Sport-Plane Makers Warned by FAA

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-29/sport-plane-makers-warned-by-faa-to-stop-evading-rules

Vans is probably as on the "straight and narrow" on this as anybody out there, but (as I have noted in some past posts), there have been some issues regarding "conformity." Thirty+ years in the Boeing system has made conformity my middle name.

The submitting to Vans of the Fly-off Flight Test Reports has been discussed previously on this forum. I think it's accurate to say not all builders either complete all the tests as documented by Vans, or submit the finished (or unfinished) reports - which could be an element in this article.

It's also unclear to me whether the statement about "light sport aircraft" having a higher accident rate than other private planes, isn't confusing the recent NTSB report on "amateur-built aircraft" with LSA's, which can be either home-built (and thus part of the larger E-AB population) or factory-built. I suspect the reporter had a problem with that distinction.

Bob Bogash
N737G

NASA515 said:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-29/sport-plane-makers-warned-by-faa-to-stop-evading-rules

Vans is probably as on the "straight and narrow" on this as anybody out there, but (as I have noted in some past posts), there have been some issues regarding "conformity." Thirty+ years in the Boeing system has made conformity my middle name.

The submitting to Vans of the Fly-off Flight Test Reports has been discussed previously on this forum. I think it's accurate to say not all builders either complete all the tests as documented by Vans, or submit the finished (or unfinished) reports - which could be an element in this article.

It's also unclear to me whether the statement about "light sport aircraft" having a higher accident rate than other private planes, isn't confusing the recent NTSB report on "amateur-built aircraft" with LSA's, which can be either home-built (and thus part of the larger E-AB population) or factory-built. I suspect the reporter had a problem with that distinction.

Bob Bogash
N737G

Click to expand...

My guess is that if the FAA gets concern about conformity, it will be from looking at the DAR/kit builder relationship. Van's hands are tied regarding having control of what builders do while completing their RV-12. We have seen posts here where people openly admit making changes and hoping they wont be noticed (Bob, I think you have done that your self)

I doubt that builders not submitting PAP test documents has anything to do with the FAA's investigation. They are investigating producers of S-LSA aircraft. Customer built RV-12's are E-LSA (experimental category). Experimental category aircraft are not bound to the S-LSA rules in the same way a manufacturer of S-LSA's is. BTW, out of many hundreds of S-LSA company's, Van's is one of only a small hand full that sell an E-LSA kit.

As for accident statistics... I don't think the author was confused. S-LSA hasn't gotten off to a good start accident history wise.

I think a lot of the reason is as follows. <Warning::: minor thread drift>

The majority of people flying as sport pilots today are rated as private pilots (or higher) but have chosen to fly under the rules of sport pilot (a very small number of actual sport pilot licenses have been issued, compared to the # of active pilots).
Possessing a higher rating than Sport Pilot, wont automatically make you a safer pilot (more training required)
In fact, someone that took all of their training in a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is likely to be safer at flying one than a higher rated pilot that has recently transitioned into one.
Gone are the days when pilots do the majority of their training in a lower powered / light wing loading aircraft (J3 Cub, Champ, etc., which basically is what a lot of LSA are). They do fly differently, and someone that is entirely unfamiliar should get some transition training. The problem is, they are ASEL aircraft that meet the LSA rules so most any pilot can hop in and fly them (sport pilot, private, etc), but that doesn't mean they can do it safely.

I think a lot of people convince them selves that they are proficient/good pilots, so flying a lower performance light airplane should be a piece of cake.
A lot of pilots can hop in just about any airplane, and within 1 -2 minutes of flying, fully adapt to that particular airplanes handling characteristics. Unfortunately, the majority of us can't.

A lot of the LSA aircraft accidents have involved experienced pilots.

LSA

As I read it this has to do strictly with LSA, nothing to do with EAB. This is from the FAA, the EAB issue is NTSB.

Yup - I done it! Glad you're reading my posts. But - there are also some posted long lists of "discrepancies" with the as-built vs the Plans. I didn't start out to make one of those, but I do have a pretty good list just the same. I've got to believe every builder has one.

