[gbrasch]

NTSB Press Release

This just in, old news for some of us, maybe new news for others, FYI. Glenn

************************************************************ NTSB PRESS RELEASE************************************************************ National Transportation Safety BoardWashington, DC 20594 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 14, 2011 ************************************************************ NTSB UNDERTAKES COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT (E-AB) AIRCRAFT SAFETYSeeks input from E-AB pilots and builders ************************************************************ WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board has launched a study of accidents involving E-AB (sometimes called homebuilt) aircraft in order to evaluate the safety of this growing and innovative segment of general aviation. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) will support the project by hosting a web-based survey for E-AB owners of the aircraft; their survey findings will be shared with the NTSB. ?Going all the way back to the Wright brothers, amateur aircraft builders have played a crucial and inspirational role in leading the way towards greater achievements in manned flight,? said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. ?We are pleased to be working with EAA towards the shared goal of improving safety in this particularly innovative sector of general aviation.? Of the approximately 224,000 general aviation (GA) aircraft in the U.S., about 33,000 of them are classified as E-AB. This includes a wide variety of aircraft, which can be built from a prefabricated kit, existing plans, or a builder?s unique design. Unfortunately, this group of aircraft has, for several years, experienced accident rates greater than those of other comparable segments of GA. The NTSB and EAA are collaborating to identify how to improve that record. The study will look at a range of issue areas, including builder assistance programs; transition training for pilot-builders of E-ABs; flight test and certification requirements; maintenance of E-AB aircraft; and the performance and failures of systems, structures, and power plants. ?Earlier studies have looked at isolated E-AB safety issues, but this is the first study to comprehensively examine both the building and piloting of these unique aircraft,? said Joseph M. Kolly, Director of the NTSB Office of Research and Engineering. ?And the direct input from E-AB owners and others involved in the design and day-to-day operations of these aircraft will be of enormous value in understanding all of the aspects that play a role in the safety of experimental flight operations.? The EAA will be collecting survey data this summer. Operators, builders, and owners of E-AB aircraft who are interested in participating in the survey should go to www.EAA.org/AB-Survey. The completed safety study is expected to be published by the fall of 2012. ### NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson(202) [email protected] ************************************************************ This message is delivered to you as a free service from the National Transportation Safety Board.

 

[gereed75]

Get on board folks

while everyone is still in a lovey dovey mode

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/

We can do better!!

 

[SteveinIndy]

while everyone is still in a lovey dovey mode

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/

We can do better!!

To that end, might I ask a question from an engineering standpoint? Are there any specific things that the members of this forum see as needing improvement in the design of the RV series. Not as in "Are there some defects with the design?" but rather where is there room for a better aircraft. Be it from a structural, human factors or mechanical operations standpoint, it might be interesting to share ideas about how these aircraft can be made even better. One of my most deeply held believes is that the experimental community has both the leeway in terms of the FARs and the moral duty to be the birthplace of the advancements that will make all of aviation safer through better engineering. I believe it so deeply that I am going back to school to make a career of it as a point of fact.

 

[Ron Lee]

Supposedly around 24% of the RV fatalities involve a stall/spin (maybe just a stall) scenario.

How do you fix that? You can inform pilots and let them know what they already know about getting out of a deteriorating situation.

Yet 24% suggests something that may need training of a nature that RV pilots in general will not do...or equipment addition to alert the pilot. An angle of attack or stall warning system that provides an audible alert may drive down that fatality factor if all aircraft are retrofitted.

That is unlikely to happen especially when the FAA wants to mandate ADS-B Out equipment that provides little or no safety benefit to the pilot.

What about allowing instruction in a new RV after perhaps five hours of flight time to verify that the aircraft is airworthy? That should be done in months...not years.

If the LODA process is cumbersome and time-consuming, fix it now....not in 2012.

But the real key is probably to improve our safety culture and professionalism internally. You have read about it from Van. The RV Flight Safety program is an element but perhaps not the end solution.

 

[SteveinIndy]

How do you fix that? You can inform pilots and let them know what they already know about getting out of a deteriorating situation.

