Maybe some publicity Chad. I must admit I have only been an EAA member since 1968, and president of a chapter, but I had to go look up what the heck a FA was and what he did and why I would might even want one. I see the closest one to me is over 300 miles away as well. Maybe an appeal to the chapters would be in order.

cjensen said:
The FA program is bad. We only have 463 FA's total. That's not good...we need more, and we need more people who FULLY understand the program and are qualified and WANT to help. I am revising the FA manual so it's clearer in it's presentation and up to date. The FA program is very important, and it is at or near the to of my list. I just have to get through AV first...:eek:
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
Maybe some publicity Chad. I must admit I have only been an EAA member since 1968, and president of a chapter, but I had to go look up what the heck a FA was and what he did and why I would might even want one. I see the closest one to me is over 300 miles away as well. Maybe an appeal to the chapters would be in order.
Click to expand...

Ditto this. I just looked at the "What Our Members are Building/Restoring" section of the last two SAs and can't find a single word there about either the Technical Counselor or Flight Advisor programs. Not so long ago SA was naming the individual TCs and FAs involved in each project. Perhaps this angle could be worked back in somehow?

For what its worth I had very good experiences with both programs.
 
accidents

Here is what is wrong with the NTSB info:
Since may 11, six fatal Experiemntal accidents
Pitts S1
Hawkier Hunter
L39
Titan Tornado
Glider
Ultralight

So six fatals, only two are EAB, but I suspect in the minds of the NTSB people all six are EAB.
It sounds like the FAA is about to wreak havoc on the heavy warbirds and all the Jet Warbirds.
 
dmaib said:
A CFI can train and charge in any homebuilt. He/she can charge whatever the market will bear for services rendered. Just can't charge for the use of the airplane without the blessing of the FAA via the LODA.
Click to expand...

That of course was my point.
 
Whoa here, this does put a brand new light on it all. I had missed that, merely assuming incorrectly that Experimental meant EAB!
Wonder if you erased all the "other than EAB" from the statistics what would show up. I hope EAA points this out to the FAA.
jrs14855 said:
Here is what is wrong with the NTSB info:
Since may 11, six fatal Experiemntal accidents
Pitts S1
Hawkier Hunter
L39
Titan Tornado
Glider
Ultralight

So six fatals, only two are EAB, but I suspect in the minds of the NTSB people all six are EAB.
It sounds like the FAA is about to wreak havoc on the heavy warbirds and all the Jet Warbirds.
Click to expand...
 
We've been pointing this out to the FAA for years. It hasn't changed...yet. We discussed it at the FAA/EAA summit in January and it seemed like it was heard.

I have a dashboard (chart) that is updated every time an "Experimental" fatal occurs. That category includes EAB's, R&D, Exhibition, Racing, Ultralights...it's not a fair assessment, and the FAA knows EAA is shouting at them them to change it so it is actually accurate.
 
DonFromTX said:
Whoa here, this does put a brand new light on it all. I had missed that, merely assuming incorrectly that Experimental meant EAB!
Wonder if you erased all the "other than EAB" from the statistics what would show up. I hope EAA points this out to the FAA.
Click to expand...

Whoa on your "whoa." You make a valid point but in my opinion, the RV community should be able to greatly reduce its fatalities. Look at the chart here and see if that is a fatality rate that looks "acceptable."

