ArVeeNiner

ArVeeNiner

Well Known Member
This is a bit of a rant and it's not 100% RV related so please bear with me. I was just in Las Vegas with my family (no flying RV yet so we drove) and happened to catch the coverage on that tragic Velocity crash on Friday, 8/22. Just after take off the plane went down on a house killing the pilot and two inside the house. Very, very sad and my heart goes out to those killed in this terrible crash.

Within a couple of hours, the Director of Aviation for Clark County, Randy Walker, gave a news conference. The gist of his comments was that he wanted "risky" types of flying moved out of North Las Vegas to an airport of his chosing. "Risky" flying according to him are experimentals and training flights. Well, you can guess how quickly and in what direction this all morphed into. How can the FAA allow these experiments to fly over populated areas? Blah, blah, blah. Here's a quote from an online news source:

"Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker says he has called for homemade planes to not be allowed to use the airport and plans to ask for it again.

"I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said.

Walker would like to have the system changed allowing airports to make the call on what aircraft are better suited for the area.

He would like to see experimental planes, including those like the one involved in Friday's crash, no longer be allowed at any of the inner city airports but rather be kept to rural airports were the population is less dense.

Walker says moves to make changes have been blocked by pilot groups, but he says that this crash is evidence that something needs to be done."

We all know how Phase 1 testing works AND we all know that there are no limitations on when and where we can fly after our 25 or 40 hours are satisfied. However, according to the FAA, we are forever in Phase 2 testing. This of course is misleading to the layman. The indication here is that the "experiment" is a never ending process. Who wants a mad scientist flying his experimental contraption over our children's heads?

I'm not sure why the FAA (or CAA back then) coined this term but isn't it time that we call it what it really is? To me, a kit that is assembled like an RV is not an experiment. It's a homebuilt or perhaps a Sport Class aircraft but it certainly is not an experiment. My definition of an experiment is a one of a kind design that has never flown before. Something like Space Ship One or the White Knight One or Two are true experimental aircraft. They are brand new designs that have no direct history behind them.

It's obvious to me that the majority of the aircraft that people are building are from kits or plans and not their own designs and therefore, not experiments. I think that referring to our aircraft as experimental and then displaying this word for the world to see is not doing us builders and flyers any favors. Our homebuilts are every bit as good, if not better, than certified, factory built aircraft. Those of us flying these aircraft all know this but the general public does not. Heck, this class of aircraft is even a mystery to many pilots who fly nothing but factory built aircraft.

Does anybody know if the FAA has ever been challenged to come up with a new, more fitting name for our aircraft? I certainly think it's time.
 
Last edited:
I wrote a reply to the Reno Gazette Journal regarding that Las Vegas News report about the ?Experimental? designation to clarify that term to the non-aviation public. Only two replies were written: myself and another aviation guy in Tonopah (halfway toward Vegas from Reno). There were no other replies from anyone else? That leads me to believe that the general public doesn?t care about the matter. Interesting that housing areas are continually built around airports whose new residents often complain about that airport?

Many years ago, I remember that North Las Vegas airport was all by itself away from any residential area. Now the airport is surrounded by casinos and housing. Where is the common sense in all of this? Obviously, the City Planning Commission doesn?t know how to plan. I think that Randy Walker just found an excuse to grandstand on his soapbox to demonstrate how caring a politician he is.

Reno International took a different approach. They bought out much land on the approach and departure ends of the major instrument runway because of noise complaints. Those areas are now prohibited from development.
 
Easy on the indignation

We have the very best thing going in my opinion and I would hate to have it changed in any way. I can assure you that when the government is stimulated to change the rules from what the EAA founders and other pioneers put together with the government to allow us to enjoy the freedoms we have today, it will be in a direction to curtail those freedoms. Characterizing experimental homebuilt aircraft as duplicates of one another, precisely conforming to all drawings as uniformly as production aircraft simply is not true and it is not desirable that they be so in my opinion. I have personally spent well over a thousand hours experimenting with modifications of my own design in addition to all those I developed as I built my airplane to make it go faster and be more capable. I do not want that creative freedom to be restricted.