They have been doing that for years and it has a minimal and often temporary effect on crash rates. I often wonder if the same self-confidence that leads folks like us to want to build our own airplane in the first place also lays a trap (so to speak) when it comes to missing things that would be a precursor to a stall. Much like the oft mentioned tendency of doctors, lawyers and engineers to have higher rates of fatal crashes than lesser educated persons, perhaps the very nature of the beast that is a homebuilder is part of the puzzle that is the undoing of so many in our ranks.

Perhaps the development of a lightweight and inexpensive stick shaker (or better yet, stick pusher) should be considered? Or the development of an improved ballistic recovery system that is functional quick enough to be useful even from pattern altitude? Both of these are things I am considering working on as subsystems for the design I am putting together.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

The FAA wants the EAB community to improve markedly. Yet they impose serious obstacles to giving flight instruction and transition training in EX-AB aircraft.

Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?

 

[SteveinIndy]

Yet they impose serious obstacles to giving flight instruction and transition training in EX-AB aircraft.

Then why doesn't someone just build a full motion RV simulator using X-Plane and get it certified by the FAA as a "type rating" program of sorts? You eliminate the issue of obstacles to training and flight instruction but also allow folks to familiarize themselves with the handling characteristics of the aircraft. BTW, if anyone actually does it, I want free time in the thing in exchange for the use of my idea. LOL

Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?

There's a breakdown between the regulatory and the safety side of the agency. Also the fact that the FAA doesn't pay much attention to the NTSB tends to pose a huge problem as well.

 

[dmaib]

The FAA wants the EAB community to improve markedly. Yet they impose serious obstacles to giving flight instruction and transition training in EX-AB aircraft.

I think the process to apply for, and get, a LODA has become pretty straight forward, since the first of the year. Of course, as we all know, individual FSDO's and individual inspectors can be a wild card in the process. But, I don't think the obstacles are very serious at this time.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Pay Attention

It is astounding that stall/ spin accidents are killing that many people. It's just so simple, keep it above 65 knots at all times, limit bank angles to less than 30 degrees below 500 feet. If you have trouble remembering these two rules, should you really be flying? Simply no excuse in my book.

When I looked back through a bunch of RV stall accidents they seemed to fit onto 3 main categories (no particular order):

1. Departure stalls- usually by someone showing off with a super steep climb after takeoff, usually during some sort of fly in- nice big audience to stoke the ego. No excuse.

2. Stretching the glide after power loss- The laws of physics and stall speed don't change much just because the engine stopped. Cross check the ASI every 3 seconds when the engine goes quiet and maintain best glide speed right to the flare.

3. Tightening up the base to final turn with more bank angle and higher G loading. Look at rule 2 in the first paragraph for the solution. Swallow your pride and go around if you are going to overshoot the lineup for final by that much. Better late than dead.

People are looking for a magic bullet here: AOA warning, stick shakers, stick pushers. Look at some recent airline and military accidents which involved stalls- stall warning horns blaring, shakers shaking and pushers pushing and they still hit the ground in a full stall. Stall recovery training might save a few but why stall in the first place? It is a simple area of the envelope to avoid.

The ASI has worked fine for me for the last 33 years, never came close in all that time to an inadvertent stall. Speed is life- drummed into me by a very good instructor a long time ago.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Stretching the glide after power loss- The laws of physics and stall speed don't change much just because the engine stopped. Cross check the ASI every 3 seconds when the engine goes quiet and maintain best glide speed right to the flare.

...and if you have fields under you, put it down there. A runway is nice, but not necessary.

People are looking for a magic bullet here: AOA warning, stick shakers, stick pushers. Look at some recent airline and military accidents which involved stalls- stall warning horns blaring, shakers shaking and pushers pushing and they still hit the ground in a full stall. Stall recovery training might save a few but why stall in the first place? It is a simple area of the envelope to avoid.

Point well taken and I couldn't agree more, but then again you were dealing with pilots who were in a freaked out state (to use the technical term) and didn't let the system do its job. The partial solution of "avoid the coffin corner" should be used in concert with engineering solutions because using it alone sure as heck hasn't worked yet despite people having it drilled into their heads for years.

 

[TomVal]

F-1 Rocket Lost Today

Today my friend lost his Rocket due to an engine fire shortly after takeoff. He was able to get it down on the runway. He and his RV8 owner passenger safely egressed. Aircraft destroyed by fire.