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/safetyprogram/introduction/

These fatalities are not a reflection of a problem with the aircraft rather the builder and/or pilot.
 
accident rate

I am going through 2009 EAB fatal accident reports. I chose 2009 because it is the latest full year where all reports are final. I am up to the end of Aug with the following results:
45 accidents, only three first flights. One of these was not a planned flight. The pilot had stated his intent to only do a fast taxi. The aircraft became airborne and the engine quit on downwind.
Another first flight was a Midget Mustang II, engine failure followed by stall. The Mustang is not a forgiving airplane in the stall.
The first flight accidents calculate to around 6%, nowhere near the 10% claimed by NTSB.
I left out Experimentals than were not EAB, along with powered parachutes and ultralights. None of these were first flight.
The leading cause of fatal accidents during this period is loss of control. Sometimes acro is involved, but much of the time it is not.
A few tragic examples RV on BFR flight, loss of control. RV on takeoff with instructor, loss of control. RV with instructor, loss of control on takeoff, aircraft apparently never left the ground. Owner had thirty hours in aircraft.
The big question is how is the NTSB coming up with the information the 10% of fatals are first flight???
 
TC

Maybe I got lucky, but my TC has stopped by many times. In fact, I couldn't tell you how many times. Steve Barnes has always looked, listened and asked the right question to help me on my build. I know it is a better build because of his involvement.

It is too bad that others don't have access to that level of support.
 
About instruction: I recently went to the trouble to get a LODA for my -10, to give type specific instruction. I had a helpful FSDO inspector, followed the published rules to the letter, and it went thru without a problem. BUT:

Insurance is turning out to be a real issue. I was quoted $500 to add one pilot to my policy. $2K/yr to add an unlimited number (but I realistically doubt there would be more than 3 or 4 per year). Any way you bend the numbers, that's $100/hr just for insurance. And if I didn't get the 3 or 4 'students', I'd lose money. I'm perplexed; I consider dual given to be about the safest, most controlled flying I do.

About POH's: I can see a few cases where it would make a difference, maybe. Recently a well known high time Lancair pilot died while ferrying someone else's airplane. IF that plane had a POH, and IF it said "...due to trapped air it is possible that the fuel tanks will not contain the listed capacity when full, do not fly without operable fuel gauges" and IF the ferry pilot had read the POH then maybe he'd still be around (he died after running out of fuel, (and other issues)). A lot of IF's. I think the main gain would be for a second owner.
 
Will they solo?

Hi Bob....was the $500 per pilot quoted as though they'd be SOLOING your airplane?

I have a pilot added at no extra cost...a retired A-6 Navy carrier pilot but I don't add transition students since they're not going to solo my airplane, so I'm still the PIC.

Best,
 
No. Unless there was a misunderstanding, this was strictly dual, for a pilot who already had a CS endorsement, instrument rated.
As I said, I was disappointed at the quoted price.
 
more info

I've decided to rant a little more on this subject, FYI. This whole transition training thing has been quite a mess. The only excuse I can think of is that there are so few people doing it that the insurance companies don't know what to make of it.

Early on I asked for an estimate of what it would cost for me to give 20 hours of dual per year. It came back $1K. When I tried to activate it, I was told the underwriter had made a mistake and forgotten to include other pilots. (What kind of dual would I be giving with no other pilots on board???). That doubled the price.

Upon request I sent them my LODA paperwork, which said "DUAL ONLY"; it also listed qualifications for pilots receiving training, including PP or better, 100 hr min, high performance endorsement, current Flight Review, some recent experience (5 hours in 3 months). I know they got it because at least one of the quotes copied this stuff, verbatum, onto the policy restrictions.

It still isn't finished. Although I paid $500 to add my hangar neighbor onto the policy and give him 5 hours of dual (and it's already done and over). I still haven't received the paperwork that I paid for. That is, I got the paperwork but it said $270 not the $500 I paid. Agent said I'd get a refund of $230. But then insurance company said the paperwork was wrong, it really was $500. I have never received this signed endorsement at the higher price. What I think is that someone doesn't know what they're doing.

I have heard on the forums that other cfi's are giving up transition training due to rising insurance costs. I might add myself to that list even though I'm barely out of the gate (just one pilot so far).
 
BobTurner said:
I've decided to rant a little more on this subject, FYI. This whole transition training thing has been quite a mess. The only excuse I can think of is that there are so few people doing it that the insurance companies don't know what to make of it.

