|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

04-23-2020, 10:52 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake
Insurance rates reflect the relative skills needed to fly the two variants, not the strength of the aircraft.
|
I disagree (at least partially).
Insurance rates directly reflect claim payouts for a given model when there is a large enough statistical data set to do so.
With the RV-6A being the most built E-AB aircraft in history, I would say there is no argument about whether there is a large enough statistical data set for insurance underwriters to make predictions from.
To a large extent insurance underwriters can be considered the same as casino owners... they are using statistical data to determine the odds of them having to pay a claim on any give aircraft and then setting the premium based on their evaluation of the odds to try and assure they will be in the black instead of the red.
There are of course other variables that they need to take guesses at (like a specific pilots skills) which is why premiums are higher initially until they prove themselves (with no claims filed) and just by the fact that with acquired time in type they should have further developed their skill set.
So I say that premiums are (mostly) directly related to the ratio of claim dollars paid, to how many aircraft of a particular model they have to pay claims on.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.
Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
|

04-23-2020, 01:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 12
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Avgas
The ATSB report did not state whether the RV6A had a 4 or 5 point harness. In this particular accident the most important injury was the pilot?s broken neck. I am not sure that the outcome would have been any different with either type of seatbelt. My understanding is that a 5 point harness is specifically designed to prevent injuries caused by the occupant submarining under the waist belt of a 4 point harness.
Here is a final ATSB report of another RV6A accident that was discussed on this forum recently. It involved the aircraft over-running the end of a runway and coming to an abrupt stop when it hit a drainage culvert whereby the pilot?s head was flung forward and his neck fatally damaged. The pilot was wearing a 4 point harness but once again it is doubtful that a 5 point harness would have altered the outcome. It is interesting in this latter case that the aircraft did not flip over and was not that extensively damaged. See here:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577682...-025-final.pdf
|
I can recall my primary instructor's phrase "hot and high" as being a bad combination of events. Certainly in play here.
I was also intrigued by somethingi in the report I had either never learned or have forgotten (happens a lot nowadays) - namely a runway sloping down or away from the landing aircraft will deceive the pilot visually as far as their expected landing point. Of course, a runway sloping up would cause the opposite effect.
A great lesson to keep in mind.
__________________
Barry Wallace
Wannabe -9A Owner
'65 A-23 Musketeer (sold)
'41 PT-17 Stearman (sold)
A Happy Contributor
|

04-23-2020, 10:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,868
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexPeterson
A 5 point harness could make a very big difference in this type of accident. The low angle of the lap belt makes it less than optimal in the vertical direction. I've flown in turbulence in 4 point equipped RV's, and they are no where near as (vertically) secure as a 5 point.
|
Aah yes Alex, it?s a valid comment. I myself have a 5 point harness.
What is truly amazing in this accident is the violence of the deceleration and flip-over. From the moment that the nose of the aircraft hits the runway to the time that the aircraft lies stationary and inverted at a complete stop is only a matter of about 2 seconds. I think that this might be an eye opener for many RV pilots. It certainly was for me.
I had always imagined in these circumstances that somehow as the nose gear collapsed the gear would bend under the aircraft and that the aircraft would skid along for some distance on the failing nose gear thus dissipating some kinetic energy before finally teetering and toppling over. But that is definitely not what happened in this case. In this accident the nose gear was completely destroyed instantaneously allowing the prop spinner to impact the ground and initiate a violent deceleration that immediately threw the plane upside down.
__________________
You’re only as good as your last landing 
Bob Barrow
RV7A
|

04-24-2020, 12:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
|
|
Nosewheels
Typical Cherokee with nose gear torn off can be put back in the air in one long day with two mechanics. Not including paint.
|

04-24-2020, 01:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 615
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake
Insurance rates reflect the relative skills needed to fly the two variants, not the strength of the aircraft.
|
Correct, some just don't get it!
|

04-24-2020, 07:49 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
Insurance rates directly reflect claim payouts for a given model when there is a large enough statistical data set to do so.
...
So I say that premiums are (mostly) directly related to the ratio of claim dollars paid, to how many aircraft of a particular model they have to pay claims on.
|
I agree with everything you've said. Maybe I should have said "in this case" rather than suggesting that I meant "in general."
In this case, where we're talking the difference between two aircraft types with identical structure except for the landing gear, I think we would find that the difference in claim rates is more closely tied to the skills required to fly them than the structure of the aircraft itself.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

04-24-2020, 09:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1,119
|
|
Hot and High
When I was learning, the "Hot and High" mantra referred to density altitude for take offs, not landing. But I guess it applies to both. I have seen many 172s dive for the deck because they were high and fast on final. Guess that doesn't work on the RVs!
Sorry to hear about the injuries of the occupants.
__________________
John S
WARNING! Information presented in this post is my opinion. All users of info have sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for their use.
Dues paid 2020, worth every penny
RV9A- Status:
Tail 98% done
Wings 98% done
Fuselage Kit 98% done
Finishing Kit 35% canopy done for now
Electrical 5% in work
Firewall Forward 5% in work
www.pilotjohnsrv9.blogspot.com
|

04-25-2020, 05:02 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 1,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake
In this case, where we're talking the difference between two aircraft types with identical structure except for the landing gear, I think we would find that the difference in claim rates is more closely tied to the skills required to fly them than the structure of the aircraft itself.
|
I think most of the discussion over the last 15 years on the A model nose gear proves that the nose gear requires “skill” to land correctly as does the tail dragger. I would say that nose gear tends to make pilots “complacent” on landing technique because typically a nose wheel requires less attention to details than a tail dragger.
I have plenty of hours in nose gear and tail draggers. There definitely is differences in technique to each. I would use the word “proficiency” not the word “skill”. I know, minor difference in meaning.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - 14+ years, 950+ hours
Based at 1H0 (Creve Coeur)
Paid dues yearly since 2007
|

04-25-2020, 05:10 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 3,198
|
|
landing skills
I can't find it now, but I recall one of the 3 or 4 letter agencies published a video of landings at a fly-in - with narration and comments. It was really entertaining and educational, and unfortunately showed that even though all of us are better than average, there are some pretty bad landings out there.
I think it would be cool to set up some automatic cameras that follow each landing at a fly-in like Oshkosh and pull it together in a "greatest hits" and training video.
|

04-25-2020, 08:05 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 333
|
|
Why
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Avgas
. The video was shot with a GoPro camera mounted under the left wing. ]
|
That's an interesting video and an unfortunate and tragic outcome.
I wonder what was the reason for the pilot to go flying with the GoPro camera focussed on the nosewheel? (The wheel is in the centre of the field of view.) We cannot speculate why someone set this up, but perhaps the poster could elaborate on what instigated this initiative, and whether there was perhaps a prior indication of a problem that needed to be monitored and recorded? It's not after all an everyday thing to go to the trouble of mounting a GoPro on the wing to make a video of the wheel...
This thread has attracted a lot of comments and views, so it is a topic of interest and importance, and any learnings could be of benefit.
__________________
Paul vS (yes I'm also a Van)
Building RV-6A #22320 O-320 FP. Wings and tail complete, working on fuselage
Flying my low-n-slow Aeroprakt A-22 and the aero club's RV-9A while I build
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:56 AM.
|