VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 06-16-2013, 02:31 PM
SvingenB SvingenB is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Norway, Stj?rdal
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don View Post
I'm in education and I don't think stupid can be fixed but I'm not sure either of these pilots are stupid. They sound ignorant to me and ignorance can be remedied.
I agree. This was ingorance. I believe any pilot is able to handle any airplane without prior dual seat checkrides, if he/she do proper preparations. Dual seat checkrides is probably a safer path, but the added safety is only there due to the degree of ignorance to start with. In a single seater you have no choice. Think of all the pilots in WWII flying Spitfires, Mustangs, FWs Messerschmits etc. They never had a dual seat checkride in those planes. When I was 16 I flew single seat gliders with no prior checkride, but with enough training and education to prevent ignorance to creep in.
__________________
RV-4 #4520, Slow built
B Svingen
RV-4 Project Log
Onex Project Log

EAA Chapter 573 Norway
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-16-2013, 03:28 PM
RV7Guy's Avatar
RV7Guy RV7Guy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,904
Default You can't fix stupid but.....

We have a saying at my work, "You can't fix stupid but we can load'm into the helicopter and fly'm to the hospital."

Although most of who we fly to the hospital are truly accidents, we often fly people whose accident was preceded by, "Watch this," or, "hold my beer."

Transition training is good thing. In the scheme of building the plane, an extra $1000 is definitely worth it for transition training.
__________________
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
www.JDair.com
RV-7 N717EE-Flying (Sold)
RV-7 N717AZ Flying, in paint
EMS Bell 407,
Eurocopter 350 A-Star Driver
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-16-2013, 04:11 PM
ColoRv's Avatar
ColoRv ColoRv is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tampa (BKV)
Posts: 926
Default

I think I'll refrain from calling anyone stupid. I know that I've more than once looked up and found my car over the center line, my airspeed lower than where I wanted it, or my nose pointed off center after checking airspeed on a bounce and go. I'm less than perfect and I realize that one bad bounce, bad wind gust or bit of bad luck...and any of a multitude of easily corrected mistakes could have been incidents ending my days.

Guys...stuff happens. People get a bit out of the comfort zone or too far into it and....well....we all make mistakes...we all have lapses of concentration. I'm glad neither of these guys were hurt. Will I hand them my plane? No, but there are very few people to whom I would....

I hope they learned a lesson and apply it going forward. If not...there is always Darwin.
__________________
RV-8 Flying
1,235th flying RV8
SARL Race#95
SnF Homebuilt Judge

2015 Sun n Fun Kit Built Reserve Grand Champion
2015 Oshkosh Kit Built Champion
2015 Jeffco Kit Built Grand Champion
2014 Oshkosh Outstanding Workmanship Award

Broken Warrior of the Jarhead Clan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-16-2013, 04:30 PM
sailvi767 sailvi767 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SvingenB View Post
I agree. This was ingorance. I believe any pilot is able to handle any airplane without prior dual seat checkrides, if he/she do proper preparations. Dual seat checkrides is probably a safer path, but the added safety is only there due to the degree of ignorance to start with. In a single seater you have no choice. Think of all the pilots in WWII flying Spitfires, Mustangs, FWs Messerschmits etc. They never had a dual seat checkride in those planes. When I was 16 I flew single seat gliders with no prior checkride, but with enough training and education to prevent ignorance to creep in.
They did check out that way and they had a absolutely horrendous accident rate. The US Army Air Corps lost more airplanes to training accidents then combat. On average they lost 10 aircrew killed per day in training. We really don't want to operate that way in the RV community.

