[444TX]

George we have had two inflight fires and one on the ground recently. I believe that the two inflight fires were due to not tightening a fuel line B-nut. The RV-10 may have been in the Phase 1 period.

This is just one area of many that we as a group can develop and follow better procedures to catch these errors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mainly used the fatals for the fine data and others for simple numbers. I do not remember reading the Subaru rv10 fatal, but did include it in my list. It may have been in the test period? I had read the rv10 fire report, but not fatal, so not included.

Read my previous posts on the pre-first flight inspections below. It is recommended to apply inspection paint after tightening "B" nuts to give a visual indication that it was tightened. This makes it easy to notice something missed.

We need a new post on pre-first flight inspections. Mixing it with the accident statitics and training just dilutes it out. There is a good start with the safety website, but it needs less words and more data (lists, photos, check lists, etc.).

George

Still apologizing for spelling and grammar errors. Hope others understand my ENGLISH.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2008

Building RV's has become more popular and increasingly easy to accomplish. There are now quickbuild kits, baffle kits, firewall forward kits, wiring kits, prewired avionics, etc. After assisting an area tech inspector on many preDAR inspections it has become clear that there are rules in construction that are not followed by many builders. A large area of knowledge is unknown, not being picked up or taught. This information is not in the plans, directions and publications used by builders. Many of these items are common sense, but errors repeatedly show up.

1.SPAR BOLTS
The last two planes inspected had the AN4-13A center spar bolts missing. This is not entirely the fault of the builder, but shows that one must be extra vigilant. The match-hole builder now uses plan #80 which does not show the bolts. The builder had used plan #11 which shows the NAS bolts on one side and the AN4's on the other side of the spar. Finally the AN4's are not in the NAS bag. I would recommend marking all spar bolts with inspection paint after final torquing to leave an easy way to verify they were done. All flying planes with CNC spars should check for missing bolts. The AN4's can be checked at the wing root. Look at the nut plates in front of the spar, up inside the fuselage, with a mirror. Two quickbuild 7s had multiple rivits on the top of the spar missing. They were most likely used on an A model, for the gear weldments, but were empty.Fuel tank to fuselage bolts are often too tight, too loose or not safetied. I have seen them all. Watch the edge distance on the rear spar attach, be sure it is properly torqued/pulled tight and cotter keyed.

2. CLEARANCES
Many planes have control rods too close to structures. Aileron to bellcrank rods thru the rear wing spar and flap actuator rods thru the fuselage are the main ones, but there are other similar places on the plane. Have at least 1/16 inch clearance thru the entire travel, !/8 inch would better. Watch for anything rubbing on the main aileron tubes inside the fuselage. Keep all wiring and antennae cables clear. Control clearances are many times too tight. Flap to aileron, aileron to wingtip, elevator to horizontal stabilizer and the rudder horn. Look at the counter weights and on the end of the horns. 1/8th inch minimum. On a constant speed prop one can clamp a couple of boards to a blade and twist it to verify spinner clearance.

3. CONTROL ANGLES
Many planes do not have enough elevator travel and/or too much rudder travel. Set the angles. Cut out material for the elevator stops, make the stops hit both sides even though they are many times offset and uneven. Build new rudder stops if you have to. Install the aileron stops. Some planes have none. There have been instances of flaps popping out from under the wing when fully deployed. I have seen none with the ability to do that, but look at the amount of flap under the wing and verify. More flap angle than specs is OK as long as it can not come out. The angle is set by the motor travel, not stops.

4. FLIGHT CONTROL RODS
There should be no excess threads on rod ends. If both jamb nuts come loose the rod should not spin off a rod end. Readjust, add an extra jamb nut, or build a new control rod if neccessary. Be sure there is no way something can go over center. Ailerons with no stops and auto pilot controls are the places to look. Check all jamb nuts. Many times one or more are found loose on inspection. Mark across the nut and tube with a marker or inspection paint when checked for the final time. Check and mark all control hardware.

