|
-
POSTING RULES

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

03-25-2010, 03:36 PM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,626
|
|
I casually mention that Noah was an amateur and the Titanic was built by professionals.  Breaks the ice, if any.
Vic
__________________
 Vic Syracuse
Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, Just Superstol, DAR, A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES
Kitplanes "Unairworthy" monthly feature
EAA Sport Aviation "Checkpoints" column
EAA Homebuilt Council Chair/member EAA BOD
Author "Pre-Buy Guide for Amateur-Built Aircraft"
www.Baselegaviation.com
|

03-25-2010, 04:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Beautiful downtown Winnemucca
Posts: 87
|
|
Liability issues . . .
Even though I am not close to having a completed aircraft, I have put a little thought into this. I would love to take anyone and everyone for a ride in my plane but I no longer think this would be the prudent thing to do. Before anyone other than VERY close family or friends got in the plane I would make sure they knew and understood the following:
1. This airplane was built in my garage by me with no meaningful oversight or supervision.
2. I have no special skills or training that would make me a better airplane builder than the average Joe.
3. The accident record for homebuilt aircraft is not as good the rest of the general aviation fleet.
4. I am not an exceptionally good pilot.
I would also ask them if they had health and life insurance and if they had ever sued anyone.
I would make certain there was at least one witness during this discussion and then insist the would-be passenger think about it and talk it over with their family for a day or so.
|

03-25-2010, 04:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 3,821
|
|
A 3 would solve all of these issues.................
|

03-25-2010, 04:42 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
|
|
I always advise them of the experimental nature of the aircraft (as required), followed up with a brief explanation that this means it was built by me rather than by a factory. I also mention the other 6000 flying examples. Regarding potential liability, I tend to think of this as simply another element of the overall risk assessment for each flight. If you find the risk unacceptable, don't do it. Personally I'm not comfortable doing young eagles flights in the RV.
For what its worth I've found passengers to be generally less apprehensive of riding in my shiny new RV than they were of riding in a battered old 172.
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
|

03-25-2010, 05:52 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 988
|
|
much larger variation with home built...
i would be hesitant to suggest that any homebuilt is safer than a 172.
i will never gloss over the fact that my plane is in fact experimental and was constructed by me without the benefit of production testing, structured quality control, or product liability. we all want to think of our own work as exceptional, or at least above average, but for most builders there are many steep learning curves through the course of the build that introduce significant variability in quality of work. i know that my skills, and understanding of just what i am doing, after 1,600 hours of construction are far superior to when i first began the project.
in the end what i can say about my experimental rv7 versus my 172 is that in the experimental i have had a direct connection to every nut, bolt, rivet, screw, sheet, angle, wire, valve, bearing, tube, hose, etc... and i believe in myself, my work, and my plane... in the 172 i have no connection to the parts but i have faith in the factory.
__________________
Stephen
RV7 powered by a lycoming thunderbolt IO-390
turning a whirlwind HRT prop
with more hours flying than building... 2,430 on the hobbs!
ORCA Flight
Race 771
margarita!
|

03-25-2010, 06:52 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by schristo@mac.com
i would be hesitant to suggest that any homebuilt is safer than a 172.
|
Me too. More generally I don't want to be in the position of trying to convince anyone that riding in the RV or any other small airplane is inherently safe. However, if they're enthusiastic and understand the risks involved I don't feel that I need to talk them out of it.
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
|

03-25-2010, 07:30 PM
|
 |
fugio ergo sum
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Carlsbad, NM
Posts: 1,912
|
|
Fully informed
My hard and fast rule is to NEVER offer a ride to anyone. Of course I have broken my hard and fast rule quite a few times over the years.
It is a very situational thing. If you are at an RV fly-in and there is someone with their tongue hanging out hanging around your airplane you don't have to be very smart to realize that they know what they are getting into and that they want to be invited, but are too polite.
If the situation is iffier I do the whole spiel. Recently someone expressed a lot of interest in taking a ride. I sent an e-mail that pointed out several things, including the fact that I would greatly enjoy taking them up.
I pointed out that airline flying is the safest means of transport and that business aviation (their background) is almost as safe. After this are automobiles and then things like private factory aircraft, motorcycles and homebuilt aircraft. I mentioned that I built the airplane but I'm not that handy (true). I told them that I built a Van's aircraft kit, of which many thousands are flying and that have a good safety record compared to homebuilt aircraft in general. I told them that Van's airplanes use entirely conventional construction materials and techniques, much like a Cessna 172 or Boeing 747.
I informed them of my opinion that despite statistics, I feel that the pilot can control most of the risks very well, and that I would fly conservatively.
In this case, I never heard from the potential rider again; many other times people have enthusiastically taken me up on the offer which has led to one of the greatest joys of RV ownership and that is just seeing how much an appreciative rider revels in the experience of seeing these wonders from an entirely different perspective and seeing the freedom that is private aviation.
__________________
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
|

03-25-2010, 09:03 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 1,674
|
|
I got more comments from people about my 65 year old Cessna 140 then my brand new RV. They were hesitant to get into anything that was made that long ago.
If someone hesitates to go for a ride in either one it is their loss as I do not want to have anyone aboard that does not feel comfortable being there. Also, i agree with Russ that I do not take people I do not know. My wife is good of not promising rides to her friends that are not "airplane people".
Love the pie analogy. My mom always made great pie. I have had bad store made pie. Of coarse I have had other peoples mom's pies that were not so good.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - 14+ years, 950+ hours
Based at 1H0 (Creve Coeur)
Paid dues yearly since 2007
Last edited by plehrke : 03-25-2010 at 09:13 PM.
|

03-29-2010, 09:55 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 45G, Brighton, MI
Posts: 1,867
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boom3
Would it be fair to say it's the "same" or "equal" inspection that a DAR would do on a certified plane?
|
Of course you mean "type certified", don't you? RV's ARE certified, but in the EXPERIMENTAL, Ameteur-Built category.  Comparing homebuilts to "certified" airplanes implies to the uninitiated that homebuilts are not certified, which doesn't help with the public opinion of them.(Just one of my pet peeves I feel obligated to bring up from time to time.)
__________________
Miles (VAF# 1238, Paid up as of 2018)
RV-7 TU 904KM (reserved)
Wings Fitted and Finish Kit on site
Construction Log
Picasa: Empennage Album, Wings Album, Fuselage Album
1955 Cessna 170B flying since 1982
'To get something you never had, you have to do something you never did.' -Unk.
|

03-29-2010, 10:20 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oshkosh
Posts: 208
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by longranger
Of course you mean "type certified", don't you? RV's ARE certified, but in the EXPERIMENTAL, Amateur-Built category. 
|
Actually, as long as we're nit-picking, amateur-built aircraft are certificated, not certified. They are issued an airworthiness certificate, but they are not certified to any specific standard. That's whey they are required to have the passenger warning placard in view of the passengers. We all know that in many cases the actual craftsmanship is much better on an amateur-built aircraft than on type-certified examples, but the FAA does not guarantee that by certifying the aircraft to any standard.
__________________
Cheers!
Joe
|
| 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 01:52 AM.
|