This happened at Gillespie Field (KSEE), San Diego

 

[SteveinIndy]

Glad to hear everyone is safe but what a tragedy to lose such a fine aircraft.

 

[Flybuddy2]

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 14, 2011

************************************************** **********

NTSB UNDERTAKES COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-
BUILT (E-AB) AIRCRAFT SAFETY
Seeks input from E-AB pilots and builders

************************************************** **********

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board has
launched a study of accidents involving E-AB (sometimes
called homebuilt) aircraft in order to evaluate the safety
of this growing and innovative segment of general aviation.
The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) will support the
project by hosting a web-based survey for E-AB owners of the
aircraft; their survey findings will be shared with the
NTSB.

?Going all the way back to the Wright brothers, amateur
aircraft builders have played a crucial and inspirational
role in leading the way towards greater achievements in
manned flight,? said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. ?We
are pleased to be working with EAA towards the shared goal
of improving safety in this particularly innovative sector
of general aviation.?

Of the approximately 224,000 general aviation (GA) aircraft
in the U.S., about 33,000 of them are classified as E-AB.
This includes a wide variety of aircraft, which can be built
from a prefabricated kit, existing plans, or a builder?s
unique design. Unfortunately, this group of aircraft has,
for several years, experienced accident rates greater than
those of other comparable segments of GA. The NTSB and EAA
are collaborating to identify how to improve that record.

The study will look at a range of issue areas, including
builder assistance programs; transition training for pilot-
builders of E-ABs; flight test and certification
requirements; maintenance of E-AB aircraft; and the
performance and failures of systems, structures, and power
plants.

?Earlier studies have looked at isolated E-AB safety issues,
but this is the first study to comprehensively examine both
the building and piloting of these unique aircraft,? said
Joseph M. Kolly, Director of the NTSB Office of Research and
Engineering. ?And the direct input from E-AB owners and
others involved in the design and day-to-day operations of
these aircraft will be of enormous value in understanding
all of the aspects that play a role in the safety of
experimental flight operations.?

The EAA will be collecting survey data this summer.
Operators, builders, and owners of E-AB aircraft who are
interested in participating in the survey should go to
www.EAA.org/AB-Survey.

The completed safety study is expected to be published by
the fall of 2012.

###

NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
(202) 314-6100
[email protected]

I found the survey link here:

http://www.zipsurvey.com/LaunchSurvey.aspx?suid=51437&key=2E8A8A4C

IMO, the issues with the NALL report which is driving this are as follows:

1) many aircraft lumped into experimental category that are not homebuilts
2) bad data on certifieds--they list nearly 200,000 registered aircraft in this category BUT many are ramp/hangar queens or simply parts.
Look up your area in the FAA registry and note the folks owning 5 or 10 aircraft which are nothing but salvage or parts
3) bad data on experimentals--in addition to listing many older certifieds under the experimental category, the hours flown were grossly
understated.
4) the nature of homebuilts includes faster, aerobatic planes that are not used in the same manner as Cessnas, Pipers, etc.
5) Test flying period included in experimentals but not certifieds
6) alternative engines and one off designs are not something seen in certifieds

 

[GalinHdz]

I completed the survey in about 10 minutes. These kinds of survey can significantly help the entire Experimental Aircraft fleet.

 

[GalinHdz]

Take the Survey

I took the NTSB survey and completed it in about 10minutes.

http://www.zipsurvey.com/LaunchSurvey.aspx?suid=51437&key=2E8A8A4C

This kind of survey can help the entire experimental aircraft fleet.

 

[TomVal]

Today my friend lost his Rocket due to an engine fire shortly after takeoff. He was able to get it down on the runway. He and his RV8 owner passenger safely egressed. Aircraft destroyed by fire.

This happened at Gillespie Field (KSEE), San Diego

Photo of plane:

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[KPmarc]

I just completed it as well.

BTW, I'm in total agreement about the poor quality of the NALL report and the shoddy data reduction used for that piece. We as an industry need to continue calling for an improved, much more accurate database or we'll keep getting dinged for accidents that aren't related to Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.

 

[Mel]

I just completed it as well.

BTW, I'm in total agreement about the poor quality of the NALL report and the shoddy data reduction used for that piece. We as an industry need to continue calling for an improved, much more accurate database or we'll keep getting dinged for accidents that aren't related to Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.