5. FUEL SYSTEMS
Watch out for changes to the plans. Aftermarket race car fuel pumps, gascolators after the electric pump on an injected motor, glass fuel filters, added tanks. Think things through carefully. Loose fuel nuts. Check everyone before first flight and mark them with inspection paint. More than one person has had a leak or performance problems from loose fuel nuts. Fuel pickups should be right against the quick drain. It is easy to verify before adding fuel. Make sure all fuel system service bulletins are complied with. Fuel selectors. Builders should verify all selector positions. Blow thru it and know what it does. Do not assume. It is also a good idea to run 5-10 gallons thru the lines in both positions. Verify that you obtain idle/full throttle, full rich/mixture cutoff, and full prop. All controls should have slight springback. It is often neccessary to drill a hole closer to the pivot on the fuel servo when a quadrant is used. It is hard to go wrong following the plans.

6. BOLT SELECTION
Many times bolts are found with incorrect thread counts. You do not want a nut bottomed on the shank of the bolt or too few threads showing. The plans are sometimes off, use the correct length fastener for the application.
Horizontal front spar to fuselage seems to be a place for errors. It is the first place to check on the tail.

7. ENGINE
There are many places for problems. Clamps on the C/S oil line, non-safety wired alternator hardware, covers missing on battery cable ends, plug leads loose, exhaust brackets poorly secured, wire and hose runs unsecured, air intakes not safetied, no drain hole in fab/snorkel, missing sniffle valve, engine mounts incorrectly installed, etc. This a place for many small missed items. Look at other planes and use common sense.

8. WEIGHT and BALANCE
Check it carefully and start out in the middle. Add baggage if neccessary. First flight is not the time to experiment with the edges of the CG envelope.

Have a tech inspector that is very knowledgable in RV's or several good builders in the area inspect the plane before first flight. Anyone helping to build the plane is a poor candidate for the inspection. A fresh set of eyes can find items repeatedly overlooked. Do not count on the DAR to check things well. It is the builders responsibility to make sure things are right.

Be carefull out there. Small mistakes can have terrible consequences.

George Meketa
RV8 - 910 hrs

P.S. sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors

 

[Flybuddy2]

FYI on the accident stats---the two accidents this week (P-51 and T28) will both count in the experimental numbers adding 10 fatalities to our group.
The experimental group needs to be split up stat wise. The Nall report admits in their own report that the accident rates are NOT accurate and that only trends should be used. Their guess at certified hours flown is a joke and EAB hours were grossly under reported. As the registration process weeds out the huge number of certifieds no longer flying these numbers will get more accurate.

 

[7dayflier]

This is a straw man, and is not helpful in this discussion. Nobody is saying that we are better off doing nothing to improve safety in our world. What I am saying is that the FAA is using flawed data to justify fixing a problem that does not exist, at least not to the extent that the data purports to show. That was the point that was brought up by the OP and the point of this thread.

I previously posted a quote from wikipedia that said our accident statistics were worse than general aviation. I posted that not because I think that Wikipedia is a great source of verifiable statistical data, but because that's what comes up when anyone Googles "Experimental Aircraft Accident Rate". This reflects the public "perception". The public perception (and this affects the FAA perception) is that "experimental = unsafe".

As I said before, I'm neither a collector of data, nor a statistician, but I think we have an image problem.

If the image is deserved, we need to do something about our accident rate. If the image is not deserved, we need to do something about the perception. Either way, we need to address it before the government/FAA does in ways that are onerous and burdensome.


.

 

[aerhed]

We need to come up with a list of inspection findings and put them on the site.

Excellent. We should have a SDR base just like the cert planes (only one that works). Also, an R&R list. That would be a list of items that should be 2nd party verified (like B-nuts). I know that tech counselors & DAR's provide some of this, as do hangar buddies and busybodies, but a more organized list of these could help a little.

 

[dmaib]

Excellent checklist, George. Would you object to it being posted on the RVFlightSafety.org site?

 

[Alan Carroll]

What is the average experience of the pilots in these accidents? Are they low time pilots, high time pilots, or is there no correlation?

I downloaded all of the RV fatal accidents for which "Probable Cause" reports have been filed, which totaled 132 at the time (a few months ago). Most of these include pilot total time. Here's what I found (could be slightly off but not by much):

Range of experience: 65-24,000 hrs.
Average experience: 2568 hrs.