Bob Axsom
 
There was no indignation implied in my comments. I only clarified what the ?Experimental? designation was. The Newspaper Report would have made some non-aviation readers think that the ?experimental? airplane was something other than an airworthy certified airplane. I mentioned what the Velocity 173 was. That the Maule STOL started out as a homebuilt. That the Piper Cub design was now an improved homebuilt experimental ?Cuby,? That the BD-1 became the American Yankee. I also explained that many homebuilt designs often surpass factory made airplanes. What I wrote was to simply educate, and not to complain.
 
"A Rose by any other name........."

It doesn't matter what you call it. If our airplanes were called "sport planes", the author would have said, "We've got to get rid of these sport planes." Yes, the wording "Experimental" has been objected to many times over the years. There is virtually no chance that it will be changed.
 
Mel said:
It doesn't matter what you call it. If our airplanes were called "sport planes", the author would have said, "We've got to get rid of these sport planes." Yes, the wording "Experimental" has been objected to many times over the years. There is virtually no chance that it will be changed.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Mel. It's just a word. When I explain to people that Airforce 1 is EXPERIMENTAL they look at me funny.
 
We've had our challenges here in Southern Nevada with local governmental support of GA operations at our level. Jets are great - top of the list of preferred customers. Lots of fuel and a great safety record. EAB is clearly at the bottom of the barrel, and the word "Experimental" is only a small part of the problem.

Let's face it. The last thing a bureaucrat wants to do is explain to the general public why He/She allowed an Experimental airplane kill innocent people on the ground. They will always take the easiest way out. It's simple really - our society has come to expect government to protect the individual from all risks in life; accidental, financial, even being offended! We aren't going to change this even if we could strike the work "Experimental" from the description of our activity.

Best thing we can do is be safe in our operations, and proactively improve our reputation. We promote Young Eagles heavily in our chapter. We should "market" ourselves as beneficial to the community every chance we get.

Unfortunately, in only takes one "Oh S**T" to erase a bunch of Atta-Boys.
 
Best thing we can do is educate everyone around us so that in the event something like this happens, they can have the knowledge of the correct thing to say to the press and officials.

Most people have no idea that our "homemade" airplanes more often than not meet or exceed the so called "certified factory built" airplanes in reliability, strength and quality of workmanship. To think a fifty year old factory built plane that has been rotting on the flightline is concidered better/safer/stronger/more reliable than a modern, correctly built and maintained RV would be just plain ignorance.

The problem is that talk such as this is usually only confined to the people involved in experimental aviation. We need to focus this effort on educating the mass public and stop preaching to the choir!

If an airliner went in at that airport and killed 300 onboard and wiped out an multiple entire blocks of houses and a few dozen people on the ground, you would never hear that they should ban the airlines from populated areas.

General Aviation has been under attack for years and we sit back and say "The AOPA and or the EAA will protect us." Don't bet on it! They will help, but it is up to us as the General Aviation community to step out and educate the public! Local TV stations seem to love to do spots on people building and flying planes they built with their own hands. We should use this to our benefit but ensure that the correct words are spoken during the interview. Many more opportunities exist, we just need to take advantage of them.
 
Last edited:
5 hours only

If I recall, I read that the aircraft in question was in Phase I testing, and had only 5 hours on it. If that is indeed the case, then I would consider this aircraft in the high risk category, and he should have avoided flying over built-up areas (and/or find a more isolated airport).

In Canada, we do not build the aircraft under the 'experimental' category. They are 'amateur-built'. Whether that conjures a different image/risk to the general population ... I don't know.

My Canadian $.02
 
Brantel said:
...To think a fifty year old factory built plane that has been rotting on the flightline is concidered better/safer/stronger/more reliable than a modern, correctly built and maintained RV would be just plain ignorance...
Click to expand...
The problem is, who's to say what a "correctly built and maintained RV" is?

Because you put on electronic ignition in, or drilled out the jet in your carb, or used a Catto prop could make your plane not so correctly built in the eyes of the public.

Who knows why the Velocity went down. It could turn out that it was filled up with jet-A and the fault of the accident lies with the Mayors airport. Wait until we know what caused this accident before asking changes.
 