Early on I asked for an estimate of what it would cost for me to give 20 hours of dual per year. It came back $1K. When I tried to activate it, I was told the underwriter had made a mistake and forgotten to include other pilots. (What kind of dual would I be giving with no other pilots on board???). That doubled the price.

Upon request I sent them my LODA paperwork, which said "DUAL ONLY"; it also listed qualifications for pilots receiving training, including PP or better, 100 hr min, high performance endorsement, current Flight Review, some recent experience (5 hours in 3 months). I know they got it because at least one of the quotes copied this stuff, verbatum, onto the policy restrictions.

It still isn't finished. Although I paid $500 to add my hangar neighbor onto the policy and give him 5 hours of dual (and it's already done and over). I still haven't received the paperwork that I paid for. That is, I got the paperwork but it said $270 not the $500 I paid. Agent said I'd get a refund of $230. But then insurance company said the paperwork was wrong, it really was $500. I have never received this signed endorsement at the higher price. What I think is that someone doesn't know what they're doing.

I have heard on the forums that other cfi's are giving up transition training due to rising insurance costs. I might add myself to that list even though I'm barely out of the gate (just one pilot so far).
Click to expand...

Bob, permit me to join in your rant. I am in my second year of providing -10 Transition Training. The first year, the increase in insurance was $750 for dual only instruction. No problem. When it was time to renew insurance last fall I was stunned to find out it was going to be a bit over $2000 additional insurance for dual only. Seems that the $750 coverage, which was being used by a number of transition trainers at the time, was "no longer being offered". My agent convinced me that the risk was unacceptable for me to just go ahead and provide the training without the Dual Only coverage, as Pierre is doing. He said that the fact that someone else was at the controls at the time of an accident would be a problem if there was a claim. I bit the bullet and paid. I have been fairly busy this year, but still have not decided whether I will continue to do this next year if something doesn't change with the insurance. I had conversations with folks at EAA last year about this, but basically was told that they felt my pain, but there was nothing to be done about it. It still seems to me like the EAA and the FAA could work with the insurance industry to try and come up with a product that would ease this problem. Everybody seems to agree (including the insurance companies!) that transition training is desirable. I have a hard time believing that the time I spend with transition training students in a pretty carefully controlled (by me, the PIC) environment, is apparently a significantly higher risk operation than the rest of the flying I do. Rant concluded.

By the way, I have provided Transition Training for a couple of pilots who have bought existing -10's. In both cases, we used their airplane. They have no problem getting me added to their insurance as an instructor, and apparently there is no additional expense to them for this. Go figure!
 
Last edited:
OK, I guess I am seeing the picture from insurance companies eyes. It appears to be FAR MORE dangerous to take transition training than to just figure out how to fly it on your own. This is a crazy world sometimes.
 
David,

Thanks for sharing. At least I know that I haven't been singled out!
Like you, I believe the time I spent giving dual in my airplane (where I have strong motivation to not do anything untoward) is safer than my general flying. And of course the exposure (20 hr per year?) is much less. I just don't understand.

Something I haven't looked into: "unowned aircraft coverage". Some policies allow you to rent a replacement aircraft and be covered. I wonder if there's any way that new -10 pilots can get their insurance to cover a rented -10, along with liability?

FSDO story: Getting the LODA wasn't actually quite as easy as I said. I gave the paperwork to a new guy, who got back to me and said that he had asked around, the other inspectors had never heard of such a thing, they didn't want to set any precedents, cya, etc,; Did I know of anyone who had actually gotten a LODA? So I sent him some N numbers off Vans' web site of trainers. Within 2 days they called, said "come on down and sign the paperwork".

Bob
 
BobTurner said:
Something I haven't looked into: "unowned aircraft coverage". Some policies allow you to rent a replacement aircraft and be covered. I wonder if there's any way that new -10 pilots can get their insurance to cover a rented -10, along with liability?