Total Hours: Number of Accidents:

0-499: 32
500-999: 34
1000-1499: 19
1500-1999: 11
2000-2499: 4
2500-2999: 4
>2999: 26

Although less experienced pilots had more accidents, these numbers do not necessarily indicate that they have a higher accident rate (ie, there are more pilots flying at the lower experience levels). Certainly high experience levels do not guarantee safety.

 

[Ron Lee]

Alan, you could normalize the data you gave using the Hours Experience poll that is somewhere on here. It would just be an example since we don't know the statistical accuracy of the poll, but it might be interesting none the less.

 

[Captain Avgas]

Amateur built often amateurishly built.

Statistics show (to me at least) that the machines are as good as factory built machines. Tim

Pardon me, but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality the quality of amateur-built aircraft covers an enormous spectrum....from the sublime to the totally disgraceful and everything in between. But let's just say that the average RV is NOWHERE near the quality of say a production aircraft such as a Cirrus....particularly in the important FWF area (or anywhere else for that matter).

It is relevant that the EAA official aircraft judging guidelines rates amateur built aircraft from 1 to 10 with a 4 being "average". "Average" according to the EAA is: "Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or over built in some areas, little finesse or detail".

Only a 9 or 10 is considered to be "equal to or better than a factory new aircraft". A 9 is: "Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail. Flaws difficult to detect." A 10 is: "Flawless in all respects".

So there you have it. According to the EAA the "average" amateur built aircraft is a 4 (little finesse) and the average production aircraft is a 9 or 10.

In conclusion you might ask yourself why the "average" new flying RV generally sells for little more than the value of its componentry. And the simple answer is: The market places little or no value on the quality of the labour content that goes into the average RV.

George - I think you are right on, we all need to work to improve our flying and looking in the mirror is the first place to start (as painful as it is)

Being the "mechanical" guy that I am, I would also like to encourage everyone to have an experienced RV mechanic look over your bird before flying it or on the next condition inspection. Owners are always surprised at the number of things I find that they either overlooked or thought was OK (which they weren't!). Some of the thngs I've found would scare the bejesus out of you

Really good advice from Walt....but unlikely to be adopted by many.

 

[David-aviator]

Pardon me, but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality the quality of amateur-built aircraft covers an enormous spectrum....from the sublime to the totally disgraceful and everything in between. But let's just say that the average RV is NOWHERE near the quality of say a production aircraft such as a Cirrus....particularly in the important FWF area (or anywhere else for that matter).

It is relevant that the EAA official aircraft judging guidelines rates amateur built aircraft from 1 to 10 with a 4 being "average". "Average" according to the EAA is: "Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or over built in some areas, little finesse or detail".

Only a 9 or 10 is considered to be "equal to or better than a factory new aircraft". A 9 is: "Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail. Flaws difficult to detect." A 10 is: "Flawless in all respects".

So there you have it. According to the EAA the "average" amateur built aircraft is a 4 (little finesse) and the average production aircraft is a 9 or 10.

In conclusion you might ask yourself why the "average" new flying RV generally sells for little more than the value of its componentry. And the simple answer is: The market places little or no value on the quality of the labour content that goes into the average RV.



Really good advice from Walt....but unlikely to be adopted by many.

Bob,

Not to minimize what you say but to observe that most of our accidents are pilot induced - not mechanical failure induced.

Perhaps such matters have changed over the years but the first experimental airplane I had certified was done so by an FAA inspector. (1982) I apologized for a wing tip measurement that was off a bit (like 3/8's of an inch) and he commented, don't sweat it, I've seen Cessna production airplanes off by over an inch.

EAA criteria for judging an airplane is impressive as it certainly illustrates that diligence and care will produce a good looking machine. But there is an element of cosmetic BS that invariably results in a lot of excessive weight (its been so for years) and degraded performance. Some grand champion airplanes remind me of a well made up good looking female movie star. Remove the make up and they look more like everyone else.

The cosmetic stuff EAA judges love (and magazine editors write about) do not make for a safer airplane.

No question, we could all do a better job building and maintaining our machines but over-all I believe RV's are well built and fly well as a result.

If we can reduce or eliminate pilot induced accidents, it will go a long way toward getting the spot light off of experimental aviation.

The issue is not mechanical - it is a flight operations issue.