Lycosaurus said:
If I recall, I read that the aircraft in question was in Phase I testing, and had only 5 hours on it. If that is indeed the case, then I would consider this aircraft in the high risk category, and he should have avoided flying over built-up areas (and/or find a more isolated airport)....
Click to expand...
Something is not right with these news reports, go figure, because they also said it was certified in 2002. I highly doubut it had only flown five hours in six years.
 
Mel said:
It doesn't matter what you call it.
Click to expand...

Mel, I must respectfully disagree. Words mean things.

Every time that I hear the term "homebuilt" applied to our airplanes I wince. To the public, "homebuilt" is the same as "homemade" which implies poor quality and shoddy workmanship.

The public would be much more likely to complain about, and support the ban of, "homemade" airplanes because of this inference. That is probably why Mr. Walker, the Clark County aviation director used the term "homemade" in describing the class of aircraft that he seeks to ban from the use of the airport.

The term "experimental" may not be the best term to use, but it seems to me much preferable to "homebuilt". I never ever refer to an aircraft as "homebuilt".

Many good points have been made in this thread. Terry made a good point that we should market our hobby at every opportunity. The aviation director indicated that he will ask congress to exile experimental aircraft to rural fields. Few, if any, of the members of congress will have an understanding of "experimental" aircraft. The term experimental, as it applies to us by the FAA, has a completely separate meaning than the dictionary provides, or that congress people have in their minds:

Experimental = Constituting a tentative model for future experiment or development (Rogets II)

The congress people will be influenced by the public who will have even less of an understanding. Mr. Walker will be pleading with congress to protect citizens from "homemade" airplanes. Without a marketing effort, we are on the losing end of that debate. Bob Axom is right, any change in regulations relating to our use of our aircraft is almost certainly to go in the wrong direction for us.

Hopefully, the EAA will be able to keep us from that fate. I regard that as the number one responsibility of EAA and the primary reason I send them a check every year.

Being in agreement with Terry that we should all market our sport and put it in the most favorable light, I think that I will describe my RV8A project as a "sport" airplane. The only time you have to refer to your airplane as an experimental is when you are talking to ATC. To others, you can call it whatever you want.

I am sure the public will be more likely to support a ban against homemade cars being on the road than a ban on sports cars.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't matter if it was "experimental" of not

Every time an airplane crashes into a house or kills someone on the ground some moron calls for either eliminating that type of aircraft, or eliminating the airport altogether.

Pilots are a small minority so public officials can get away with this stuff.
 
Tony, I didn't mean to imply that words don't have meaning. My point is, when someone is trying to put you in a "bad" category, as in this case, they will do it regardless of what you call yourself. If our aircraft were called "custom built", the person would have simply said, "These custom built airplanes are dangerous and should be banned from my airport!"
 
I agree

Mel,

I agree completely with what you said about our coming under attack no matter what label we use. I think I took your statement out of the context that you meant it.

My point is that the label can bring with it positive or negative connotations which create powerful inferences.

What I am trying to say is that the aviation director who wants to ban "experimentals" will have an easier time if he tells congress that he wants to ban "home made" planes, which is the term he used with the press. Our community has used the term "home built" for a very long time, home made is just a step away.

My "rant" is really more against the term "home built" than against the term "experimental". Although the term "experimental" is not the best for our marketing purposes, it is the one that the FAA stuck us with officially and it is better that some others. Since "experimental" still sounds a bit menacing to the public, I prefer "sport" (as distinquished from light sport).
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Doug could start a "poll" where listers could suggest a term that would be most appropriate to describe our hobby and our airplanes. Even if the FAA never recognizes the term we select, we can use it in an effort to improve the view that the general public has of us.

The poll could allow listers to vote on established or proposed names:

experimental
homebuilt
sport

Or write in a name of their choice.

This is more than an academic excercise. If we find a term and all use it, it may have an impact on how we are viewed by the public.

I would do it except
1) I don't know how and
2) I have to get out to my shop and work on my cowling.
 