You're right, the S-LSA guys have had a lot of accidents, so maybe that's what they were driving up on. I note RV-12s have only had two - good size prangs with easily understandable causes that were occupant walk-aways. An excellent record. Let's keep it up!

Bob

The article refers to an FAA study of S-LSA manufacturers. It has nothing to do with E-AB or E-LSA aircraft. It clearly targets manufacturers of light sport airplanes, not home-builders. The problem with S-LSAs is that there is very little oversight, and the rules allow the manufacturer to self-certify that they've followed all the rules. A DAR still must sign off each aircraft built just like us homebuilders, but he/she is only looking at the finished product, and has no input on how it became an airplane.

This article is nothing to be overly concerned with for homebuilders. Unless you work for manufacturers like Cessna, Sportair, Tecnam, CT, Dova/SkyView, etc, etc, this new oversight doesn't apply to you. (Notice I mentioned Dova/SkyView, which manufactured the Skylark S-LSA that I am the sales manager for, so I've had some personal insight on these developments).

That said, it has always been prudent for any manufacturer (factory or homebuilder) to keep good records of how they built an airplane, in case someone really wants to know. I don't think there's been much issue with that in the past.

rvbuilder2002 said:

My guess is that if the FAA gets concern about conformity, it will be from looking at the DAR/kit builder relationship. Van's hands are tied regarding having control of what builders do while completing their RV-12. We have seen posts here where people openly admit making changes and hoping they wont be noticed (Bob, I think you have done that your self)

I doubt that builders not submitting PAP test documents has anything to do with the FAA's investigation. They are investigating producers of S-LSA aircraft. Customer built RV-12's are E-LSA (experimental category). Experimental category aircraft are not bound to the S-LSA rules in the same way a manufacturer of S-LSA's is. BTW, out of many hundreds of S-LSA company's, Van's is one of only a small hand full that sell an E-LSA kit.

As for accident statistics... I don't think the author was confused. S-LSA hasn't gotten off to a good start accident history wise.

I think a lot of the reason is as follows. <Warning::: minor thread drift>

The majority of people flying as sport pilots today are rated as private pilots (or higher) but have chosen to fly under the rules of sport pilot (a very small number of actual sport pilot licenses have been issued, compared to the # of active pilots).
Possessing a higher rating than Sport Pilot, wont automatically make you a safer pilot (more training required)
In fact, someone that took all of their training in a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is likely to be safer at flying one than a higher rated pilot that has recently transitioned into one.
Gone are the days when pilots do the majority of their training in a lower powered / light wing loading aircraft (J3 Cub, Champ, etc., which basically is what a lot of LSA are). They do fly differently, and someone that is entirely unfamiliar should get some transition training. The problem is, they are ASEL aircraft that meet the LSA rules so most any pilot can hop in and fly them (sport pilot, private, etc), but that doesn't mean they can do it safely.

I think a lot of people convince them selves that they are proficient/good pilots, so flying a lower performance light airplane should be a piece of cake.
A lot of pilots can hop in just about any airplane, and within 1 -2 minutes of flying, fully adapt to that particular airplanes handling characteristics. Unfortunately, the majority of us can't.

A lot of the LSA aircraft accidents have involved experienced pilots.

Click to expand...

Jetguy and I jumped through the hoops to obtain the LODA to give training in the RV12 because we saw a need that wasn't being filled. It's not that we make a lot of money doing this. In fact it is almost a break even deal and takes a lot more time than you think. We love our airplane as most of you love yours and we don't like seeing the RV12's damaged and we don't want the RV12 to get a bad rep because of pilot error. Some pilots may think because it is a LSA it's not a real airplane and should be a piece of cake to fly because they have flown a lot of different small aircraft and what's the difference its an Aircraft Single Engine Land. Well it is easy to fly if you get a little training. I've flown aircraft form the RV-12 to Cessnas and Pipers almost all of the Boeings along with military jet flying. EVERY airplane I've flown I've had some training in it before taking it to the sky by myself.