 

[Ron Lee]

David, while I agree that piloting is the major contributor to accidents, construction is still a significant factor that needs to be addressed. From the data I have seen (shown below), mechanical failures are not trivial. If "Unexplained power loss" is mostly mechanical, then it is over 25%.

Mechanical failures 51 (18%) 6 ( 8%)
Unexplained power loss 28 (10%) 6 ( 8%)

How does the RV community fix this? Checklists like George suggests and are on the RVFlightSafety.org website are a start. Perhaps we need to expand the content and number of checklists.

Have a second and possibly third person QC the entire plane to check for things that will cause problems.

Either DARs are or are not a final QC. I have heard of some DARs that only do paperwork.

I am not a proponent of mandating things. But the RV community may have to agree that they will perform standardized secondary and possibly tertiary QC checks prior to being able to have the plane inspected. Better to self-regulate than have the FAA do it. This one step should greatly lower the mechanical accident/fatality rate.

 

[RV8R999]

David, while I agree that piloting is the major contributor to accidents, construction is still a significant factor that needs to be addressed. From the data I have seen (shown below), mechanical failures are not trivial. If "Unexplained power loss" is mostly mechanical, then it is over 25%.

Mechanical failures 51 (18%) 6 ( 8%)
Unexplained power loss 28 (10%) 6 ( 8%)

How does the RV community fix this? Checklists like George suggests and are on the RVFlightSafety.org website are a start. Perhaps we need to expand the content and number of checklists.

Have a second and possibly third person QC the entire plane to check for things that will cause problems.

Either DARs are or are not a final QC. I have heard of some DARs that only do paperwork.

I am not a proponent of mandating things. But the RV community may have to agree that they will perform standardized secondary and possibly tertiary QC checks prior to being able to have the plane inspected. Better to self-regulate than have the FAA do it. This one step should greatly lower the mechanical accident/fatality rate.

How do you get the "RV Community" to agree to anything? Is there membership critieria, bylaws, a board of directors? What if a member of the community disagrees? What is the proposed penalty imposed by the "RV community" for failure to follow guidance? How do you enforce it? Even if you were a proponent of mandating things, you or any other "community" member has zero authority to do so..don't even go there. What does self-regulate mean in this context anyway? Does it mean you stop by my hangar and see something you don't like and call me out on it? If I disagree with you and decided to ignore you, what are you going to do about it? If it doesn't violate a FAR are you going to stop being my friend? Stop inviting me to fly-ins, call me out on VAF in public?

If you want to affect change in a group you have to be organized, establish leadership, develop membership criteria, make it beneficial to be a member, and require compliance with community rules to remain a member. Otherwise it is all just noise....

I truly applaud the effort but significant change without a real RV Organization are unlikely whether a REAL safety problem exists or not.

.02

 

[flyboy1963]

history of the BFR???

...good discussion, unfortunately, never-ending!
If pilot skill, training or proficiency is a big contributor to accidents, and it assuredly is, do we know what effect the BFR has had on the accident rate?

I assume it has not always been in effect, and of course, Canada and many other countries do not have this requirement, so we have a pool of pilots who may have had NO assessment of their proficiency, airmanship etc. since they took their PPL checkride.... in 1962!
so........
Do the pilots who do not have BFR's have a higher accident rate? If so, then naturally the regulators will say that an ANNUAL flight review would be an even BETTER thing!
....food for thought.

 

[John Clark]

Perry,
It would be tough to prove much with the data available. Overall I think it helped some, but the real problem is the inconsistancy of the Flight Reviews themselves. Any CFI can sign one off and there is no reporting required other than a logbook entry. I have seen reviews that were qenuine learning experiences and I have seen many that were of the "Let's fly out for a burger and you can sign me off" type.

I would be very supportive of a system more along the lines of a Part 135 "ride" which is a little more formal. Mind you, I spent 20+ years in the airline business where one had to play "you bet your job" every 6 months, so I am not put off by having my skills examined now and then.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[Alan Carroll]

Alan, you could normalize the data you gave using the Hours Experience poll that is somewhere on here. It would just be an example since we don't know the statistical accuracy of the poll, but it might be interesting none the less.

Good idea Ron, I'll take a look at that.

 

[Alan Carroll]

...but the real problem is the inconsistancy of the Flight Reviews themselves. Any CFI can sign one off and there is no reporting required other than a logbook entry. I have seen reviews that were qenuine learning experiences and I have seen many that were of the "Let's fly out for a burger and you can sign me off" type.

