Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
But then this wouldn't be the internet...
GA Safety
- Thread starter cocolos
- Start date
denverpilot
Tied Down
Not true.
denverpilot
Tied Down
You can mount an iPad to your certified panel all you want. Ship's power may require simple paperwork. You can't use it as PRIMARY navigation, but there's nothing stopping you from panel mounting it.
dell30rb
Final Approach
A yoke mount is like $50 bucks and they work great. Lunacy?
And as pointed out earlier you can easily mount it in the panel. But you can't use it for primary navigation or IFR stuff. The reasoning behind this is sound. The certified GPS have things like RAIM and antennas mounted in correct places with a lot of testing done to ensure 100% functionality. Portable stuff works great but if you happened to drop your sporty's stratus on the floor while flying an approach in the clouds via ipad, you would be hosed. (the gps does not work so well there on the floor)
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I suppose if you got rear-ended it might make a difference. Otherwise, no, they aren't going to make the aircraft more crashworth.
But I do agree with your point that the regulations do seem to have unintended consquences. For example, would I be better served with a brand new electronic nav/com, even if it's not certified, or the orginal 1970s vintage ARC nav/coms. I would submit the former. But the expense of upgrading has been an impediment to doing so. No doubt the extra costs from regulations has resulted in the unintended consequence of "freezing" older planes in an outdated/obsolete condition.
Last edited:
LJS1993
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 584
- Location
- Riverside, California
- Display Name
Display name:
LJ Savala
I see exactly what you mean now.
Frank
Pre-takeoff checklist
I started to write exactly the same thing about getting rear ended, when I thought about some videos I have seen of crash dummies. In a frontal collision, they are thrown forward, and then rebound to the rear, where if they had head restraints, their necks would be less at risk of whiplash or breaking.
A few years ago I went to an EAA chapter meeting where we discussed crashworthiness, and one interesting issue was the how the front of the aircraft behaved in typical dirt terrain on a relatively flat off field landing. The firewall can dig in, causing much higher passenger accelerations then if the plane had continued along the ground. The speaker's suggestion was some kind of sled-like skids below the engine, but above the cowling skin, that would allow the aircraft to skid along the ground without digging in. The features that could make an aircraft crashworthy may not correspond well to the features that would make an automobile crashworthy.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
The airline pilot has ALL those options you list as well and they are routinely used by, or imposed upon airline pilots, every day.
The panels of numerous experts composing the Nall Report continually say you don't know what you're talking about when you make your statements above plus, unlike you, they back it up with real substance.
GA pilots could be much safer by flying to the same generally huge airports the airline pilots frequent, by the same routes over and over, and flying so level that the grandmas in the back won't spill their coffee, and by getting more frequent flight reviews, and of course by usually having a totally qualified co-pilot along watching over their shoulder like the airline pilots do.....
But that wouldn't be sporting, or that challenging now would it.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Flying "routinely" does not remove the challenges and demands of daily operations. But since you have never occupied a seat in anything above a GA single engine airplane I can understand your misconceptions of what it truly involves.
No, those panels on the Nall Report has never, ever stated that I" don't know what I'm talking about", that is simply you inserting your feelings and misinterpretation into what they have wrote. Given the fact that you are essentially a hobby pilot that's never earned a living flying, or have flown anything above SE GA aircraft you simply don't have the background to fully understand what you're reading.
Again, you haven't a clue on real world airline operations. I routinely fly into VFR only airports, no ATC, no approaches and on runways that aren't built or maintained to any standards. Some of these runways are 1800 meters by 30 meters wide and we operate a jet (A319) as heavy as 63 tons on and off of these. Sorry, there's no "button" to push or FMS function that will do this for us and when it's raining and crosswind it's strictly seat of the pants type flying, just on a large scale. Also when flying in this part of the world we cross many different FIR's that require knowledge of local procedures for each one. How many SE GA hobby pilots fly in and out of multiple countries in a given day?