George

Last edited by sailvi767 : 06-16-2013 at 04:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-16-2013, 04:51 PM
plehrke's Avatar
plehrke plehrke is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 1,674
Default EAB Accident Rate

I get comments all the time that i am taking a big risk flying an experimental aircraft that i built in my garage. I see the accident statistic that the NTSB puts out on EAB and see they are higher then certified. Has anyone ever seen a comprehensive look at accident rates filtering out these accidents that happen due to fairly predicable and preventable circumstances? I think over all rates between certified and EAB may be very comparable. I think if you follow the recommended material/advisorys/standard practices from EAA and FAA on building, use tech advisors (or equivalent) to check and help, and do transition training the overall accident rate, I bet, is no higher for experimentals. Would be interesting to be able to look at data from FAA and NTSB and see which experimental accidents did not use tech advisors or transition training. Easy to verify as these typically get recorded in builders, aircraft, or pilot logbook.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - 14+ years, 950+ hours
Based at 1H0 (Creve Coeur)
Paid dues yearly since 2007

Last edited by plehrke : 06-16-2013 at 05:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-16-2013, 05:51 PM
SvingenB SvingenB is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Norway, Stj?rdal
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailvi767 View Post
They did check out that way and they had a absolutely horrendous accident rate. The US Army Air Corps lost more airplanes to training accidents then combat. We really don't want to operate that way in the RV community.

George
That isn't very meaningful regarding how many pilots had accidents during their first rides in a single seater they have never flown before. During WWII more planes were lost in Norway due to bad weather than due to combat, much more, and this is equally meaningless regarding the merits of transition training.

For a two seater, transition training is of course a no brainer, if for no other reason than to ease the nerves and brush off some rust and for general motivation. But for a single seater you don't have that luxury. You can train in a similar aircraft, but sooner or later you just have to jump into it, and when you do you are all alone flying something you have never flown before. My experience is that what really matters is practising stick and rudder. Nailing every landing and staying on the centre line during take off even when it's gusting from the side, practising precision slow flight with turns and transitions etc, and do it in several different aircrafts. When it works for single seaters, it also works for two seaters. Single seaters are for aviators, everything else are for pilots, at best
__________________
RV-4 #4520, Slow built
B Svingen
RV-4 Project Log
Onex Project Log

EAA Chapter 573 Norway
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-16-2013, 06:55 PM
sailvi767 sailvi767 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,166
Default

I agree to a extent about the single seater however in the example that started the thread both aircraft were two seaters. In the RV community the vast majority of the aircraft are 2 or 4 seaters. The RV3 is the exception and the RV4/6 would make a very suitable trainer for a first flight in the 3. The US military tried training in single seat aircraft. They found the cost in both aircraft and lives lost unacceptable and switched to spending the extra money to get two seat training versions of most aircraft. When only a single seat option was available they did as much ground training as possible and tried to provide training in a similar aircraft. First flights in that situation are also normally chased by a experienced pilot. I had 18,000 hours when I decided to look into RV ownership. The first thing I looked into were training options before I even looked at a purchase. I can't fathom anyone jumping into a aircraft type they have not flown with dual controls and not seeking dual training.

George
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-16-2013, 07:28 PM
Low Pass's Avatar
Low Pass Low Pass is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,012
Default

And somewhere out there, a conversation is being held on a discussion board about the foolish experimental airplane builders and pilots.

As Michael said, we still - for now- have our God-given right to do stupid things. Thankfully! If the feds impose themselves, or we invite them in, to make our world safer, God help us.

The situations described above are effectively and rightfully controlled best by insurance companies.

Last edited by Low Pass : 06-16-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-16-2013, 07:52 PM
dealfair dealfair is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: George West, TX
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airmel View Post
I had learned in a Cessna 150/152, but each time we went out in one of these "different" airplanes, he insisted I do slow flight, stalls, all the "check out" type things.
There you go!!!!!
__________________
Deal Fair
RV-4 (N34CB)
George West, TX (8T6)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-16-2013, 07:54 PM
chrish chrish is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SvingenB View Post
I agree. This was ingorance. I believe any pilot is able to handle any airplane without prior dual seat checkrides, if he/she do proper preparations. Dual seat checkrides is probably a safer path, but the added safety is only there due to the degree of ignorance to start with. In a single seater you have no choice. Think of all the pilots in WWII flying Spitfires, Mustangs, FWs Messerschmits etc. They never had a dual seat checkride in those planes. When I was 16 I flew single seat gliders with no prior checkride, but with enough training and education to prevent ignorance to creep in.
Sorry, but as an experience military flying instructor, I disagree quite strongly. This link shows the aircraft accidents and fatalities for WWII in continental USA, that is, out of theatre accidents. We have learned quite a lot about accidents and training since then!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.