Ditto Marc's post in entirety! Uh-Oh, Here I am agreeing with the Boss. Is that acceptable?

 

[jrs14855]

accidents

Here is the problem: Just a four day sample from FAA website.
12 incidents/accidents
several were insignificant incidents
two struck powerlines-this has nothing to do with ab or certified
Velocity landed gear up, again it could have been a Bonanza or Commanche
A Panzl aerobatic airplane lost an aileron during an airshow, landed safely. This aircraft was probably Experimental Exhibition, if not it should have been.
There were, in my opinilon, only two significant accidents/incidents out of the 12, a RV9 flip and a Lancair 4P fatal.
I don't care what people do with powered parachutes and N numbered untralights, etc. These are NOT ab aircraft and should not be reported as such.

 

[Ironflight]

Ditto Marc's post in entirety! Uh-Oh, Here I am agreeing with the Boss. Is that acceptable?

Took me less time than Marc....does that put me in trouble with the boss?

This looks like a much more useful survey than many I have taken - it would be nice if it got HUGE participation!

 

[Ron Lee]

You can argue with the current statistics and no doubt improvements need to be made. But you cannot argue that there are too many RV accidents and fatalities. The vast majority are pilot related with some due to poor building/maintenance practices.

All of those can be addressed.

While you can expend lots of effort working on the statistics side, my opinion is spending far more on the things that really cause accidents and kill people is more useful.

 

[Ironflight]

You can argue with the current statistics and no doubt improvements need to be made. But you cannot argue that there are too many RV accidents and fatalities. The vast majority are pilot related with some due to poor building/maintenance practices.

All of those can be addressed.

While you can expend lots of effort working on the statistics side, my opinion is spending far more on the things that really cause accidents and kill people is more useful.

I agree with you 100% Ron! I think it is nice to collect statistics, and if done correctly, we can learn something from them. But as I have said many times, we already KNOW that we have safety "problems" that we need to deal with them. Pick one - any one - and do something about it in your personal flying.

"Safe" is not really attainable..."Safer" (an improvement) is measurable, attainable, and looks good to the observers (and regulators).

Paul

 

[Ron Lee]

I have a chart showing RV accident and fatalities as yearly numbers here

http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/RVaccidents.ppt

I can't determine a way to make a JPG out of it. When we can make that fatality trendline turn down significantly despite increasing numbers of RVs then we are doing the right thing.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Pick one - any one - and do something about it in your personal flying.

That's all fine and well, but why not improve designs to increase survivability in the crashes that can not and will not be avoided? Experimental aircraft are one of the few areas where designers and engineers have sufficient leeway to actually improve a design in a significant way without a huge bureaucratic headache. We will bend over backwards and do whatever we can to squeeze a few more knots airspeed or a few more miles range out of our planes but the moment someone brings up a design improvement related to safety it is taken as an insult or condemnation of our chosen aircraft.

The human body- when well restrained and protected with are both well within our capabilities given modern technology and have been for the past few decades to be honest- can withstand upwards of 100 G in crash decelerations. Right now, most aircraft fail somewhere around 10-20 G. Our seats fail at a paltry 26 G, assuming you've "splurged" for the latest in technology. So far I have seen ONE experimental with those types of seats.

To say that this is a problem to be fixed by improving your personal flying practices is to offer- at best- a partial solution and to see the skills of the members of this forum and others directed away from things that could save the lives of our friends, our family and perhaps ourselves. Sorry...I'll get off my personal soapbox now....

 

[gereed75]

There is validity

First - There is validity in questioning the accuracy of interpretation of the statistics - We understand that and so does the FAA. There is an effort underway to better analize and refine that data. That effort is being undertaken by the FAA (via the GA division) and it includes participation of several homebuilt type groups. Thanks to the recent formation of the RV Safety Committee, we are also participating in that effort. The results of that analysis will be a bit slow to come, but it is being worked on.

Second - It is also valid to say that whatever the data indicates, that we could very much improve our safety culture within the community, and that that effort will positively impact safety. Again, that is the goal of the new Safety Committee.

Third - Regardless of your oppinion on their effectiveness, many of us are flying around in planes with out even the most rudimentary stall warning devices (except the often confused "seat of the pants"). In the apparent light of the stats, that is one place, that as a community, with very little effort, we could make a significant difference. If stall warning devices were a general topic of discussion within the community, and an expected part of RV building, I can assure you that very few RV's would be built without a stall warning device.

