Van's RV-10 fatal crash N626PB in Simi Valley / Ventura County CA

pfarber said:
zoning is 100% a local issue. the FAA has zero control of the land outside of an airport.

So you shouldn't blame the FAA on an issue that is really just local muni's looking for tax revenue.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with houses. I meant home built aircraft crashing and the increase of new home built regulations to prevent crashes.
 
bonefishpete said:
Nothing to do with houses. I meant home built aircraft crashing and the increase of new home built regulations to prevent crashes.
Click to expand...
Home built is not a thing in the FAA eyes, Amateur built, EXPERIMENTAL is the correct term. The DER is responsible for applying the 43-13.1B techniques to an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft and using desecration.

Not complying with a type design means that there are no set standards to apply. There is no requirement for a builder to follow the manufacturers plans, at any time.

It would be interesting to know what % of E/AB are denied at inspection time.
 
pfarber said:
Home built is not a thing in the FAA eyes, Amateur built, EXPERIMENTAL is the correct term. The DER is responsible for applying the 43-13.1B techniques to an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft and using desecration.

Not complying with a type design means that there are no set standards to apply. There is no requirement for a builder to follow the manufacturers plans, at any time.

It would be interesting to know what % of E/AB are denied at inspection time.
Click to expand...

My point is Amateur Built is becoming a work around to purchasing a new modern aircraft that few production aircraft manufacturers don't build anymore. Little regulation compared to production aircraft. Do you think there will be any pushback toward Amateur built planes in the future as more crash?
 
pfarber said:
Home built is not a thing in the FAA eyes, Amateur built, EXPERIMENTAL is the correct term. The DER is responsible for applying the 43-13.1B techniques to an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft and using desecration.
Click to expand...
Where shall I begin. DER's don't approve or deny experimentals. DAR's do. And the responsibilities of a DAR are basically to check to make sure the paperwork on file with the FAA matches the data plate and registration on/in the aircraft. DAR's are not required to do a true physical inspection of the aircraft. Most do a cursory inspection, but that's where it usually stops. Remember the Raptor. It was properly registered, had a W/B, had an N number on the side, and was good to go despite lots and lots of design/execution issues that were apparent at a distance. The DAR did his job. It was up to the designer/builder to do his job...
 
bonefishpete said:
My point is Amateur Built is becoming a work around to purchasing a new modern aircraft that few production aircraft manufacturers don't build anymore. Little regulation compared to production aircraft. Do you think there will be any pushback toward Amateur built planes in the future as more crash?
Click to expand...
Except....the airplanes in question aren't crashing because it was built by randos. They're crashing because of spatial-D, as are production aircraft in the other accident threads that resemble this one.

Now, if you mean your strawman framing as the pretext they'll use to eventually corral EAB out of the sky? Yes, of course they'll use that as a low-hanging fruit.

If people sincerely cared about saving the children, they'd be gunning for pilot certification anyways: Outlaw the instrument rating at the private level, make IFR access post-commercial only. Furthermore, make SPIFR a separate endorsement/qualification within the CPL-IR umbrella. The lower-level/default privilege would be the 'crewed flight' requirement; SPIFR would be the higher-level endorsement.

Now we're all safe. Most importanly, you just grounded most of the weekend warriors (real or fake/financed rich alike) who resemble the remark, given the desired use case that drive ownership of these contraptions in the first place (e.g. not the anemic, vomit-wing-loading LSA go-kart use case). Yai safety. /s
 
hindsight2020 said:
Except....the airplanes in question aren't crashing because it was built by randos. They're crashing because of spatial-D, as are production aircraft in the other accident threads that resemble this one.

Now, if you mean your strawman framing as the pretext they'll use to eventually corral EAB out of the sky? Yes, of course they'll use that as a low-hanging fruit.