Bob
Click to expand...

That is a good question. I will ask my insurance guy.
 
Tsk, tsk, tsk!

On this same page, the NTSB laments the lousy experimental records of accidents, yet we few guys who are trying to do something about it get run into a wall! There's no way in h@#l a first time RV-10 pilot with no training is safer than one who has had some transition training, yet, we're the ones having to jump through all these hoops and pay the extra expense.

I'm finishing up one guy presently, then that's it....up theirs.

Best,
 
and then....

Take a look on the safety page, "spinning an RV-10". Pilot says he's never seen a spin, was "...a little rusty on stalls". But he thought he was up to test flying the 10. He thinks he spun it. Data recording shows airspeed hitting Vne, aircraft pulling more than 3.8 g design limit, plane lost 3000', g forces on engine caused it to bend enough to make contact with the cowling. Pilot says, "don't worry, he'll continue on".

Many of the other posters are congratulating him on surviving his experience.

Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with this picture?
 
"Am I The Only One...?

Bob:
You're not alone here. On more than one occasion, I've known of pilots with less than 100 hours TT(one of those had acquired most of his hours 5 years earlier) who have conducted their own first flights and flight testing. How did they reach their decision? By reading these forums. Pilots here telling them they'd have huge regrets if they didn't take the first flight. Wonder what the reaction would be if one of these low-timers burried it on the first flight? Probably just a cry for more "details" so we could all "learn" from the catastrophe. Not sure if this situation can be fixed from within, as there's a vocal element more than willing to holler about their "rights", rather than what's really "right". Unfortunately, if we cause enough mayhem, the Feds will fix the problems with more regulations.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
BobTurner said:
Take a look on the safety page, "spinning an RV-10". Pilot says he's never seen a spin, was "...a little rusty on stalls". But he thought he was up to test flying the 10. He thinks he spun it. Data recording shows airspeed hitting Vne, aircraft pulling more than 3.8 g design limit, plane lost 3000', g forces on engine caused it to bend enough to make contact with the cowling. Pilot says, "don't worry, he'll continue on".

Many of the other posters are congratulating him on surviving his experience.

Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

Two thoughts:

1) Confession is good for the soul.

2) It is also a good reminder to others that test flying is a serious business and they really do need to be prepared. Test flying and "knocking the rust off" should be mutually exclusive acts.
 
BobTurner said:
Take a look on the safety page, "spinning an RV-10". Pilot says he's never seen a spin, was "...a little rusty on stalls". But he thought he was up to test flying the 10. He thinks he spun it. Data recording shows airspeed hitting Vne, aircraft pulling more than 3.8 g design limit, plane lost 3000', g forces on engine caused it to bend enough to make contact with the cowling. Pilot says, "don't worry, he'll continue on".

Many of the other posters are congratulating him on surviving his experience.

Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

My reading was that the congratulations were meant only to express relief that he had survived, not to imply any approval of his actions.

Clearly no one should be attempting to test fly their airplane without adequate training and experience, but how do you determine what constitutes "adequate"? Seems to me that this is a rather gray area. I have a friend who let a self-proclaimed "test pilot" do the first flight of his airplane, only to witness the guy do an un-briefed victory roll on downwind (!). I would not want that pilot flying my airplane under any circumstances. Finding and scheduling a truly qualified test pilot can be a problem, at least in some parts of the country.

Some might also find it unacceptable for a completely untrained and inexperienced person to build their own airplane, but it happens routinely and I doubt anyone on this forum would condemn the activity. To some extent doing your own test flight seems like a logical extension of the educational aspect of homebuilding. If so the question is not just "should you do it", but "how do you achieve the required level of ability". The EAA Flight Advisor program can help with this, although perhaps its not being used enough?
 
