VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #41  
Old 05-01-2015, 12:16 PM
Sig600 Sig600 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KRTS
Posts: 1,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flightlogic View Post
Sig,
I personally would not find your reminder of the law... to be too obnoxious. Just me. Others, however bristle when a forum member appoints themselves the defacto sheriff in town. We all have a ton of regs that apply to our hobby and or professional flying. Most, I would venture, are pretty aware of what they should do, to stay out of trouble. You are correct that punitive official types are not restricted from reading our posts. It would be a shame if the original intent, to share and learn.... becomes inhibited due to fear of a violation. The poster of the deadstick Bonanza landing in Alaska was contacted after the FAA listened carefully to the audio portion of his movies, and heard no evidence of a run up before takeoff.
To the original poster, most of us cringed first... and then remained impressed at how you handled the situation in flight. Thanks for posting !
Agree. While I've yet to seen anyone appoint themselves "sheriff" some people need to be coddled, and there's no room in aviation for feelings, egos, or legal "interpretaions." My intent, and I don't see anything in my post that would allude otherwise, is while everyone wants to talk about the incident (great job by the way ) to remind the OP the incident wasn't over just because he got it on the ground, and while we all jump mentally to what the FARs say about a given circumstance, in this case there is another whole set of rules that now apply. NTSB 830 (amongst others) is an obscure set of rules that GA and hobbyist pilots don't get enough exposure to, it's not until you start flying professionally that the FAA really starts to turn the screws down in training about it and other rules, for whatever reason. I don't know why, the FAA writes the practical and knowledge standards. Either way, they still apply. My intent was simply to inform or remind the OP (and others) he has a legal obligation that he may not have known about. If that rubs someone the wrong way (for some reason), I really don't care, especially if the collective is a little bit more informed in the future and/or learning has occurred. You're right, the powers that be do pursue these boards, and an NTSB official with a burr up their rear could see this or any thread and decide to make an example. However collectively amongst this board, there probably isn't much that can't be covered, solved or learned amongst all the experience here be it building, flying, legal speak, etc. This board could be the sole source for a lot of the experience and knowledge that keeps some readers and lurkers safe and legal. But if the free exchange of information and experience can't be had without hurt feelings, or the "none of your business" attitudes, then we are all worse off and it's counter productive to any culture of safety and learning.

By the way, the above is why I personally know quite a few really smart and experienced guys that have either quit posting here, or quit this forum all together.
__________________
Next?, TBD
IAR-823, SOLD
RV-8, SOLD
RV-7, SOLD

Last edited by Sig600 : 05-01-2015 at 12:18 PM.
  #42  
Old 05-01-2015, 12:19 PM
Boomer506 Boomer506 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Stanwood, WA
Posts: 145
Default Mayberry

I know of a place that is looking for a new deputy sheriff.
__________________
Sam Bovington
Intruder B/N, Stanwood, WA
RV-6 N934B built, flown and sold
PA-23-150 N2108P restored flown and sold
RV-8 "Bad Blue" under construction
  #43  
Old 05-01-2015, 12:23 PM
jetjok's Avatar
jetjok jetjok is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sutter Creek, CA
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sig600 View Post
REPORT filed on REQUEST, does not absolve you of NOTIFICATION.
Here is Title 49, CFR 830.5(a) (subsection (b) is not germane as it is for an overdue aircraft). Which section do you feel is controlling in this case? As I said, I do not agree that 830.5 is applicable, but my eyes are open!

§830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office1 when:


(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;

(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;

(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;

(4) In-flight fire;

(5) Aircraft collision in flight;

(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.

(7) For large multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):

(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;

(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;

(iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and

(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.

(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;

(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:

(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;

(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;

(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or

(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation display (PND), and other integrated displays;

(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either:

(i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or

(ii) To an aircraft operating in class A airspace.

(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s);

(12) Any event in which an operator, when operating an airplane as an air carrier at a public-use airport on land:

(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not designed as a runway; or

(ii) Experiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.

Losing a canopy is an attention getter for sure, but it does not meet the definition of a "serious incident" as stated in 830.5.
There is a guy in the Northwest who has modified his RV-6(?) to be able to remove the canopy for summer flying, and no one seems to think that this is an issue.
__________________
Mark Ohlau
RV-6 N506MM VAF #1410
2017 Donation Made
  #44  
Old 05-01-2015, 12:38 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,435
Default In My Opinion

Also to the OP - what you choose to do or not do regarding the FAA or NTSB is entirely your own business, not ours. We shouldn't assume that you did or didn't report it simply because you didn't say.

As an interested reader, since I'm building an RV-3B, I'm very glad that you posted as complete a description as you did and even more glad that you did such a good job flying. Why and how the canopy came off is reasonably our business and worth talking about.

I'd even go so far as to say that it's worth having a discussion on the relative seriousness of the event, for the benefit of people having a similar thing happen to them in the future. I think such a discussion ought to be in its own thread, though.

Personally, I'd think it not to be "substantial damage," but that's what I think; others might differ. I feel that this is not substantial damage because a) the plane remained under control, even without protective glasses or goggles, b) the plane appears to be intact except for dents and c) unaffected were the "structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Again, this is my opinion.