I was contacted and agreed to show my RV-10 under construction for KLAS channel 8 in las vegas. I defended the safety of experimentals and they did a pretty good job on my little piece. It has aired a few times but no autograph hounds as of yet. This was a tradegy for our community and ignorance of the public abotu what we do was my reason for agreeing to do the interview. If you go to www.klastv.com for all the news on this...Randy Walker, director of Clark County Aviation has been trying to get all GA ops moved out of Las Vegas...If you thought Mayor Daley was bad this guy is worse. He would love to just have airports without aircraft.
 
Custom-built usually intones quality, special, and different, all attributes of which are pertinent to our homebuilts, so I usually refer to them as custom-built airplanes, as most non-aviation people tend to think of custom-built homes and how they are special, different, and quality-built (for the most part).
Of course, when talking to ATC, I initially still use "Experimental". :)

Vic
 
5 hours

N941WR said:
Something is not right with these news reports, go figure, because they also said it was certified in 2002. I highly doubut it had only flown five hours in six years.
Click to expand...

See http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10285380


National Transportation Safety Board investigator Elliott Simpson told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the "experimental" aircraft?a Velocity 173 RG?had logged five flight hours before it crashed Friday morning into the North Las Vegas home. "We're investigating whether this aircraft had to have 40 flight hours to fly over populated areas while arriving at, or departing from, an airport," Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor wrote in a statement to the media.
 
Looking at FAA records...

The aircraft shows to have been "registered" in December of 2002, but no "airworthiness" certification is listed.
Of course it sometimes takes weeks or even months for the certification to show up. Paperwork has to go through the DAR, the FSDO, and then to Oklahoma City.
Looks as though the airplane was registered but not signed off in 2002.
 
Lycosaurus said:
See http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10285380

Wow, finally an article by the press that bothered to get some facts regarding experimental aircraft.

I saw the mention of the 2002 completion date and the 5 hours flight time on TV when I was in Vegas. I wrote it off as just some more misinformation being spewed out by the media. I tend tune out most of what I hear from the media after an accident like this because there is usually a lot of hear say and speculation put out there. I guess I was thinking that maybe it had 5 hours on an engine rebuild but who knows. I guess we'll have to stay tuned.

Getting just a name change from the FAA would probably be difficult to do without keeping their hands off our rights as builders. I'm sure a little tweek here and there would go along with a name change and that wouldn't be a good thing.

I do think we all should be advocates of our passion. For a couple of years I ran the Young Eagles program for one of our local chapters. I looked at it as largely a diplomatic mission to show the local neighbors that we aren't spoiled, arrogant, dangerous, or unsafe. We're just normal people who have a passion for flight and we're very eager to share our passion with others. Giving a young person a free fight makes an impression on both he and his parents.

Like anything out of the norm, we're going to get the scutiny of the "normal" world...especially when something goes wrong. Gun enthusiasts, model rocketeers, and jet skiers all have the same issues. We have an additinal problem and that is we take up valuable real estate for our hobby and that can lead to a lot of underhandedness driven by greed. Any bad press an airport can get can help in freeing up this land.
Click to expand...
 
N941WR said:
The problem is, who's to say what a "correctly built and maintained RV" is?

Because you put on electronic ignition in, or drilled out the jet in your carb, or used a Catto prop could make your plane not so correctly built in the eyes of the public.

Who knows why the Velocity went down. It could turn out that it was filled up with jet-A and the fault of the accident lies with the Mayors airport. Wait until we know what caused this accident before asking changes.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the way we like to think our airplanes are built and maintained also isn't the norm. I work on a lot of RV's for people that aren't active in the RV "Community" and some of those airplanes were NOT built better than factory Cessna's, and most have not been maintained responsibility.

Many people who buy experimentals run into one situation or another: Have an A&P/IA type inspect it, the result being a perfectly well built RV could be passed over for lack of decent routine maintence. The other is have a builder/DAR/Tech Counseler inspect, and have a real maintence nightmare on their hands because the airplane was well built, but all the little things like Mag 500hours, prop overhauls, engine SB's haven't been complied with in the last 15 years of flying.

We don't really know any facts about the crash yet, but the fact of the matter is, all of our airplanes ARE experimental, to different levels. Heck if someone who REALLY knew what they were looking at looked close, I'll bet most certified airplanes are Experimenting too :)
 
Air Force One is not really Experimental, COME ON.