That is an example of a cultural change that can easily occur that will impact safety.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Regardless of your oppion on their effectiveness, many of us are flying around in planes with out even the most rudimentary stall warning devices.

Seriously? I've seen three cracked up RVs and none of them had stall warning devices but I figured they were just aberrations and that it must not be that common (attributed it to a small sample size) because I could not figure out a valid reason why anyone would fly without one.

 

[gereed75]

By my informal observation - yes seriously. At our field, there are 5 RV's. I will assume one or two of them has a stall device embedded in the function of the glass panel.

Mine and at least two others have none.

It was an option in Van's kit for most of the years kits have been sold.

While at Airventure next week, maybe I will conduct an informal survey. My guess is well over 50% have nothing.

 

[JonJay]

I think it is really simple. We have a hot airplane, that is very easy to fly. Many people I meet that are flying thier RV's do not have enough experience. Period.
When you get a hot airplane on the edge of the envelope, that easy to fly machine can kill you.
I see RV pilots all the time doing stupid things just because their airplane can do it, at least "most" of the time. The ballistic take off turning climb is the one that I cringe at the most. I see it all the time. The experience pilot knows that airspeed is your friend and a gentle stick with surplus airspeed makes for a boring but safe departure from that pancake breakfast.
Those of us trained on less forgiving or less capable machines know the basic rules that kept us safe and apply them to our RV's. Density altitude, effects of g forces to stall speeds, slow flight, etc...
There needs to be more transition training, just like the military or any other flight school. Start with the low powered, lightly wing loaded machines, advance up to more and more performance. Too many people jump into an RV with too little time.

 

[jrs14855]

Gillespie Accident

Thekathrynreport.com has two pictures of the Rocket that had the inflight fire at Gillespie. Aircraft is on the gear and being towed. Damage to cowl area and upper forward fuselage. Sure doesn't look totaled.

 

[jrs14855]

stall warning

Keep your stall warning systems. I'll vote for some in depth stall spin training. The issue with most of the "problem children" is that they are absolutely terrified of stalls and slow flight, much less spins.

 

[flyboy1963]

survey tips

I took the NTSB survey and completed it in about 10minutes.

http://www.zipsurvey.com/LaunchSurvey.aspx?suid=51437&key=2E8A8A4C

This kind of survey can help the entire experimental aircraft fleet.

......just a Pirep for those clincking on the link....helps to know your history of flying hours, and of course, all those operation speeds that you have memorized, Vs Vso, Va, Vmax, the wingspan and chord (for wing area) engine & propeller model .

 

[Toobuilder]

Took the survey, but I had a hard time figuring out what kind of data they're going to pull from it. Based upon the wording, at least 25% of the questions did not apply directly to my situation, therefore corrupting my results. For those of us that regularily fly multiple aircraft, should we take the survey for each tail?

 

[SteveinIndy]

The issue with most of the "problem children" is that they are absolutely terrified of stalls and slow flight, much less spins.

Point taken but I think it's more a combination of hubris (the "I'm too good of a pilot to ever need that" BS) and a lesser degree of fear. Training is only a partial solution just as technology is only a partial solution. That's why both have to be utilized and in the correct way.

 

[apkp777]

Keep your stall warning systems. I'll vote for some in depth stall spin training. The issue with most of the "problem children" is that they are absolutely terrified of stalls and slow flight, much less spins.

I don't think fear of stalls and slow flight is the problem. The problem is people don't know how to fly airplanes. Getting a license in a Cessna from a Santa Claus examiner and then not flying for the 10 years that it takes you to build your VERY high performance RV, getting (mostly worthless) transition training 6 months prior to your first flight, then rolling the dice that you'll actually survive that first flight, and perchance that you do survive, teaching yourself to fly an airplane you are nearly completely unqualified in.

So in my opinion, what we need is a change in the regs to allow a second pilot (CFI) in the cockpit (flightdeck P.C.) during Phase I ops!

Sorry, I just had to say it.

