pierre smith

pierre smith

Well Known Member
Last Saturday, my wife was walking down the runway, exercising, when an airplane flew overhead and then landed on the far end from her. She heard a "thud" and kept up her brisk walk in that direction. The guy came walking towards her after stuffing the Thorp T-18 into an embankment and totalling it. The skid marks indicated that right brake was being held and that was the direction they headed. I knew the guy and the original builder.

When I spoke with the new owner, I asked him how many landings he had in the airplane and told me that that was the first one!!! HUH?

Ray Lawrence in Sandersville just called me and said that Corey, a mutual friend, just totalled his Kitfox yesterday afternoon, a stall/spin shortly after takeoff, next to the runway. How many landings in the airplane? His first one!! Both guys walked away, mysteriously, with no injuries.

How do you reach these guys in advance? I didn't know that the Thorp had been bought and Ray wasn't around when the Kitfox went in...so what's the answer?

Sheesh...there, I feel better now.
 
Usually insurance requirements take care of that type of stupidity. The only other thing I can think of would be the insistance of the seller. I would really hate to see a plane I built totaled because of a lack of a proper checkout.
 
Pierre,

It is not a new question for sure. Seems like there are always guys around who do not take this advocation seriously, like they are out to lunch with regard how quickly one can do himself in if not aware of the inherent risk of flying.

Perhaps it is an attitude "nothing will happen with me". But such a mental state is difficult to comprehend, bad stuff is happens regularly and all one has to do is read the reports to connect the dots - yes, it can happen due to "carelessness, incapacity or neglect" (to quote the old saying on the subject).

Flying is risky, even taking the utmost precaution sometimes is not enough but there is a lot we can do to keep the total risk at a minimum. The 2 events you sight are examples of not taking any precaution whatever.

Like you, that is difficult for me to comprehend.
 
Stupid

The problem is the stupidity has already been identified as one of our biggest problems. We really need to fix it.
Personally I have already started looking for transition training and plan to fly with the instructor as often as possible to maximize time in type. I am also not going to make the first test flight. That needs to be done by some one with test flight experience and my ego can take the hit.
 
Unfortunately, Darwin eventually fixes stupid. Too bad about the often collateral damage.
 
How do fix stupid?

I guess I have to be the bad guy here, but it seems to me an active runway isn't a very good choice for excercise.
 
Joker said:
I guess I have to be the bad guy here, but it seems to me an active runway isn't a very good choice for excercise.
Click to expand...

I suppose I need to be the bad guy here;

Let me see the show of hand of those who skipped their first landing and went directly to their second and third.

But I do get the point Pierre is trying to make. I also believe these guys are already feeling pretty darn crapy so calling them stupid will not help them much.
 
Double dumb

Bavafa said:
I suppose I need to be the bad guy here;

Let me see the show of hand of those who skipped their first landing and went directly to their second and third.

But I do get the point Pierre is trying to make. I also believe these guys are already feeling pretty darn crapy so calling them stupid will not help them much.
Click to expand...

Before the accident they were too dumb to know that they were dumb, or to put it in the politically correct phrase, they didn't know what they didn't know.

It is almost impossible to help someone who doesn't know he needs help. I have tried for years and it just doesn't work.

Gary Specketer
Flight Advisor, tech counselor
 
An active runway isn't as bad for walking as it is for an embankment. That's one way to fix stupid. All runways should be giant circles with a minimum 2 mile radius. Stalls can be prevented with a simple hose clamp on the yoke tube. If they can't pull back.....well.
 
Is it really "stupid" or something else?

I'm in education and I don't think stupid can be fixed but I'm not sure either of these pilots are stupid. They sound ignorant to me and ignorance can be remedied. If they both had a PPL, and I'm guessing they did, they know how to fly, to land, to communicate, to navigate, etc., to ***some degree***. I strongly believe they could learn more. Enough more to prevent their mishaps.

We lost a plane, a pilot, and a passenger at the Virginia Festival of Flight this year. My understanding is the pilot had demonstrated ignorance with regard to how to land his new aircraft. On two different occasions that morning he was offered competent instruction and both times he declined the offer. His refusal to learn, cost him and his son their lives. The pilots you cited Pierre got off relatively easy.

The two biggest barriers to learning in my opinion are ego and ego. There's the internal ego (bravado) that makes folks want to think they're better pilots than they may be. There's also the ego that wants acceptance not criticism within the pilot community. It sure seems to me the pilot community is quick to criticize other pilot actions, legitimately or not.