If people sincerely cared about saving the children, they'd be gunning for pilot certification anyways: Outlaw the instrument rating at the private level, make IFR access post-commercial only. Furthermore, make SPIFR a separate endorsement/qualification within the CPL-IR umbrella. The lower-level/default privilege would be the 'crewed flight' requirement; SPIFR would be the higher-level endorsement.

Now we're all safe. Most importanly, you just grounded most of the weekend warriors (real or fake/financed rich alike) who resemble the remark, given the desired use case that drive ownership of these contraptions in the first place (e.g. not the anemic, vomit-wing-loading LSA go-kart use case). Yai safety. /s
Click to expand...

Well it would be simpler to just ban all non turbine aircraft. We know Corporate and Airline aircraft are safer.
 
bonefishpete said:
Nothing to do with houses. I meant home built aircraft crashing and the increase of new home built regulations to prevent crashes.
Click to expand...
RVs have a better safety record than 172s, based on the number of crashes vs. The number of aircraft.

The public will only get interested if the planes are killing people on the ground. And homebuilts aren't, compared to production aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja
 
hindsight2020 said:
If people sincerely cared about saving the children, they'd be gunning for pilot certification anyways: Outlaw the instrument rating at the private level, make IFR access post-commercial only. Furthermore, make SPIFR a separate endorsement/qualification within the CPL-IR umbrella. The lower-level/default privilege would be the 'crewed flight' requirement; SPIFR would be the higher-level endorsement.
Click to expand...
Interesting take, considering that the CPL ride is mainly a visual-based ride with a heavy focus on stick-and-rudder skills. There isn't much of anything in the CPL training that is going to improve instrument proficiency or add to spatial disorientation recognition and avoidance.
 
traumamed said:
Interesting take, considering that the CPL ride is mainly a visual-based ride with a heavy focus on stick-and-rudder skills. There isn't much of anything in the CPL training that is going to improve instrument proficiency or add to spatial disorientation recognition and avoidance.
Click to expand...
I.was.being.facetious. Impossible to inject humor amongst literalist/pedants,especially in written form.

At any rate, the point I was making with my regulatory hypothetical, was that of outlawing private instrument privileges as the life saving measure.

bonefishpete said:
Well it would be simpler to just ban all non turbine aircraft. We know Corporate and Airline aircraft are safer.
Click to expand...
I think you're trolling a bit, but I'm bored so I'll play along. You continue to misattribute the cause here. Again, Spatial D is not a function of powerplants. The reason why 91k and 121 are safer, have everything to do with the operational limitations the govt imposes on the pilots. Thence, my suggestion of further restricting the pilot certification side (private privileges in this case) would be more effectual in "saving the children".

As the turboprop crash threads on here illustrate, your suggestion would have no effect on these accidents by contrast, as the usual suspects are buying and crashing the turbines too, by the exact same mechanism as pistons. Heck, in the case of turbines, the body counts tend to be much higher.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I.was.being.facetious. Impossible to inject humor amongst literalist/pedants,especially in written form.
Click to expand...
I apologize for that one going right over my head. I did appreciate your sarcasm in the paragraph that followed the one I addressed, but I did not catch that it applied to the previous paragraph as well. I have an infant at home and I'm probably a bit sleep deprived lol. I should've known better, as you and I tend to agree more than not on this forum.

Usually I'm the guy who has to clarify that I'm just being dry/sarcastic/facetious. Now where is that covers-own-face-with-hand emoji...
 
traumamed said:
I apologize for that one going right over my head. I did appreciate your sarcasm in the paragraph that followed the one I addressed, but I did not catch that it applied to the previous paragraph as well. I have an infant at home and I'm probably a bit sleep deprived lol. I should've known better, as you and I tend to agree more than not on this forum.

Usually I'm the guy who has to clarify that I'm just being dry/sarcastic/facetious. Now where is that covers-own-face-with-hand emoji...
Click to expand...
nah it's all good, no worries, it's just internet banter with some serious lessons/discussions sprinkled in. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top