Also in this part of the world ground weather radar is rare, for flight planning you have metars, sometimes a rare taf and a satellite image, that's about it. Think flying through the Intertropical Convergence Zone is a piece of cake? Think again, it takes a lot of skill to safely transverse back and forth without getting into some monster weather systems. And there's no ATC radar, just HF position reporting, you are on your own out here.
Your analogy (yes yours) that a GA pilot has more demanding flying is akin to saying a 16 year old driving a 20 year old Ford Mustang has more demanding driving that a Formula 1 race car driver.
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
Flying "routinely" does not remove the challenges and demands of daily operations. But since you have never occupied a seat in anything above a GA single engine airplane I can understand your misconceptions of what it truly involves.
No, those panels on the Nall Report has never, ever stated that I" don't know what I'm talking about", that is simply you inserting your feelings and misinterpretation into what they have wrote. Given the fact that you are essentially a hobby pilot that's never earned a living flying, or have flown anything above SE GA aircraft you simply don't have the background to fully understand what you're reading.
Again, you haven't a clue on real world airline operations. I routinely fly into VFR only airports, no ATC, no approaches and on runways that aren't built or maintained to any standards. Some of these runways are 1800 meters by 30 meters wide and we operate a jet (A319) as heavy as 63 tons on and off of these. Sorry, there's no "button" to push or FMS function that will do this for us and when it's raining and crosswind it's strictly seat of the pants type flying, just on a large scale. Also when flying in this part of the world we cross many different FIR's that require knowledge of local procedures for each one. How many SE GA hobby pilots fly in and out of multiple countries in a given day?
Also in this part of the world ground weather radar is rare, for flight planning you have metars, sometimes a rare taf and a satellite image, that's about it. Think flying through the Intertropical Convergence Zone is a piece of cake? Think again, it takes a lot of skill to safely transverse back and forth without getting into some monster weather systems. And there's no ATC radar, just HF position reporting, you are on your own out here.
Your analogy (yes yours) that a GA pilot has more demanding flying is akin to saying a 16 year old driving a 20 year old Ford Mustang has more demanding driving that a Formula 1 race car driver.
Uh hhm... That's a long way to go to with your usual minimal substance.
The conclusion I cited was directly from the Nall Report (which you show no evidence of ever having read completely much less understand) presented in a colloquial way but hey, keep up that English as a second language thing your trying.
And also get someone to explain in simpler terms for you that the Nall Reports repeated and objective findings by many qualified pilots and other individuals vastly disagree with and override your individual and prejudiced perception of what you say you do.
VFR into a mile long runway, that is impressive. I bet you skirt thunderstorms in heavy iron too.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Your attempts to come off as a intellectual are amusing, except nobody buys it.
I read and speak english fluently, thank you, but unlike you I can also comprehend what I read. Comprehension is indeed your weak point as demonstrated, once again, in this thread.
Again, you are interjecting your assumption based upon your lack of knowledge in anything above a SE GA airplane. I've read the Nall Report and have also attended many classes on aviation safety at the FAA Academy in OKC by the FAA and NTSB. I have a background in Aircraft Accident Investigation, Advance Aircraft Accident Investigation and Human Factors in Accident Investigation as taught by the Transportation Safety Institute.
And your credentials?
OK, let me try to explain this to you. The aircraft I operate is approximately 70 (seventy) times heavier that the homebuilt you fly. Do you understand kinetic energy? Energy management? Advance aerodynamics?
This is exactly my point I'm making with you. You haven't a clue to airline operations or anything above a single engine airplane yet you are making these ludicrous assertions.
Damn right, I learned many years ago (long before you ever sat foot in an airplane) to stay out of thunderstorms.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
Your attempts to come off as a intellectual are amusing, except nobody buys it.
I read and speak english fluently, thank you, but unlike you I can also comprehend what I read. Comprehension is indeed your weak point as demonstrated, once again, in this thread.
Again, you are interjecting your assumption based upon your lack of knowledge in anything above a SE GA airplane. I've read the Nall Report and have also attended many classes on aviation safety at the FAA Academy in OKC by the FAA and NTSB. I have a background in Aircraft Accident Investigation, Advance Aircraft Accident Investigation and Human Factors in Accident Investigation as taught by the Transportation Safety Institute.