First Flights

NTSB is claiming a 10% fatality rate on EAB first flights and IIRC 14% on new owners first flight in EAB make and model.
I have finished reviewing 2008 and 2009 final accident reports. I did not include aircraft that are experimental but not amateur built. I also did not include rotor, hot air baloons, and some ultralights, such as the weight shift "trikes"
Total of 121 fatal EAB accidents for the two years with JUST FOUR FATALS that I could conclusively identify as first flights. I could not identify any first flight in make and model accidents.
So what is going on. I believe the NTSB MAY have selected a certain period of time that was a worst case scenario for EAB first flight accidents. If this is the case they appear to be using fraudulent information to make a case for more regulation of EAB.
The greatest cause of EAB fatal accidents is loss of control, frequently at low altitude and sometimes following attempted low level aerobatics. If the NTSB were SINCERELY interested in reducing the EAB accident rate they would petetion the FAA to require spin training and upset training for all fixed wing pilot certificates.
As an avid student of aviation history one only has to look at the accident record for light aircraft in the late thirties to understand that pilots of that era were doing exactly the same thing that pilots of EAB's are doing now. Low level acro, buzzing the family picnic etc etc, followed by stalling and spinning in. Yes there was a requirement for spin training in that era but how good was it compared to whats available today?
Some of the most apalling factors in the EAB fatals: no pilot cerrtificate, no medical, severe medical problems, drug use, mostly prescription but some illegal.
If one were to remove the stall spin, loss of control, controlled flight into terrain and weather accidents, the RV accident rate would be excellent.
 
jrs14855 said:
NTSB is claiming a 10% fatality rate on EAB first flights and IIRC 14% on new owners first flight in EAB make and model.
I have finished reviewing 2008 and 2009 final accident reports.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think this is what they're saying. The actual statement is quoted below; its rather poorly worded. It appears that they meant to say is that 10% of the EAB accidents occurred on a first flight, not that 10% of first flights ended in an accident. Big difference.


A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) study found that in 2011, 10 of 102 experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft accidents involving aircraft built by their owner crashed on their first flight. And of the 125 E-AB accidents involving an aircraft that was purchased used, 14 of the new owners crashed on their first flight.
Click to expand...
 
accidents

Alan-you're correct. But the number I came up with is apples to apples. Only four of the 2008-2009 EAB fatals were first flight. This is just over 6% of total EAB accidents. If one included all the accidents that I left out, the number would be closer to 5%. The important issue is that I could find NO first flight accidents for 2008. 2009 is the last year which has final reports for ALL EAB accidents. As to the accidents I left out I do not feel that rotorwing or weight shift "trikes" are pertinent to the accident rate discussion.
Non pilot, with a serious health condition, taking prescription medication, no certification on the aircraft, N-numbered almost ultralight. When this pilot crashes fatally is any additional government action going to decrease the possibility of this type accident happening again in the future??
Once again the of the four first flight accidents in 2009, one was an unintended flight and one was an engine failure on takoff.
The first flight accident rate is so insignificant compared to loss of control accidents that I just don't understand why the NTSB is making an issue of this.
 
jrs14855 said:
Alan-you're correct. But the number I came up with is apples to apples. Only four of the 2008-2009 EAB fatals were first flight. This is just over 6% of total EAB accidents. If one included all the accidents that I left out, the number would be closer to 5%. The important issue is that I could find NO first flight accidents for 2008. 2009 is the last year which has final reports for ALL EAB accidents. As to the accidents I left out I do not feel that rotorwing or weight shift "trikes" are pertinent to the accident rate discussion.
Non pilot, with a serious health condition, taking prescription medication, no certification on the aircraft, N-numbered almost ultralight. When this pilot crashes fatally is any additional government action going to decrease the possibility of this type accident happening again in the future??
Once again the of the four first flight accidents in 2009, one was an unintended flight and one was an engine failure on takoff.
The first flight accident rate is so insignificant compared to loss of control accidents that I just don't understand why the NTSB is making an issue of this.
Click to expand...