Dave
  #45  
Old 05-01-2015, 02:01 PM
enielsen enielsen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Paule View Post
Also to the OP - what you choose to do or not do regarding the FAA or NTSB is entirely your own business, not ours. We shouldn't assume that you did or didn't report it simply because you didn't say.
Thank you David... and that's all I meant. Nothing more, nothing less. All the rest is dribble. And yes, I'd like to know the how and why on this incident too. Nuff said.
__________________
RV-x Planning stage
  #46  
Old 05-01-2015, 03:39 PM
LettersFromFlyoverCountry's Avatar
LettersFromFlyoverCountry LettersFromFlyoverCountry is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
Default

This was the most Internetty thread I've read in awhile.
__________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, MN.
Blog: Letters From Flyover Country
RV-12iS Powerplant kit
N612EF Builder log (EAA Builder log)
  #47  
Old 05-01-2015, 06:19 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,435
Default

This is interesting about glass screens, some of the things NTSB wants to know about:

(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:

(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;

Dave
  #48  
Old 05-01-2015, 09:14 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

I also don't consider this incident to have caused what the NTSB or FAA would classify as substantial damage. By their standard, you can belly land a retractable gear airplane which cause damage that requires a new prop, replacement of belly skins and antennas, etc. and they do not consider it substantial damage.

As to whether it is none of anyone's business whether a homebuilder follows the rules or not..... I partially agree, but also believe that anything any of us do that is outside of the rules, can have an influence on all of us. In many facets, we are still considered the renegades of aviation and the last thing we need is for any of us to be providing more ammo for that (take the gyro landing on the D.C. mall as an example). So, I personally believe it is our responsibility as a community to educate, and use peer pressure when needed..... no one has the right to blatantly dis obey aviation regs in a way that could influence my privilege to freely fly what I want , when I want, where I want.....

(not meaning to imply that the OP seemed to be planning to not follow the rules if reporting was required... I don't think that has ever been implied here)
__________________
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 ")
  #49  
Old 05-02-2015, 03:06 PM
omrsramsay's Avatar
omrsramsay omrsramsay is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 35
Default

First of all, can someone tell me how to add photos inline? I can't figure it out.

I can't resist adding my own shovelfull of manure to this already impressive pile.

This thread reminds me of the good old days of RAH, at the peak of the Zoom/Juan/Fetters/BWB flame wars. Not nearly as mean though, I guess all the angry old white men have finally settled down (or died) and gotten used to the internet. /rant

The still from the video clearly shows the latch rotated back, but it isn't in the fully latched position. When I found the canopy, it was in the same partially latched position. How it ended up in that position, I don't know. Too bad I forgot to put an SD card in my canopy camera. Too bad I wasn't wearing the helmet I had in my lap that has a video camera on it. Too bad I didn't have the ?selfie? video camera installed. I did have one working camera, and it did give me a lot of valuable information, including the location of my canopy. I fly with cameras. They are extra eyes, they are extra memory, they are objective.

I don't know why the canopy opened. There was nothing unusual in the way I was flying, I wasn't going that fast, there was no turbulence, I wasn't maneuvering. Since I first got the airplane, the canopy latch has been a procedural problem for me. I have forgotten to fully latch it on several occasions, I have flown with it unlatched, with it held shut by the secondary latching mechanism. It's in an exposed location in the cockpit where it might get bumped by my shoulder. Several times I've put my hand on it in the pattern, thinking I had my hand on the throttle or the flaps. As a result of these scares, and from the example of flight instructors Michael Church and Adam Zeeman of Sunrise Aviation in Costa Mesa, I added a canopy latch check to my written and mental checklists, along with checking my seatbelt and checking for loose items in the cockpit. The canopy was definitely fully latched before takeoff, and I checked it at least three more times during the flight.

It's nice to be complimented on my piloting skill, but I am a low time pilot with only enough piloting skill to fly an RV-3 and not crash most of the time. Many pilots who were much better than me have died in similar, or even relatively benign mishaps. The skills that contributed to my success in this incident are not pilot skills. The ability to stay on my feet and stay focused and keep fighting after I've been hit in the face, and am dazed and bleeding came from karate training. The ability to maintain control and not over-control in a chaotic environment came from decades of riding a bike in heavy traffic with reckless abandon. The ability to fly, and think, and remain calm with 160mph of wind in my face and no goggles came from years of skydiving. Nothing happened to me on the flight that hadn't already happened to me before, and worse. I just made up an epigram: ?The dishwasher who survives is not the one with the best dish washing skills, he's the one with the best survival skills.?

What I'm taking away from this experience:
My canopy has a dual locking mechanism. Merely unlatching the mechanism won't allow it to open, the latch has to be pushed all the way forward and held there while I swing open the canopy. When I replace the canopy, I will add a secondary latching mechanism that requires even more deliberate ?I really want to open the canopy? action to release it.

I like the fact that the canopy ripped away in half a second instead of flapping in the breeze and hitting me several more times as it came apart. I'm not going to reinforce the hinge side.

I believe that it's pointless to plan for a problem this specific (other than an engine out; and stalls should be routine). No amount of thinking or planning will prepare you for losing a canopy. When it happens, thinking stops. You do not have 5 or 10 or 30 seconds to remember what you thought you were going to do if your canopy opened in flight, and when it opens, it won't be anything like you imagined it would be. Getting hit repeatedly in the face will prepare you better. Skydiving will prepare you better. Getting time in an open cockpit airplane will prepare you better. I recommend reading other open cockpit threads in this forum. I don't recommend getting hit in the face.
__________________
John Kimmel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOa7Xsc2P_M
  #50  
Old 05-02-2015, 04:26 PM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omrsramsay View Post
First of all, can someone tell me how to add photos inline? I can't figure it out.
This is Picasa -

1. open your album - Upper right side, be sure that access, Share, is provided to "all who have the link"



2. open the specific photo
3. Click on the "link to this photo" on the lower right frame.


Now - click on Select Size pull down box and select original or 800

and click on the box that says "Image Only,no link"

Last - click and copy the address in the box that has the embed image address (blue in the photo) and paste it fully in the box for "insert photo" in VAF.




Let me know if this doesn't get you working.
__________________
Bill

RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”

Last edited by BillL : 05-02-2015 at 04:53 PM.
Closed Thread


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 04:41 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.