 

[Ironflight]

To say that this is a problem to be fixed by improving your personal flying practices is to offer- at best- a partial solution and to see the skills of the members of this forum and others directed away from things that could save the lives of our friends, our family and perhaps ourselves. Sorry...I'll get off my personal soapbox now....

I think that you missed my point. I didn't say to ignore any options - including airplane and design modifications. What I am saying is that rather than waiting around for the perfect, be-all, end-all solution to aviation safety, wade right in and start working on SOMETHING. If you wish to address it by adding a stall warning device tomorrow, then good on ya'. If you decide to address it by going out for some stall/spin training tomorrow instead - that's great too!

Waiting for the perfect solution, with all the answers, is a waste of time. There are LOTS of loose safety ends that can be addressed immediately, by each of us. Why not start today? Otherwise, you'll just (hopefully) be one day older when you do.

 

[SteveinIndy]

I think that you missed my point

Sorry about that....I had a similar discussion at work today and just kind of carried that over. My sincerest apologies.

What I am saying is that rather than waiting around for the perfect, be-all, end-all solution to aviation safety, wade right in and start working on SOMETHING.

Way ahead of you....already working on that. It's the primary reason I am not working on a design of my own rather than building from a kit. Hopefully some of the subsystems and such will cross over and be applicable to other designs eventually.

 

[jrs14855]

Phase One

I totally agree with Tony on phase one. The instructor should be someone qualified to make a first flight and whenever the instructor is satisfied with the airplane they could start training the owner/builder as needed. The irony of this is that in the early sixties the FAA had absolutely no problems with this. I know of a case where a non pilot built a two place high performance airplane. The owner of the FBO did some initial testing and then started training the owner/builder. The entire training program went very well, the owner flew the airplane safely for many years. The airplane, built around 1963 still exists and I believe it is still active.

 

[Mel]

Sorry But.....

I have to totally disagree here. Phase I is for flight testing of a new or newly modified aircraft. There is NO place for pilot training during flight testing.

 

[jrs14855]

training

Tony made another interesting point about training. I just read somewhere of a pilot who has 40 hours dual and has not soloed. Something is terribly wrong there. It would be interesting to make an in depth study of new pilots from a school like Sunrise Aviation in Santa Ana CA and see how they compare to less professional flight schools.
I once flew with an individual who had SEVENTY HOURS of dual, mostly in his own Stearman and had not soloed. Once I showed him how to adjust the seat and rudder pedals properly, he was ready to solo. About ten days later, flying several times a day, he was ready for his Private checkride. The first instructor simply took him for a LOT of money.

 

[videobobk]

Tony made another interesting point about training. I just read somewhere of a pilot who has 40 hours dual and has not soloed. Something is terribly wrong there. It would be interesting to make an in depth study of new pilots from a school like Sunrise Aviation in Santa Ana CA and see how they compare to less professional flight schools.
I once flew with an individual who had SEVENTY HOURS of dual, mostly in his own Stearman and had not soloed. Once I showed him how to adjust the seat and rudder pedals properly, he was ready to solo. About ten days later, flying several times a day, he was ready for his Private checkride. The first instructor simply took him for a LOT of money.

My partner was one of those who racked up lots of hours before soloing, and it was a CRIME the way they took him. Just when he thought he was ready, they would switch instructors, or even aircraft models. I rode back seat one time and the instructor taught nothing, just rode along--and there were things that needed correcting. The CFI didn't know I was a pilot and was rather embarrassed when he found out. Now for the kicker--this was one of those "professional" schools, located near Cincinnati. Nothing beats a good, old-school instructor who cares about making pilots. The problem is students can't see the difference.

I have taken the survey (about ten minutes) and am at least pleased that it is supposed to help improve safety. There is no perfect survey, but let's hope this is a start.

I have had instruction in flying without any instruments, and I know it can be done with surprising precision. I have spun more times than I care to remember. I still wouldn't give up my stall warning for anything. YMMV.

Bob

 

[apkp777]

I have to totally disagree here. Phase I is for flight testing of a new or newly modified aircraft. There is NO place for pilot training during flight testing.

How about 50 hours Phase I with the first ten hours dual transition training?

 

[Mel]

Nope!

How about 50 hours Phase I with the first ten hours dual transition training?

Actually the first 10 hours are the most critical portion of phase I.
I stick to my belief that there is NO room for flight training during aircraft flight testing.