Its a little depressing to note that according to NTSB two of the RV fatal accidents occurred during BFRs with an instructor on board. Both list stall or stall/spin as the cause. I don't know anything about the circumstances of either case and would not like to speculate, but it does make me wonder if the BFR is really working as intended.

 

[David-aviator]

Its a little depressing to note that according to NTSB two of the RV fatal accidents occurred during BFRs with an instructor on board. Both list stall or stall/spin as the cause. I don't know anything about the circumstances of either case and would not like to speculate, but it does make me wonder if the BFR is really working as intended.

The BFR is what it is because of compromises along the way just like LSA rules. I don't know what precipitated the rule in the first place, it may have been the notion a check ride - it really isn't a check ride, one can not fail it, just not pass it - was a good idea.

A rule mandating a formal check ride annually would go a long way to improve pilot proficiency but it isn't so because of cost and applicability. Even the rule of "biennial" is a compromise. "Biannual" would be better if the purpose were to insure proficiency.

Administering the BFR is somewhat of a dilemma for the CFI. Its easy to sit and talk about flying issues for an hour but determining what is best for the pilot is no easy decision. Same with the flight. How does one insure the pilot is safe in just one hour. If the pilot has not flown but 20 hours in the the past year, there are lots of areas that could be way below standard.

The BFR as written is not the answer. Its more a nuisance than a remedy. Like the guy from Canada said, they get along without it and there is no statistical data to indicate it is worth being on the books.

 

[DanH]

....From the data I have seen (shown below), mechanical failures are not trivial. If "Unexplained power loss" is mostly mechanical, then it is over 25%.

Mechanical failures 51 (18%) 6 ( 8%)
Unexplained power loss 28 (10%) 6 ( 8%)

How does the RV community fix this? Checklists......Have a second and possibly third person QC the entire plane......DARs.

Same old problem....attitude.

Some percentage of builders will not listen to anyone. Another group will listen, but won't actively invite anyone to inspect behind them. And the third group is just stubborn. Point out a realistic problem and you get excuses, many of which boil down to "it's too much trouble to change".

You can't mandate checklist use or extra inspections and expect much improvement. Both get pencil-whipped every day in the certified world. It's not going to be better in EAB.

DARs have the power to refuse a certificate, thus they are the only ones who can require a change. However, a DAR cannot check everything nor judge all factors correctly 100% of the time.....and we should not expect them to do so.

In the end it's just like pilot behavior change. More so really, as our goal is to maintain freedom of construction, while actual piloting has quite a few rules. The only force which really works is peer pressure.

 

[flyboy1963]

Is proficiency a life-saver?

David, I appreciate your view on this....

Administering the BFR is somewhat of a dilemma for the CFI. Its easy to sit and talk about flying issues for an hour but determining what is best for the pilot is no easy decision. Same with the flight. How does one insure the pilot is safe in just one hour. If the pilot has not flown but 20 hours in the the past year, there are lots of areas that could be way below standard.

The BFR as written is not the answer. Its more a nuisance than a remedy. Like the guy from Canada said, they get along without it and there is no statistical data to indicate it is worth being on the books.

.....what rings true as 'best' for me is; my CFI, when doing my recurrency after a 20-year hiatus, definitely took into account that I was a low-time, infrequent, mostly CAVU pilot.
I needed the airmanship to get in and out of controlled airspace safely. I had to know emergency procedures and demonstrate Good Judgement and Knowledge, and a 'safe' level of proficiency, if not the same level of skills I had at 22 when I earned my PPL ( not the same weight, eyesight or reflexes either!!!

 

[Jack Tyler]

"Van is right to be concerned. One out of every six homebuilts on the rolls is an RV; 30%-40% of new homebuilts every year are RVs. This means the investigators are seeing a lot of RVs, and the sins of the homebuilt fleet are likely to unfairly attached to the RV line."

Vans (the company) should be concerned...but how much are they? Perhaps this sounds unkind...but while I find Van speaks persuasively about RV accident prevention and flight safety, Vans has been doing too little to facilitate it. Their new training syllabus is an excellent step in the right direction. But look at their recommended transition instructors (http://vansaircraft.com/public/trainfly.htm): a total of 4, 3 in the NW USA and 1 in Dallas? Does that service their customer base? No.