I agree with your basic point that first flights aren't the major problem, at least for RVs. Regarding the numbers, the NTSB release says they're based on 2011, and I imagine they're including all EAB. A quick check shows 41 accidents involving RVs in 2011, vs. 102 total EAB accidents mentioned by NTSB.
 
NTSB is claiming a 10% fatality rate on EAB first flights and IIRC 14% on new owners first flight in EAB make and model.
Click to expand...

As Mr Carrol point out below that is not what they are saying.
Posted by Allan Carroll
Actually I don't think this is what they're saying. The actual statement is quoted below; its rather poorly worded. It appears that they meant to say is that 10% of the EAB accidents occurred on a first flight, not that 10% of first flights ended in an accident. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I have finished reviewing 2008 and 2009 final accident reports.
Click to expand...
This negate any comparison between your analysis and the NTSB study based on 2011 data.




The greatest cause of EAB fatal accidents is loss of control, frequently at low altitude and sometimes following attempted low level aerobatics. If the NTSB were SINCERELY interested in reducing the EAB accident rate they would petition the FAA to require spin training and upset training for all fixed wing pilot certificates
Click to expand...

First off there is no evidence that the NTSB personnel involved in this study
are anything less than sincere in their desire in reducing accidents.

There is also no data to suggest that spin and upset training would resolve the issue of loss of control during low level acro, buzzing and other stupid low altitude activities. Spin training was , in fact, at one time a requirement for a private pilot’s license. Apparently the data at that time suggested it did not save lives and indeed caused some fatalities during training.

If you blow an acro maneuver or enter a spin at 200' or less AGL all the training in the world ain't gonna affect the outcome.

If one were to remove the stall spin, loss of control, controlled flight into terrain and weather accidents, the RV accident rate would be excellent.
Click to expand...

If you did this for any category or for all aircraft the accident rate would improve greatly. In my opinion there is no such thing as an excellent accident rate. Bottom line is you can't fix stupid.

Let's look at what the NTSB was doing a bit more objectively.

There is a trend in EABs toward higher performance and greater complexity especially in avionics and engine management. EABs are also becoming a larger percentage of the GA fleet.

It appears to many that there is a trend in the accidents that links fatalities in EABs to high performance, high landing/stall speeds/high wing loading, narrow cg envelopes, complex engine management systems, and complex avionics. It also appears to many that there is a correlation between EAB accidents and 1st flight by the builder but especially a new owner(purchaser).

Any study starts with a hypothesis(suspicion) and the purpose of the study is to determine if there is a statistical significance (or lack thereof) between actuality and the hypothesis. There is seldom certainty in studies of this nature and often they leave more and new questions to be answered.

It appears to me ,from this study, that there is some significant correlation between 1st flights of new owners/builders and accidents both fatal and non fatal.

My own experience having gone through 2 phase 1s on high performance aircraft with EFIS's and autopilots convinces me that a formal flight testing program of appropriate scope and depth and construction of a POH was exceedingly helpful in making me a safer pilot in those aircraft. I also think in both instances transition training would have been exceedingly helpful.

In following this forum as well as others for many years I have seen too many examples of first flight posts followed not too many days/weeks later by: "the wife and I took our first trip in NX1234". Clearly there is no way they flew off their 25/40 requirement. Now how many (if any) of these ended up in accidents I do not know but the NTSB study noted that there was often no evidence of formal flight testing of EABs involved in accidents. Doesn’t mean it didn't happen just the investigator could find no evidence.
My own experience(and opinion) is that 25 hrs wasn't enough and 40 was barely adequate.

There are many of us on this forum that have sold our aircraft only to read in a news bulletin or on the forum the next day that our former plane crashed, killing the occupants.

Others may disagree but I believe there is a statistically significant correlation in these aircraft between lack of training/POH and accidents. I think the authors of the study also believe this.

I am not a fan of big government but I believe the authors of the study have a sincere desire to decrease accidents and save lives. Nothing nefarious is going on here.