I like "experimental" it sounds cool. The X-15 was experimental, the prototype of the B777 was experimental before certification. So we are in good company. We could use the proper category which is "amateur-built (kit) aircraft". Experimental is part of a larger category and includes a lot of planes. (Thanks Mel correction noted, but I do think KIT plane is descriptive)

Air Force One Experimental? That is a stretch (but I know what you mean).

In fact I worked on AF1 in the late 80's as an structural engineer. They used a B747-200 as the base (a certified plane to be sure), even though the B747-400 was avaiable. The reason for not using the B747-400 is that the Gov requires the plane be commercial and in service for many years. I think that was a mistake, the B747-400 has a better wing for long range. Of course with the stuff they have like in-flight refuel, range is not an issue. Well its a special B747-200 for sure. It was made under semi-secrecy; they did not advertise it.

Anyway I knew which one was and people in the factory. It left the factory unfinished for the special stuff at Boeing Military. There was security and military folks watching the manufacture for possible sabotage I recall. I never saw them, may be a rumor.

By the way its not Air Force One unless the President is on it.

"The presidential air transport fleet consists of two specially configured Boeing 747-200B's -- tail numbers 28000 and 29000 -- with the Air Force designation VC-25"

So to call the B747 / AF1 / VC-25 as experimental is a push, even if it has "non FAA certified" stuff on it. It's as far as I know a military plane. Military planes are NOT experimental.
 
Last edited:
Amateur-built? yes.....Kit aircraft? no!

gmcjetpilot said:
We could use the proper category which is "amateur-built (kit) aircraft". Experimental is part of a larger catogory and includes a lot of planes.
Click to expand...
There actually IS a "kit-built" category. 21.191(h). It was originally intended for factory built "kits" falling within the primary category. The kit manufacturer had to hold a production certificate for the kit. I believe that Piper is the only one that started offering "kits". The idea was, you would buy the kit from Piper and Piper would come to you and do periodic inspections. When the aircraft was finished, Piper would issue an airworthiness certificate. It never happened.
 
I agree with Tony - "Experimental" is lightyears better than "Homebuilt."

Be careful when you ask the Government for "Change..."
 
It's too bad that "Restricted" and "Limited" are already taken...what you'd really like is some terminology that's "content-neutral". Politicians et al., calling an RV or Velocity or whatever a "Limited" airplane, for example, wouldn't cause as much innate concern on its own as "Experimental" or "Kitplane" or "Home-built".

Don't know what other word one could use, though...sport comes close, I think.
 
KLAS and GA

KLAS has been pretty GA unfriendly for a number of years. The National Business Aviation Association has had to stop using Las Vegas for their Annual Meeting and Convention because the authorities forced the Association to move the static display to Henderson a few years ago.

Their was some bad press coverage of delays at KLAS caused by "private jets" clogging up the system. Of course, the delays at KLAS are pretty much always the result of airline scheduling practices.

We (General Aviation) are under a sustained and well financed attack from ATA.
AOPA, EAA, and NBAA have been working hard for a number of years to fight for us. However, legislators pay attention to one thing above all others. Votes. If they hear from each of us, individually, and through our various associations, they will pay attention.
Please support these associations and please contact Congress and your local legislators and let them hear the real story.
 
Mel said:
There actually IS a "kit-built" category. 21.191(h). It was originally intended for factory built "kits" falling within the primary category. The kit manufacturer had to hold a production certificate for the kit. I believe that Piper is the only one that started offering "kits". The idea was, you would buy the kit from Piper and Piper would come to you and do periodic inspections. When the aircraft was finished, Piper would issue an airworthiness certificate. It never happened.
Click to expand...

I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe the Schweizer SGS 2-33 glider (a certified aircraft) may have been available as the sort of kit you describe - the Wikipedia entry for it mentions it being available as a "kit" but not sure if it is meant in the same meaning you have in mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer_SGS_2-33

Likewise - isn't it true that most certified gliders can have their wings removed and reattached by people not holding A&P certificates? Is that exception for removable wings written in the FARs or is each aircraft model capable of having its wings removed granted a special waiver?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.