And your credentials?
OK, let me try to explain this to you. The aircraft I operate is approximately 70 (seventy) times heavier that the homebuilt you fly. Do you understand kinetic energy? Energy management? Advance aerodynamics?
This is exactly my point I'm making with you. You haven't a clue to airline operations or anything above a single engine airplane yet you are making these ludicrous assertions.
Damn right, I learned many years ago (long before you ever sat foot in an airplane) to stay out of thunderstorms.
The credentials of the Nall Report authors eclipse yours and their conclusions are pasted here from the year 2010, appendix, page 40-41.
(Let's here your interpretation of their stated conclusions, or even better, let's not.)
Appendix
General Aviation Safety vs. Airlines GA accident rates have always been higher than airline accident rates. People often ask about the reasons for this disparity. There are several:
Variety Of Missions: GA pilots conduct a wider range of operations. Some operations, such as aerial application (crop-dusting, in common parlance) and banner towing, have inherent mission-related risks.
Variability Of Pilot Certificate and Experience Levels: All airline flights are crewed by at least one ATP (airline transport pilot), the most demanding rating. GA is the training ground for most pilots, and while the GA community has its share of ATPs, the community also includes many new and low-time pilots and a great variety of experience in between.
2010 NALL REPORT: APPENDIXLimited Cockpit Resources and Flight Support: Usually, a single pilot conducts GA operations, and the pilot typically handles all aspects of the flight, from flight planning to piloting. Air carrier operations require at least two pilots. Likewise, airlines have dispatchers, mechanics, loadmasters, and others to assist with operations and consult with before and during a flight.
Greater Variety Of Facilities: GA operations are conducted at about 5,300 public-use and 8,000 private-use airports, while airlines are confined to only about 600 of the larger public-use airports. Many GA-only airports lack the precision approaches, long runways, approach lighting systems, and the advanced services of airline-served airports. (There are also another 6,000 GA-only landing areas that are not technically airports, such as heliports and seaplane bases.)
More Takeoffs and Landings: During takeoffs and landings aircraft are close to the ground and in a more vulnerable configuration than in other phases of flight. On a per hour basis,
GA conducts many more takeoffs and landings than either air carriers or the military.
Less Weather-Tolerant Aircraft: Most GA aircraft cannot fly over or around weather the way airliners can, and they often do not have the systems to avoid or cope with hazardous weather conditions, such as ice.
What Is General Aviation?
Although GA is typically characterized by recreational flying, it encompasses much more. Besides providing personal, business, and freight transportation, GA supports diverse activities such as law enforcement, forest fire fighting, air ambulance, logging, fish and wildlife spotting, and other vital services
Frank
Pre-takeoff checklist
GA and airlines are different tools for different purposes. I would also bet that more people are hurt using circular saws than are hurt using CNC machines. Different use, different machine, different user, different environment. There is no mystery here.
The question, not mystery, is what can we do to be safer in doing what we do, and, perhaps with minor changes, using what we use?
Let's stop the credentials contest and focus on what is within our control, or which feasibly could become within our control.
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
Your analogy (yes yours) that a GA pilot has more demanding flying is akin to saying a 16 year old driving a 20 year old Ford Mustang has more demanding driving that a Formula 1 race car driver.
So you're saying all 121 (as that article said) flying is that much more demanding then say 137,135, etc ops?
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
No, I'm stating that the person I was replying to who was making the assertion that flying a GA SE airplane (part 91, recreational) had a more demanding enviroment in which they are operating.
bnt83
Final Approach
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
You mean like education, required experience, pre-employment screening, training, SIC training prior to PIC, IOE with training captain, stuff like that?
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Agreed.
The point I was trying to make is the individual making absurd assumptions based upon a report that he has a hard time comprehending has zero credentials in the arena of aviation safety other than putting "CFII" after his name.
In the classes and seminars I've attended at both the MMAC and the TSI contradict any inane assumption presented by Dave Krall.