An NTSB study does not mean automatic or even probable FAA regulations to follow. Hopefully it stimulates thought and conversation and behavioral change. If it does that and saves just one life then the study was a success.

There are many things in life you just cannot criticize:
MOM
Apple Pie
Nuclear non proliferation
and any attempt by anybody to improve aviation safety.

My hat is off to the individuals that did this study.
 
Last edited:
NTSB

The majority of EAB accidents are investigated by FAA FSDO office personnel. The NTSB simply signs off on the reports and publishes the information. In many cases the FAA personnel have little or no formal accident investigation training.
The 2011 accident reports have MANY reports that are preliminary. These all start out with the following disclaimer: "This is preliminary information subject to change and MAY CONTAIN ERRORS". I chose to study 2008-2009 because, as previously stated, these are the most recent years where all EAB reports are final reports.
I belive the information I posted is far more accurate than the 2011 information the NTSB allegedly used.
As to high performance vs low performance, I was quite surprised to find that many of the very low performance accidents were loss of control.
The airplanes that show up over and over in the high performance accidents are the Lancairs and very occasionally Glasairs. I believe the Lancair accident rate declined significantly after 2009, but it the last year it appears to be going up again.
I have been involved with EAB aircrafft since around 1960. I did two early flights in EAB aircraft with no checkout, no briefing no POH. I think at the time of the first flight, a single seater that was still in Phase I, I had just a little over 100 hours. I probably logged about 30 hours in this aircraft and never had any problems. I attribute this to the fact that I had spin training, almost all my time at that point was in taildraggers, and I had instructors who were not time builders but rather were instructors because they loved to fly and loved to teach.
Years ago a friend who was an ag pilot bought a light twin. He had no multi experience. As one would expect from anj experienced ag pilot, he flew the airplane very well. However, one day on the downwind leg, with one engine at zero thrust, he started cross controlling, trying to keep the airplane going straight with aileron. I let it go for a bit, then pointed out what he was doing. When we got on the ground he kept saying "I can't believe I did that". This was not the first time I had seen that scenario, and for sure not the last.
A good aerobatic course will make a world of difference in how the average pilot uses or abuses the rudder. A pilot who learned in a taildragger, in the vast majority of cases, learned proper rudder useage before solo.
It is NOT about loss of control at 200' or low level acro or whatever. It is about the fact that a pilot who truly knows how to use the rudder with the panel covered up is not going to get in a life threatening situatioon in the first place.
 
This is obviously an issue that is very close to the heart of my forum friends, t the extent that we're looking for more and better data.

Ron Wantaja has it and presented it in the April 2012 Sport Aviation magazine.

Ironically, that's the issue that started the "EAA doesnt' care about homebuilders anymore thread when someone posted that there's nothing in the magazine for them anymore.

Anyway, it was a good article.

As an aside regarding transition training. I wonder how many people are settling for just the amount of transition training their insurance company is requiring. Mine required five, and I could've stopped at 5 -- what with it being $165 an hour and all. But I knew I wasn't ready at 5 and, even better, the guy providing my transition training knew I wasn't ready at 5.

As it happens, #7 ended last night with me making some of the best landings I've ever made in an airplane. And #8 will be all about emergencies. Maybe there'll be a #9 about it too.

One of the things about me taking 11 years to build an airplane is it's given me a lot of time to step back and think about what I'm doing and learn more. Homebuilding is supposed to about education, and one of the things I learned is if we spent as much time (not to mention money)on our flying ability as we do on our instrument panels, we'd be better off.

It's quite a thrill to have completed an airplane. I'm sure it'll be a thrill to fly it for the first time. But so far nothing has compared to the thrill of becoming a better, safer pilot.

Oh, yeah, my plane's first flight will probably be Sunday morning. I won't be flying it. And I couldn't be prouder of that decision.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.