FAA Releases Safety Study Of Experimentals

And the recommendations are... More paperwork and certification delays.
 
wsuffa said:
And the recommendations are... More paperwork and certification delays.
Click to expand...

Yea, but on the whole, they do address some legitimate issues. They also suggest that sensible things like having a second pilot along to record data and assist shouldn't be illegal.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yea, but on the whole, they do address some legitimate issues. They also suggest that sensible things like having a second pilot along to record data and assist shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...

If the airplane is flying properly, taking a few notes shouldn't challenge the pilot. If the airplane isn't performing properly, the pilot needs to get it back on the ground, correct the problem, and give it another try. Once the basics are working properly, then it is time to start recording flight data.

Putting two people at risk (as opposed to one) seems to be a bad trade-off.

Where it would help would be the ego driven builder who isn't really prepared to make the maiden flight, but insists. Those guys get hurt all too often. It would still be better to only put one person in the airplane, and make sure that person was adequately prepared.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yea, but on the whole, they do address some legitimate issues. They also suggest that sensible things like having a second pilot along to record data and assist shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...

I agree. It should also be illegal for the builder to do his final inspection, and first annual. Another builder of the same model holding a repairmans certificate or an A&P.

As an EAA tech counselor I have advocated against builders doing their own annuals for good reason. If they built it in the first place how can they find anything wrong with it? A fresh set of eyes is a good thing. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
I agree. It should also be illegal for the builder to do his final inspection, and first annual. Another builder of the same model holding a repairmans certificate or an A&P.

As an EAA tech counselor I have advocated against builders doing their own annuals for good reason. If they built it in the first place how can they find anything wrong with it? A fresh set of eyes is a good thing. ;)
Click to expand...

A fresh set of eyes is a very good thing. I always pay one of my A&P friends to do an eyeball inspection of the FWF on my RV. I don't remember them ever finding anything critical, but they have noticed a couple of minor things I overlooked.

Whether we need to mandate common sense (involving a second set of eyes), I'm not sure.
 
kyleb said:
A fresh set of eyes is a very good thing. I always pay one of my A&P friends to do an eyeball inspection of the FWF on my RV. I don't remember them ever finding anything critical, but they have noticed a couple of minor things I overlooked.

Whether we need to mandate common sense (involving a second set of eyes), I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

if it was really common sense the NTSB wouldn't be recommending it after a safety study.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yea, but on the whole, they do address some legitimate issues. They also suggest that sensible things like having a second pilot along to record data and assist shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...
If there's room for a second pilot, certainly there's room for a video camera to record the flight...

Ryan
 
regulation vs freedom
if the FAA has its way, they will continue to heap on regulation.
I thought the beauty of exp. was you could fly something you built, without the onerousness of the certification process.
If any government body gets involved you know freedom goes down and regulation increases. That's all they know.

I think we should leave it alone. Simply accept the current level of crashes and fatalities each year. Provide education, yes. But no more regulation.
 
RyanShort1 said:
If there's room for a second pilot, certainly there's room for a video camera to record the flight...

Ryan
Click to expand...

Unless you have test flown a new aircraft you can't know that a video is close to worthless. What are you going to record? Another qualified pilot would be extremely helpful with the work load, check lists, traffic, radio work, recording temps, supervising, ect., hence the push from EAA to allow it. ;)
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
regulation vs freedom
if the FAA has its way, they will continue to heap on regulation.
I thought the beauty of exp. was you could fly something you built, without the onerousness of the certification process.
If any government body gets involved you know freedom goes down and regulation increases. That's all they know.

I think we should leave it alone. Simply accept the current level of crashes and fatalities each year. Provide education, yes. But no more regulation.
Click to expand...

An high rate of crashes occur with the first flight both with builders and with pilots flying a newly purchased EAB. This could be avoided with minimal regulation requiring an A&P inspection or transition training.

I don't like more regulation either. Maybe this report will be good enough to scare builders and newbie owners to do the right thing? :no:
 
Last edited:
scare builders and newbie owners to do the right thing? :no:
Click to expand...

I am saying 'the right thing' is debatable.
Is the right thing to leave these guys alone even if it means some will die?
Or is the right thing to add regulation, even 'minimal'?

People died recently on Mount Everest.
They knew the risks and accepted them.
Should we (or Nepal) regulate climbing Mount Everest?
I sincerely hope not.