If you're a pilot with less than perfect skills, this ethos makes it awfully hard to admit you need to learn fundamental skills. It's easy to say I need to learn mountain flying, recovery from unusual attitudes, or aerobatics, but to say I need to improve my cross wind skills or to learn to land a new plane, is really tough.

It seems to me there's a lot of wisdom in viewing the PPL as a set of minimal skills and it's really a license to learn. If you really believe a PPL is a license to learn, then tell me, what have you learned lately? Are you remiss to say because its something you should have learned a long time ago? That's my point - its hard to admit you're a less than perfect pilot on fundamental skills.

I'm guessing the KitFox and the Thorpe T-18 pilots were reluctant to admit they needed to learn to handle their new planes, largely because of the pilot community ethos is that we don't admit that our skills might be less than the next guys. I'd further opine that with 1-5 hours of instruction (maybe more) both pilots would have been competent in their new planes - it isn't hard to expand skills, but there is learning that has to happen.

Lastly, as much as the experimental community talks about the benefit of transition training, there's a mixed message going out. I've heard it loud and clear personally, and it sounds like this, "Oh the [insert plane] is an honest plane with no bad faults. You've got 500 as PIC you can handle it. I know a guy flying the same plane with only 100 hours." It all may be true but until you know the handling qualities and quirks of a plane, you're still transitioning.
 
I'm not completely sure of the point trying to be made here. Were the incident pilots not tailwheel pilots? If so, then yes, jumping into a new purchase solo was not a good choice.
 
It would be interesting to hear input from some of our aviation insurance reps. I don't think it is that uncommon to hear of a new aircraft owner dinging his aircraft on the first landing. I know of a Stearman, Cessna 195, and a BD-5, that were crashed by their new owners on the first landing attempt.

We all pay for their stupidity through higher insurance rates. Unfortunately there is no enforceable mechanism in place to prevent these acts of stupidity.
 
I wonder if this fits my study....

I'm a computer guy, and did a study a long time ago about perceived knowledge. When you start using a computer for the first time, you usually report that you know little about computers. After the first small amount of exposure, people tend to report they know a lot about computers. BUT as they use the computer more and more, they begin to report that they know less and less about computers!

This may be the same for pilots. Once you have your PPL, you may think: Hey, it's a tricycle gear, single engine, two seater. No problem.

When my hanger partner was finishing up his RV-8, he was looking around for transition training, and I was surprised! I knew I'd need a TON of transition training (low time pilot) but him???? He was a CFI, CFII, corporate pilot with a bazillion hours flying all over the world! Type rated in Global Express and Challengers! He sat me down and told me about airplanes.

OK, I'm not Stupid, but I did not understand airplanes like I thought I did. My guess is that these guys are not stupid either, but they never had the airplane talk, and were low time enough to not understand that they needed it. If you screw up on a computer, you reboot. If you screw up in an airplane and are lucky, you write a check. If you screw up in an airplane and are NOT lucky, your family writes the checks.

Looking at efforts of the EAA and AOPA and type clubs everywhere, I'm hoping this stays a educational issue, and not a regulatory one.

CC
 
The T-18 pilot is a student, nearing his PPL checkride and the Kitfox pilot is liicensed and learned in a Cessna 150. Sold his powered parachute and bought the Kitfox..he's a male nurse around 30.

The T-18 guy flew mostly ultralight taildraggers and a VW powered low wing, bubble canopy Hummelbird, all aluminum popular tailwheel airplane. He's around his mid 30's I reckon. Had been flying his Cherokee and bought the T-18 a week before he wrecked it.

Neither one asked for transistion training and both had two seats.

Go figure...
 
Last edited:
Ego pride

When I have one person offer unsolicited advise, on anything, I am inclined to shrug it off. When two people offer the same incite, I FORCE myself to seriously consider whats being offed. Aviation, work marriage, anything. Experience is the worst teacher, it gives the test first and the lesson after. Giving this perspective of myself to others first can crack the door open to new ideas.
This one I really like. The difference between fantasy and delusion???
Delusions are real;)
 
So my general opinion is that transition training is always "smart" - for any pilot.

However, NOT receiving transition training is not always "stupid"... As pointed out in the many threads that focus on stick and rudder skills, not all pilots are created equal. Some have a broad experience base and can handle the individual nuances of new aircraft "on the fly" with acceptable safety.

All that said, it would appear that these two incident pilots made an inaccurate skills assessment. It's likely that they would have benefitted from some training. However, this is America- we still have the God given right to make poor decisions.
 