Vans is by far the most commercially successful kit builder, and Van (the man) expresses deep & genuine concern about not just RV but Experimental accidents and deaths. Vans (the company) may feel it has more pressing things to do...or that their business is to build kits rather than facilitate the training of pilots. For me, there's a big disconnect there. To offer 4 instructors' contact details and say, "Others around the country also offer some services and have proven acceptable to insurance companies."...well, that just isn't enough.

Jack

 

[RV10inOz]

Hang on a minute!!!

You want Vans to buildit and fly it for you too??? Where does this end?

What about the rest of the planet, does he need to go around the globe hand picking instructors in every corner of the globe?

Lets remember some facts before we get carried away. As you have already pointed out the biggest chunk of the fleet is the RV type, and given its rather sporty nature it invites a few more daring folk than say a Jabiru or a Zenith.

The statistics show two distinct camps, accidents that would have happened if they were flown in a C172/182/A36 or the RV, in other words typical GA prangs, and then a large bunch of moronic cowboy prangs.

The RV is a pretty stable yet sporty machine, but if you have an engine out it is not a death sentence, stall and spin it at low level it will kill you just the same as a A36/V35/SR22. Its not like you need to be a sky god to fly them safely.

Van himself has seen the problem, its how to stop the cowboys that bring a bad reputation to the rest of us that is the real question. (Cowboy flying as well as building & maintaining).

People need to be more responsible in their actions, and be responsible for their actions....without killing others.

I do not believe it is any manufacturers responsibility to weed out the morons. Even if it was, how would you?

 

[Jack Tyler]

Hmmm... Great hyperbole but unfair to the theme of my post, which is that Vans is doing a 'little' to make transition training available (thereby aiding in RV safety) but could do much more. In fact, they already recognized this by developing and then both publicizing as well as posting a TT Syllabus. As other posts point out, this isn't solely due to humanitarian concern but also because they have a vested interest in helping RV builders transition into safe RV pilots. What more could/should they do? A couple of thoughts come easily to mind:
-- They could create, publicize and post a more comprehensive informational clearing house of info on TT instructors. Not 'Vans Approved' instructors, but those available who meet a few simple standards (e.g. agree to use the syllabus, meet minimum # of RV hours by model and/or RV instructional hours). Postings can be self-policing. This kind of semi-advertising scheme is used on-line in other ways and would clearly meet an existing need. (Consider: Where the existing Vans-listed TT instructors are located is in the equivalent Adelaide, whereas many builders are located in areas as distant as Brisbane & Cairns).
-- A standardized communications scheme could be put in place that corresponds directly with each builders who has received finishing kits + X months, then X+3 months (or whatever), offering them some of the information already posted elsewhere (Vans facebook & RVators columns, more recent FAA stats re: E-AB accidents in new a/c, a link to the TT clearinghouse, all with the intent of encouraging builders to plan their test flying sequence and their own TT with the same care they gave to building. Create it once, send it routinely.

BTW based on your model and location, I think I'm the American visitor to Caboolture that you were kind enough to spend some time with back in March, helping me get a better feel for GA as it's practiced Down Under. Beautiful RV-10, too. And as you explained at the time, you had some help in the building and it really paid off, in part by avoiding mistakes that would then have to be redone. I don't think it's much different when addressing our (USA) Experimental safety issues. A bit of coaching by way of providing information and a tool or two isn't coddling or building the a/c for the builder. It's helping them take one of the next big steps thoughtfully. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Jack

 

[bkilby]

Quality of certified machines... this was just posted in aopa newsletter this morning:
FAA proposes fine for Cessna Corvalis defects
The FAA has proposed a $2.4 million civil penalty against Cessna Aircraft Co. resulting from the separation in flight last December of carbon composite parts of a high-performance Corvalis? wing. The agency said Cessna ?failed to follow its FAA-approved quality control system when it manufactured the wings on the damaged airplane, as well as 82 additional parts,? in a Chihuahua, Mexico, factory. It said that ?an FAA test pilot performing a production audit test flight in a Corvalis experienced a failure of the skin on the left wing. About seven feet of the left wing skin separated from the forward spar and damaged a fuel tank.?