We can make flying safe. Make so many regulations no one does it.
 
Geico266 said:
An extrodinarily high rate of crashes occure with the first flight both with builders and with pilots flying a newly purchased EAB. This could be avoided with minimal regulation requiring an A&P inspection or transition training.

I don't like more regulation either. Maybe this report will be good enough to scare builders and newbie owners to do the right thing? :no:
Click to expand...

Or mabye it'll be enough to kill the E-AB hobby the same way it's pushed costs for owning and maintaining a certified airplane to the point where it's nearly killed the industry. I had a front row seat to what was involved in trying to move an airplane company from one city to another. If the FAA goes heavy on the regs ("if one regulation is good, five is better"), then we can kiss E-AB goodbye.

If the additional paperwork must be approved at the FAA, where are they going to find the staff and time to do it? They're not.... it'll lengthen the timelines to get anything approved.

While I concur that better education is highly desirable, adding additional regs is not. As for the A&P, my personal preference is to have annual inspection done at a shop that's different from my routine maintenance shop (certified aircraft), but I have yet to have a single annual inspection - save for one done at the factory - where there weren't squawks that needed repair after inspection. Including some that didn't turn up until I was in flight. This year they included the wires for the landing light being left disconnected from the light, but connected together creating a direct short to ground. And more.

Another set of eyes is good, and something I'd want, but I'd also want it to be someone very familiar with the aircraft... and for E-AB, that may not even be an A&P.

Risk is part of life, and part of flying. Managing & accepting risk is one thing, trying to eliminate it altogether is a different thing.
 
Given the precarious nature of the E/AB sector, the fact that the NTSB recommendations aren't more draconian is a relief.

That the NTSB carried out the study is indeed quite important in the real world, even if it doesn't seem so to some uninformed individuals. The NTSB can make all sorts of recommendations. The FAA doesn't have to take any of them, and often doesn't.
 
The EAA will watch and work closely with the FAA if they choose to implement some of the recommendations. There is always room for improvement when the stats show a dispoportional about of wrecks on first flight. The data is in, adjustments must be made, IMHO. I am confident EAA, Vans AC, other kit builders would welcome additional safety measures so builders don't bang up planes or worse on first flights.

Experiment aircraft is the fastest growing segment of GA with no let up in site. Making it safer benifits us all.
 
There is always room for improvement when the stats show a dispoportional about of wrecks on first flight.
Click to expand...

What is often missed in these discussions is that (taking our example); yes the FAA can make new regulations that will relieve the spike of fatals/wrecks on first flights of experimental a/c.

THEN after a year or so, some other bureaucrat will get to looking at some other aspect of the experimentals that is causing an apparent spike. (That earlier spike from first flights will have been fixed, and they will be looking at what was previously unnoticed, smaller spikes - maybe fuel-related or engine-related; who knows what it will be. But there are always smaller and smaller spikes of accident causes that need a regulation, in their mind.)
Until the regulations make it that no one wants to bother, or it has become too expensive to comply. They should just leave it alone. If you get into experimental, you should be willing to accept the current risk.
 
Geico266 said:
Unless you have test flown a new aircraft you can't know that a video is close to worthless. What are you going to record? Another qualified pilot would be extremely helpful with the work load, check lists, traffic, radio work, recording temps, supervising, ect., hence the push from EAA to allow it. ;)
Click to expand...
Um, I have. I've done ferry flights on Experimentals, and one of them was the first flight with a new engine installation, new cockpit instruments, etc... The video would be to record the panel.

Ryan
 
Geico266 said:
An high rate of crashes occur with the first flight both with builders and with pilots flying a newly purchased EAB. This could be avoided with minimal regulation requiring an A&P inspection or transition training.
Click to expand...

You can't legislate/regulate common sense. If a builder isn't competent enough to know their limitations and ask for help when they are outside of their knowledge/experience base, what says that they will know about or obey yet another gov't mandated regulation? Meanwhile, you have imposed even more regulation and expense on the x% of builders that already do the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Dear Jim,

Get a life.

Geico


;)
Click to expand...

LOL, however, there is a little bit to that especially when one considers any changes in requirements. The FAA and NTSB often do not see eye to eye and often the FAA does NOT institute the recommendations of the NTSB that will cause them extra work in a non airline venue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top