Training is good

Maybe I was just lucky but when I got my PPL many years ago, my instructor would take me flying in different kinds of airplanes - I'm talking Cessna 172, Cherokee 140, Cherokee 180, etc. I had learned in a Cessna 150/152, but each time we went out in one of these "different" airplanes, he insisted I do slow flight, stalls, all the "check out" type things. Back then I wondered why we had to go through this every time and not just go out flying! Well, it has paid off well. I went on to become an airline pilot and had plenty of check rides and plenty of training in each new aircraft. I too will get transition training before I fly my RV - it is a "new" kind of airplane for me!
So, really, is there ever too much training we can get?!
 
Sometimes the rules are there to protect the inexperienced....

So who signed off the student pilot to fly the Thorp solo? He is supposed to be limited to the aircraft types listed on his certificate, and cfi's cannot sign him off for other aircraft unless they actually fly with him.

Anyone read June's EAA magazine? There's an article of EA-B safety, and Mike Seager describes some of the people who have come for transition trainings as: "...rusty, low time, high turbine time but no recent piston time, all time in one type of aircraft, lacking fundamental skills....". It was never the intent of transition training to scrape off rust. But at least these people knew they needed some kind of training. Or maybe their insurance companies knew.
 
Don said:
I'm in education and I don't think stupid can be fixed but I'm not sure either of these pilots are stupid. They sound ignorant to me and ignorance can be remedied.
Click to expand...

I agree. This was ingorance. I believe any pilot is able to handle any airplane without prior dual seat checkrides, if he/she do proper preparations. Dual seat checkrides is probably a safer path, but the added safety is only there due to the degree of ignorance to start with. In a single seater you have no choice. Think of all the pilots in WWII flying Spitfires, Mustangs, FWs Messerschmits etc. They never had a dual seat checkride in those planes. When I was 16 I flew single seat gliders with no prior checkride, but with enough training and education to prevent ignorance to creep in.
 
You can't fix stupid but.....

We have a saying at my work, "You can't fix stupid but we can load'm into the helicopter and fly'm to the hospital."

Although most of who we fly to the hospital are truly accidents, we often fly people whose accident was preceded by, "Watch this," or, "hold my beer."

Transition training is good thing. In the scheme of building the plane, an extra $1000 is definitely worth it for transition training.
 
I think I'll refrain from calling anyone stupid. I know that I've more than once looked up and found my car over the center line, my airspeed lower than where I wanted it, or my nose pointed off center after checking airspeed on a bounce and go. I'm less than perfect and I realize that one bad bounce, bad wind gust or bit of bad luck...and any of a multitude of easily corrected mistakes could have been incidents ending my days.

Guys...stuff happens. People get a bit out of the comfort zone or too far into it and....well....we all make mistakes...we all have lapses of concentration. I'm glad neither of these guys were hurt. Will I hand them my plane? No, but there are very few people to whom I would....

I hope they learned a lesson and apply it going forward. If not...there is always Darwin.
 
SvingenB said:
I agree. This was ingorance. I believe any pilot is able to handle any airplane without prior dual seat checkrides, if he/she do proper preparations. Dual seat checkrides is probably a safer path, but the added safety is only there due to the degree of ignorance to start with. In a single seater you have no choice. Think of all the pilots in WWII flying Spitfires, Mustangs, FWs Messerschmits etc. They never had a dual seat checkride in those planes. When I was 16 I flew single seat gliders with no prior checkride, but with enough training and education to prevent ignorance to creep in.
Click to expand...

They did check out that way and they had a absolutely horrendous accident rate. The US Army Air Corps lost more airplanes to training accidents then combat. On average they lost 10 aircrew killed per day in training. We really don't want to operate that way in the RV community.

George
 
Last edited:
EAB Accident Rate

I get comments all the time that i am taking a big risk flying an experimental aircraft that i built in my garage. I see the accident statistic that the NTSB puts out on EAB and see they are higher then certified. Has anyone ever seen a comprehensive look at accident rates filtering out these accidents that happen due to fairly predicable and preventable circumstances? I think over all rates between certified and EAB may be very comparable. I think if you follow the recommended material/advisorys/standard practices from EAA and FAA on building, use tech advisors (or equivalent) to check and help, and do transition training the overall accident rate, I bet, is no higher for experimentals. Would be interesting to be able to look at data from FAA and NTSB and see which experimental accidents did not use tech advisors or transition training. Easy to verify as these typically get recorded in builders, aircraft, or pilot logbook.
 
Last edited:
sailvi767 said:
They did check out that way and they had a absolutely horrendous accident rate. The US Army Air Corps lost more airplanes to training accidents then combat. We really don't want to operate that way in the RV community.