 

[Captain Avgas]

Quality of certified machines... this was just posted in aopa newsletter this morning:
FAA proposes fine for Cessna Corvalis defects
The FAA has proposed a $2.4 million civil penalty against Cessna Aircraft Co. resulting from the separation in flight last December of carbon composite parts of a high-performance Corvalis? wing. The agency said Cessna ?failed to follow its FAA-approved quality control system when it manufactured the wings on the damaged airplane, as well as 82 additional parts,? in a Chihuahua, Mexico, factory. It said that ?an FAA test pilot performing a production audit test flight in a Corvalis experienced a failure of the skin on the left wing. About seven feet of the left wing skin separated from the forward spar and damaged a fuel tank.?

Goodness, $2.4 million for one leaking fuel tank. Considering that Vans have constructed hundreds of leaky QB tanks they could be up for billions.

 

[Ron Lee]

Goodness, $2.4 million for one leaking fuel tank. Considering that Vans have constructed hundreds of leaky QB tanks they could be up for billions.

It was reported as a separation of some portion of the wing: "...the separation in flight last December of carbon composite parts of a high-performance Corvalis’ wing."

 

[Captain Avgas]

It was reported as a separation of some portion of the wing: "...the separation in flight last December of carbon composite parts of a high-performance Corvalis? wing."

A wing skin constructed in Mexico using cheap labor delaminated from the forward spar causing a leak in the integrated fuel tank.... but let's not be too pedantic. My previous post was supposed to be a joke (everything except the part about the leaky Vans fuel tanks built using cheap labor in the Philippines !!!)

 

[RV10inOz]

Gooday Jack

Small world hey!

I see where you are coming from as far as"expert help" and good educational tools etc being of significant value and advantage be it in flight training or building. However Cessna have never guided me in my flight training, that was the job of my instructors.

As for weeding out the cowboy element, I do not see how any of the manufacturers can help with that. The fact Van himself has an actice interest in the topic is to be commended, but what more can he do alone. Its a whole of community thing.

Interestingly earlier this year when the first of these threads kicked off and the RVflightsafety.org was kicked off, I did a study of 10 years worth of accidents, both NTSB and ATSB. What I found was the cowboys were spearing in far better in the USA than here. Why would this be? Sure we are a smaller sample, (15-20 times smaller) and maybe our turn is yet to come, we usually follow a bit behind, but to this day I can not find one good reason for our apparent better safety record. All I can put it down to is just pure luck. There is certainly a lot less "help" available down here than in the USA, so is less help better?

Perhaps there is greater participation in the limited help....I dunno. Or maybe all our cowboys are in the ultralight community, where the crazy prangs seem to be mostly.

If anyone can explain it, and if there is something real and tangible, we could bottle it and send it over.

 

[terrykohler]

It's A Matter of Attitude

Interestingly earlier this year when the first of these threads kicked off and the RVflightsafety.org was kicked off, I did a study of 10 years worth of accidents, both NTSB and ATSB. What I found was the cowboys were spearing in far better in the USA than here. Why would this be? Sure we are a smaller sample, (15-20 times smaller) and maybe our turn is yet to come, we usually follow a bit behind, but to this day I can not find one good reason for our apparent better safety record. All I can put it down to is just pure luck. There is certainly a lot less "help" available down here than in the USA, so is less help better?

Here in America, there's a prevailing attitude of "the rules are for someone else" or, "I built it, and nobody's going to tell me how to fly it". A great comparison is the autobahns of Germany. The Germans all know that the left lane is for passing-they won't pass on the right even if there's only one other car on the road with them. Doesn't work that way in America. Interestingly, our attitude towards driving freedom will never allow us to enjoy the privilege of unlimited speed. We tend to view flying the same way-it's a right and not a privilege, especially with something we've built ourselves. Funny thing is that many of the rules we fly by came about as a response to accidents or incidents, yet our attitude regarding "freedom" pushes us to keep breaking them. To make matters worse, when we see someone flying recklessly, no one wants to call him out or turn him in - it's not our nature to "rat" on someone, even if it hurts everyone else in the long run. You can see that pretty clearly in Doug Reeve's missive on safety and some of the responses to it.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP