that the unofficial word from the FAA would be that every inspection would find a fault serious enough to deny the flight. They could easily make it so hard to get the first flights done that no one would bother anymore.
 
docmirror said:
One of the things that the EXP community doesn't often take into account are the different skill sets involved between building a plane, and flying it. I've known guys who can build great things, shape metal, form wood, and produce beautiful curves in all types of materials. But - those skills don't always translate to the dynamics of flight, and particularly flight of a plane which has never flown before.

Sure, it's likely that the guy building it and flying it for the first time will have a set of skills that somewhat cover both, but engineering/manufacturing and the seat of the pants feeling of the plane in flight are two distinct things.
Click to expand...

Your point is valid. There is a ton of emphasis in the community to make sure the airplane is airworthy. Between voluntary tech inspections and involuntary FAA inspections, most of these airplanes are in decent shape. But there's not much in the way of making sure the pilot is ready. Personally, I think this is where the FAA will go (and maybe should go) to "help".
They will have to start by making it easier for us to get our LODAs...and helping us with the insurance challenges associated.
 
docmirror said:
.....
Yes, the FAA can and will come down hard if the community does not meet their arbitrary and capricious 'number'. I can see a situation where every flight of a new homebuilt needs to be pre-approved by a paper pusher at the FSDO. They could require an inspection of any system on any plane that uses the NAS and is not currently certified..
Click to expand...

That has been the standard for Homebuilts for a LONG time.... We need a sign off and Phase 1 flight test area and limitations spelled out in writing before we can take off for the first time.. :yesnod::rolleyes:..

I built a Zenith 801 and stuffed a V-8 in it.. It is overpowered by a factor of X2 +... I understand and accept the risk and after 400+ hours I have beat the grim reaper. I could fly it till I die of old age 50 years from now .... or it could kill me tomorrow morning on my next flight.... There are NO guarentees in life.:no::nonod: IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEy6WPB_txw

Ben.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
That has been the standard for Homebuilts for a LONG time.... We need a sign off and Phase 1 flight test area and limitations spelled out in writing before we can take off for the first time.. :yesnod::rolleyes:..


Ben.
Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understood the thrust of my statement. You would apply for a sign off and phase 1 flight test, and it would never, ever be granted. There would always be some picayune defect that needed to be resolved before first flight. I can see it now, first inspection:

L aileron bellcrank bolt installed without proper torque.

Second inspection:

R aileron bellcrank over-torqued.

Third inspection:

Rudder cable guide too narrow, may cause binding.

Fourth inspection:

Wire insulation scuffed between sender and instrument.

I can do this all night...... So can they.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top