George
Click to expand...

That isn't very meaningful regarding how many pilots had accidents during their first rides in a single seater they have never flown before. During WWII more planes were lost in Norway due to bad weather than due to combat, much more, and this is equally meaningless regarding the merits of transition training.

For a two seater, transition training is of course a no brainer, if for no other reason than to ease the nerves and brush off some rust and for general motivation. But for a single seater you don't have that luxury. You can train in a similar aircraft, but sooner or later you just have to jump into it, and when you do you are all alone flying something you have never flown before. My experience is that what really matters is practising stick and rudder. Nailing every landing and staying on the centre line during take off even when it's gusting from the side, practising precision slow flight with turns and transitions etc, and do it in several different aircrafts. When it works for single seaters, it also works for two seaters. Single seaters are for aviators, everything else are for pilots, at best ;)
 
I agree to a extent about the single seater however in the example that started the thread both aircraft were two seaters. In the RV community the vast majority of the aircraft are 2 or 4 seaters. The RV3 is the exception and the RV4/6 would make a very suitable trainer for a first flight in the 3. The US military tried training in single seat aircraft. They found the cost in both aircraft and lives lost unacceptable and switched to spending the extra money to get two seat training versions of most aircraft. When only a single seat option was available they did as much ground training as possible and tried to provide training in a similar aircraft. First flights in that situation are also normally chased by a experienced pilot. I had 18,000 hours when I decided to look into RV ownership. The first thing I looked into were training options before I even looked at a purchase. I can't fathom anyone jumping into a aircraft type they have not flown with dual controls and not seeking dual training.

George
 
And somewhere out there, a conversation is being held on a discussion board about the foolish experimental airplane builders and pilots.

As Michael said, we still - for now- have our God-given right to do stupid things. Thankfully! If the feds impose themselves, or we invite them in, to make our world safer, God help us.

The situations described above are effectively and rightfully controlled best by insurance companies.
 
Last edited:
SvingenB said:
I agree. This was ingorance. I believe any pilot is able to handle any airplane without prior dual seat checkrides, if he/she do proper preparations. Dual seat checkrides is probably a safer path, but the added safety is only there due to the degree of ignorance to start with. In a single seater you have no choice. Think of all the pilots in WWII flying Spitfires, Mustangs, FWs Messerschmits etc. They never had a dual seat checkride in those planes. When I was 16 I flew single seat gliders with no prior checkride, but with enough training and education to prevent ignorance to creep in.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but as an experience military flying instructor, I disagree quite strongly. This link shows the aircraft accidents and fatalities for WWII in continental USA, that is, out of theatre accidents. We have learned quite a lot about accidents and training since then!
 
Low Pass said:
And somewhere out there, a conversation is being held on a discussion board about the foolish experimental airplane builders and pilots.

As Michael said, we still - for now- have our God-given right to do stupid things. Thankfully! If the feds impose themselves, or we invite them in, to make our world safer, God help us.

The situations described above are effectively and rightfully controlled best by insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I think a better statement would be that we all have a right to do responsible things. If we are too stupid to take that advice, the Feds will do it for us.

I believe even your God set out some rules for responsible behaviour?
 
SvingenB said:
.....Single seaters are for aviators, everything else are for pilots, at best ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps those that survive it are aviators, the rest are pilots, at best. A long, long time ago my 4th airplane after minimal time in the T-34, T-28 and T-33 was the F-86L, single seater all the way forever. Somehow the experience was survivable. :)

The difference between then and now and the 2 guys mentioned in this thread is TRAINING, TRAINING and more or it. (WWII was a disaster for training accidents but that was corrected after hostilities ended. If anything, military pilots were subsequently over trained.)

Guys moving from powered parachutes, or other early untra-light aircraft, to real airplanes are victims of insufficient training - not due to war but circumstances of the regulatory world. These individuals cut their teeth in machines that did not have mandated training, they simply got in them, or strapped them on, and flew (like Orville). Many do it successfully for years.

But those skills generally do not transfer to larger more complex aircraft. Nor does the freedom attitude they enjoy in that flying world, an attitude that can short circuit familiarization which is prudent with most airplanes.

So the guys are not stupid, they simply need more training. Right?

Same old story. More training would fix the problem - so as to at least negate the obvious events waiting to happen - but more training costs money. And it does not get spent if training is not mandated (by rules).

Same old story again. No one wants more regulation so we sit holding our breath while the rule makers ponder the dumb accidents - and what to do about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.