The RV12 is a HIGH PERFORMING LSA aircraft. It is a great low and slow aircraft that has some good cross country capabilities. Last Saturday Jetguy and I flew N1212K for 8 hours and about 900 km. I love this airplane. Because of my love of this aircraft I implore you to get a little training in it before you take off on your own. It's a steady flight platform but it will surprise you in how quick it responds. A lot of 12's are flying now so if you don't want take a formal course hook up with some of the guy's on this forum and bum a ride from them before you take off by yourself into the wild blue yonder. You'll be glad you did.

What would be handy and interesting here would be a brief synopsis of what kind of differences between a more traditional airplane and an LSA commonly trip up private pilots moving to an LSA. Is it the lighter wing loading? Is it the lower (typically) power? Are they flying into weather an LSA can't handle?

I'll soon be moving from an RV-6 to an RV-12. I flew a 12 and made three good landings in it, although I had one go-around when I couldn't get it low enough soon enough. Am I deluding myself in thinking that 300 hours in an RV-6 has prepared me for the flying qualities of an RV-12? Or are the problems being seen in the LSAs comparable to what you might see when a pilot of a typical store-bought moves into an RV-anything?

Dgamble said:

What would be handy and interesting here would be a brief synopsis of what kind of differences between a more traditional airplane and an LSA commonly trip up private pilots moving to an LSA. Is it the lighter wing loading? Is it the lower (typically) power? Are they flying into weather an LSA can't handle?

I'll soon be moving from an RV-6 to an RV-12. I flew a 12 and made three good landings in it, although I had one go-around when I couldn't get it low enough soon enough. Am I deluding myself in thinking that 300 hours in an RV-6 has prepared me for the flying qualities of an RV-12? Or are the problems being seen in the LSAs comparable to what you might see when a pilot of a typical store-bought moves into an RV-anything?

Click to expand...

Simple answer is yes. RV's are impressive performing aircraft that the typical GA pilot might not be ready for if he or she is not trained in this kind of aircraft.

A couple of things a typical private pilot might see that he or she is not use to are:

1 Glass cockpit
2 non steerable nose wheel
3 stick vs yoke
4 large vertical fin/rudder, makes it harder to taxi in crosswind
5 flaparons
6 no nose shock, just the spring of nose strut. Take off and landings are a modified soft field TO and landing technique.
7 outstanding visibility over the nose. some visual clues are not available for landing reference. In the 12 the pilot sits forward of the wing spar.
8 High p factor. Most of our students are amazed at how much rudder it takes when applying TO pwr. Some even have to tap the right brake to keep it going straight down the runway.
9 very light aircraft, hense the name LSA
10 different kind of throttle, spring loaded to full, takes a little getting use to
11 no carb heat
12 choke, more like a mixture enricher
13 rotax engine
14 seats have limited adjustment
15 At about 65kts a nice sink rate at about 55kts higher sink rate which may surprise some pilots, it did me.

This list could go on and on because everybody is at a different skill level. I hope this helps a little.

It seems that the majority of LSA accidents contributing to the higher than expected accident rate (since they, by design, are meant to be simple un-complex airplanes that are easy to fly), are loss of control accidents during the take-off / landing phase.

To answer your question of the differences between an RV-12 and the other RV's....
The best comparison I can come up with is that with the RV-12 you fly the wing, and with the other models (to varying degrees depending on model) you fly the engine. I don't mean this in a literal sense, but the power to weight ratio that most RV's have, will go a long way in getting a pilot out of trouble in some circumstances. Also, the lower aspect ration wing his a good drag rise with angle of attack. When flying an RV-12, if you are not flying with good airspeed control on short final into the round out and flair, it truly will feel like it is going to take forever to slow down enough to be able to land. This is not something that isn't present in all of the RV's (evidenced by the # of wrecked ones after being forced to land too fast), but I think, exists to an even higher degree.
The biggest benefit that someone with previous RV flight time will have, is familiarity with light very responsive controls. This is one of the attributes that I think actually makes RV's easier to fly (in some ways anyway) than your typical certificated Cessna/Piper that people are most familiar with. They have a lot of excess control authority compared to what is required for most flight situations (it is rare that an RV pilot would be hitting the aileron control stops while landing in very gusty conditions). But, when an RV-12 is landed at a proper airspeed, I think this exists to a bit lesser degree than the other RV models. This is primarily because, the slower the airspeed, the lower the dynamic pressure on the control surfaces. This results in lower control authority. So, it is entirely possible that an experienced RV pilot could feel more comfortable in some of the shorter wing RV models when landing in strong wind / gusty conditions. <Maybe some of the pilots with experience in both types of RV's would be willing to share their opinion>

Having said all that, I hope no one uses this post as an informational reference to transition them self into an RV-12. I feel that transition training would be beneficial to anyone.

Of the 1/2 dozen or so RV-12 accidents/incidences that I am familiar with, I know that at least half of them occurred when being flown by a pilot with previous experience in a different model RV. Not a good indicator.

One more thought

I transitioned from a Grumman AA-1 Yankee and Mike turned me lose in about 3 hours. I was used to light controls (one reason I built a -12) and high sink rate if you get too slow (-12 is nowhere NEAR as bad as the AA-1) along with castoring nosewheel. What I was NOT used to:

Very high p-factor all the way to cruise
getting slowed down to 50-55 on final w/flaps.
Very sharp-edged gust response (keep you belts tight on spring afternoons!)

That said, the -12 is a ball to fly and the easiest airplane I've eber flown to make GOOD landings-- short ones too if you keep speed below 55 on final.

Wayne 120241/143WM

I have a 9A as well as the 12. I am thrilled with the 12 and its flying qualities. Although I have only 4.5 hrs. on the 12 at this writing I think most comments exaggerate the need for transitional training if you have experience in an RV (I also built a 6 years ago). The 12 is easier to handle than the 9 except, I think,for "strong" crosswinds. Stay within its and your limits and you will be fine.

Doug Dahl

I guess I am in the minority here as a guy who got his sport pilot license and did all my learning in LSA's. I don't disagree with the premise that there could be better oversight in the factories of some of the S-LSA manufacturers. On the other hand, I see great value in the ASTM standards if complied with. The flexibility and decreased cost (I know people are going to say why can't I get my $60K or cheaper LSA), but versus a brand new part 23 plane, LSA's are relatively cheap. I own a S-LSA. The Aero AT-4 I own is built on a certified line in a very modern factory by very skilled builders and designers. I feel very safe flying in that plane. I have flown a few different LSA's and I wont mention names as to not start a war, but some of them just don't feel as solid as mine and several of the others I have flown.

If there is a higher incidence of accidents in LSA's I don't think it is related to mechanical or build issues primarily. I would expect that some flavor of pilot induced error is related to the accidents. This is just my hunch and I will readily admit I am wrong if someone has stats showing high mechanical failure rates in S-LSA's. I just haven't seen that. The school I learned in specialized in LSA training. They had 6 LSA's of different flavors and had a very good safety record. My limited experience flying a couple Cessna's and a couple other non-LSA's with PPL friends or instructors is that the LSA's are much more sensitive aircraft on the controls. They are very sensitive to airspeeds being on lest you float as they are light, or you sink quickly. The most prevalent accidents I have seen with LSA's have been pilot induced oscillations leading to collapsed nose gear and prop strikes. I have spoken to several private pilots with considerable time who were really surprised at how challenging flying a LSA can be on the approach and in particular in winds. In the end I had an instructor with over 2500 hours and over 1000 hours in LSA's when she taught me. She is an awesome LSA instructor. I also flew with a couple other instructor during my training for stage checks. They were less experienced with LSA's and it led to an experience that was just nowhere near as reassuring as flying with someone who really knows how to handle that plane.

Bottom line is that I think you either need proper initial or transition training to be safe in a LSA. This is just like any aircraft I guess, but I really think this may be contributing to accidents. I think factories can do a better job but I don't think there is a huge safety issue inherent in the ASTM process. Lastly as I build my RV-12 as a first time builder I feel very safe with the kit Vans puts out there and the precision and countless hours they have in this kit.

Carl