If you are not qualified to flight test the aircraft, you should hire someone who is.

 

[apkp777]

Actually the first 10 hours are the most critical portion of phase I.
I stick to my belief that there is NO room for flight training during aircraft flight testing.

So are you suggesting that pilots are not receiving instruction during phase I? Of course they are. Most of phase I is pilots teaching themselves how to fly an RV. I believe in transition training, don't get me wrong, but unless it is very recent (hours or a couple days) prior to your first flight and in an airplane that is nearly identical to your own, its inadequate. My insurance required me to do 5 hours in a tailwheel RV. No landings were required. Just one long cross country and I'd have met the requirement. Of course, I did lots of landing, in an RV7 with steam and a c/s prop. It flew NOTHING like my RV 9 with EFIS and a fixed pitch.

I am also not down on unskilled pilots. I just know that many pilots at the private level are not really all that great (myself included back then). There's so much peer pressure on guys who read the forums and see folks like yourself and many others who have tons of flight time in RV's and feel ashamed of their lack of experience. Like you and I actually were great pilots at 200 hours, NOT! People need to take a self-assessment in a realistic light and decide if they really have the qualifications to make a solo flight in an RV with only 5 or 10 hours transition and less than 200 hours total time. But that's a tough decision to give up the first flight. There is magic and mystery to it, as well as peer pressure. I say bring along a CFI until you can at least make a decent take off and landing. Then go and complete your phase I. I do believe a CFI should be allowed on board during a test flight. I have been on many many test flights at United Airlines as well as GA. Shoot sometimes there were 5 or 10 people on board as "required crew members". The pilots still always managed to complete the flight test.

That said, I also agree that the stats seem to be skewed against us. But still, folks like the NTSB and the FAA and the media have a spotlight on us. And even though an RV is not a particularly difficult make to fly, they will bite you if you are not careful.

So then what am I saying, first and foremost, don't be ashamed to ask someone to critique your flying. Stay away from CFI's that don't step on your toes, and make use of the ones that really make your work and are not afraid to p you off. Don't be ashamed to admit that you are "low time". It's not permanent! Unless you get yourself in over your head. Then the clock stops for good.

Secondly, those with lots of RV time, share your insights with others. Go fly with your buddies and tell each other, let's play examiner and student. You test me and I'll test you. I work with lot's of CFI's and we fly together occasionally, we ALWAYS critique each other. When the boss get's in the plane we usually get are BLANK handed to us. I'll tell you, it's made me a better pilot.

Just because it's an "experimental" airplane doesn't make you qualified to modify the Van's builder's manual and plans. Building it to plan is OKAY. You don't have to add some stuff to prove to the world that your a "homebuilder".

 

[sahrens]

I believe if we look back in time we can see maybe try to separate the issues and find some solutions.

When I was in primary flight training one of my instructors flew Corsairs in WWII. He was a rated pilot when moved to the Corsair. The ground school was relatively short, the instructor stood on the wing while he started the engine and he was sent off on that first flight alone. I am pretty sure he told me there were no two seat Corsairs manufactured. You either flew correctly and survived or you didn't. The military had a huge accident rate across its fleet and lost several aircraft and aircrews. It changed the training to address the problems and that process continues today. We find a deficiency and training is adjusted to try and fix it. But there is a cultural aspect as well. Setting a standard and holding each other to the standard helps (most of the time) keep us from repeating the mistakes from the past.

But the RV community is not the military and it takes a pretty independent and persistent kind of person to build an experimental aircraft. We all may not be ready to listen to criticism of our flying skills or experience. But is there a way to keep from repeating the expensive learning curve of WWI and WWII while learning to fly sleek, fast aircraft?

If stall awareness is a major concern in RVs, then how is it addressed; flight training and / or warning devices? Warning devices are in factory produced aircraft and we still have stall / spins so that is not a complete answer. Do we know how many stall / spins leading to accidents were experienced in the first ten hours? In the first five? What are the causes of the other 75% of accidents? Without definitive data that can pinpoint a trend and potential solution we are kind of grasping at straws.

I agree with Mel the first test flights are there to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft, not the pilot. The pilot has to be prepared for any event. Having a CFI on board in itself is not necessarily the solution. What is his stall/spin currency? How many RV experienced CFIs are out there? If you are going to that much trouble why not have someone else do the first test flights?

Sorry this is so long winded. I guess my fear is the NTSB and FAA will place greater restrictions on our ability to build and fly these kinds of aircraft if the accident trend is not changed. That would be a sad day.

 

[pierre smith]

We need compromise.

I agree with Mel, that in the interest of safety, only one test pilot should be aboard the airplane on its initial flight, in the event something goes awfully wrong, only one person is lost.

However, after a couple of hours, with the airplane de-cowled and thoroughly looked over, transition training could start right then, with the owner/builder aboard, until they can satisfactorily fly the airplane through the entire regime...slow flight and stalls....accurately controlled airspeeds while ascending/descending...and so on.

Last year I had the opportunity to do just about the same thing. An RV-9A was delivered to my hangar by the seller (whom I had known) and the buyer showed up at the same time.

The amazing thing was that he (the buyer) had around 50 hours total time and we began transition training in an airplane he'd never been in. I don't believe that he'd ever flown an RV. It was hot and uncomfortable but we slogged through turns, slow flight and stalls and I worked him kinda hard but he hung in there for a couple of very busy days.

He was a quick study and it wasn't too long that I figured I couldn't teach him much more about flying this airplane, short of spins. I signed him off and he took his wife for a local ride while I went to church. We had worked through no-flap landings, halp flap landings and forced landings. That and a bunch of take-offs and landings and go-arounds.

He subsequently flew it home to Florida and they've lived happily ever after

Best,

 

[DanH]

Some believe safety is found in technology, while others believe in cultural adjustment. Perhaps this device offers the perfect combination.

When a stupid pilot trick is observed, the offender shall be forced to assume the position. When activated, the device delivers both physical impact and an electric shock. Better punishment through science!

 

[SteveinIndy]

I am pretty sure he told me there were no two seat Corsairs manufactured.

According to one of my friends who was an engineer on the project, there was one built (at least partially) but it never flew due to weight and balance issues.

I guess my fear is the NTSB and FAA will place greater restrictions on our ability to build and fly these kinds of aircraft if the accident trend is not changed. That would be a sad day.

Then let's stop squabbling over the technology versus training aspects, figure out ways to do both and show improvements to the powers that be. Perhaps we should form working groups for each of these and move forward rather than just chasing our empennages.

 

[Ron Lee]

What are the causes of the other 75% of accidents?

Sorry this is so long winded. I guess my fear is the NTSB and FAA will place greater restrictions on our ability to build and fly these kinds of aircraft if the accident trend is not changed. That would be a sad day.

That info is available in adequate detail both in the Nall report and from AOPA ASI data as available at RVFlightSafety.org.

The home page addresses the reported position that the FAA may do something if we do not.

Anyone who has been on this site for a while realizes that the individual and collective knowledge, experience and quality of the RV community is incredible.

What we...as a group...need to do is identify what each of us can do to improve as aviators and in areas that represent a potential safety risk. I know that I have improved dramatically since I have owned my RV and have made improvements since my involvement in the RV Flight Safety effort.

What I do not know is how you reach those people who right now are destined to kill themselves. Let's be honest. RV pilots are dying each year and the trend in growing. If there are 15-20 RV pilot fatalities a year...and growing...how do we reduce that number to a point that a fatality is a rare event?

How do we prevent most of those fatalities so we do not have 15-20 families without a father/husband/son?

The RV Flight Safety program is an evolving path that should help if people understand it and accept the improvements it suggests. But it cannot help if people are not willing to improve. It will not help if it does not reach those who will die in the coming years if they do not identify and change what ultimately kills them.

 

[SteveinIndy]

The RV Flight Safety program is an evolving path that should help if people understand it and accept the improvements it suggests. But it cannot help if people are not willing to improve. It will not help if it does not reach those who will die in the coming years if they do not identify and change what ultimately kills them.

How does one get involved with that program? I would like to be part of it.

Honestly those without the self-awareness to realize their shortcomings are the very folks that improved occupant protection might give a chance to live through rather than dying from their mistakes.

 

[Ron Lee]

Steve, go to this website

RVFlightSafety.org

This was developed this year and made public on July 4 (less than two weeks ago).

Expect it to evolve as we identify ways to improve the education process.