[flyboy1963]

anyone know how to access the article Van's refers to?

DON?T QUIT STALLING FLYING MAGAZINE, May 2011

Van is getting a bit more pointed with his comments directed toward the 'bad apples', (who may also be pushing up more than their share of the statistics, insurance rates, lawsuits etc.)

Makes me think of the parallel to this; the police pull over and write a ticket for going over the speed limit, even if you are Mario Andretti in a Ferrari.

Kinda ' same thing applies ' in the air.

 

[Ironflight]

I read it this morning at breakfast - great thoughts, all the way through. It was a nice morning, and I had some time, so I fired up the Val, flew out to the "box" and did some slow flight and stalls - good for what ails ya'!

Paul

 

[flyboy1963]

Paul is my her0!....(sorta)

okay, so now I know why your shoes have more flight hours than my TT lifetime!
( and I hear the shoes are even bigger in Texas!

 

[jrs14855]

Flying Mag

Some FBO's are getting extra copies of Flying mag. You can also subscribe to the online version.

 

[rv620mr]

I understand Van?s Safety Corner dated 4-27-11 to be a continuation of the Van?s Safety Corner dated March 29, 2011. In that earlier edition, Van wrote: ?The FAA chairman rather succinctly stated, something to this effect: "We are asking you to help fix this problem. If you can?t or won?t, we have means of doing so, and you won?t like them?they would essentially put you out of business".? I suppose the FAA?s ?means? would be to further regulate experimental aviation.

First, I applaud Van?s efforts to improve A-B safety. I believe he is genuine and that his intentions are good and right. What sticks in my side is the heavy-handed attitude of the FAA, as reported by Van.

In my view, experimental aviation has been, and must necessarily be, exempt from some of the regulations governing the balance of general aviation. Those participating in general aviation, and in experimental aviation in particular, voluntarily assume certain risks. Information regarding those risks should be freely available. But, at some point, further regulation?even well-intended regulation tailored to reducing risks--becomes too intrusive and burdensome. At some point, further regulation threatens the spirit of experimental aviation, from the Wright Flyer to SpaceShipOne and everything in between.

If the FAA ?would essentially put you [kit companies] out of business,? then what would become of experimental aviation? If kit companies are regulated out of business, what would that leave?scratch building? It?s difficult to understand how a return to the days of scratch-building would produce safer aircraft than those produced from kits marketed by companies such as Van?s.

I suppose we might all be safer and more secure if we gave up the experimental aviation freedoms we now enjoy. But, maybe Franklin was right. Maybe those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Again, I sincerely applaud Van?s efforts to improve A-B safety. Further, I submit that Van?s approach may be just one part of the solution. While promoting pilot education, maybe we should also be discussing the appropriate bounds of FAA regulation as it applies to experimental aviation. After all, regulating kit companies ?out of business? seems much different from regulating them into line with the standards maintained by production aircraft companies.

In the alternative, maybe I?m just one of those anti-authority people mentioned by Van!

 

[terrykohler]

Mario isn't the problem

anyone know how to access the article Van's refers to?

DON?T QUIT STALLING FLYING MAGAZINE, May 2011

Van is getting a bit more pointed with his comments directed toward the 'bad apples', (who may also be pushing up more than their share of the statistics, insurance rates, lawsuits etc.)

Makes me think of the parallel to this; the police pull over and write a ticket for going over the speed limit, even if you are Mario Andretti in a Ferrari.Kinda ' same thing applies ' in the air.

I'd be willing to bet that Mario's never really had a problem on public roads. Unfortunately, it's the 10,000 untrained/undertrained wanna bees that end up crashing. While we do see some high time/professional pilots in the statistics, they probably represent a very small proportion. It's hard to get a lot of hours in the air if you're repeatedly exercising bad judgement- I think Darwin had a theory on that.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[Alan Carroll]

While we do see some high time/professional pilots in the statistics, they probably represent a very small proportion.
RV-9A N323TP

This certainly makes intuitive sense, but the NTSB data don't appear to support the idea that higher time pilots have few accidents. I looked at the fatal accidents since 2005 that have a probable cause report (which lists the pilot flight hours). There are about 48 such reports, not counting two ground accidents. The average hours flown by the pilots was 3208, and the median is 1000 (ie, half of the accident pilots had less than 1000 hours and half had more). Five of the pilots had more than 16,000 hours each.

About half of the reports also list time in make/model, with the average being 220 hours. Half the accident pilots had fewer than 100 hours in make/model. This may support the idea that experience and/or training specific to RVs plays a bigger role than total experience?

 

[pierre smith]

Experience is only part of it.

Attitude is another.

I recently trained a gentleman with 50 hours or so, TOTAL.

He has/had a great attitude. listened well and carried out accordingly. I'm confident that he'll enjoy many years in his RV, safely.

Conversely, I've also rode with multi-thousand hour pilots, believing in my heart that it's just a matter of time. My late boss running his Bearcat out of fuel is one example....and it wasn't the first time running one of his airplanes out of fuel. Sad, that he died at 51 years of age!

Best,

 

[jrs14855]

Flying

Another article in May Flying:Training Efficiently, page 34. A two part article with the first part written by Mike Goulian. "Do a dual flight with the airspeed and attitude indicator covered up".

 

[WhiskeyMike]

Big Brother Cares About Us...

I understand Van?s Safety Corner dated 4-27-11 to be a continuation of the Van?s Safety Corner dated March 29, 2011. In that earlier edition, Van wrote: ?The FAA chairman rather succinctly stated, something to this effect: "We are asking you to help fix this problem. If you can?t or won?t, we have means of doing so, and you won?t like them?they would essentially put you out of business".? I suppose the FAA?s ?means? would be to further regulate experimental aviation.

First, I applaud Van?s efforts to improve A-B safety. I believe he is genuine and that his intentions are good and right. What sticks in my side is the heavy-handed attitude of the FAA, as reported by Van.

In my view, experimental aviation has been, and must necessarily be, exempt from some of the regulations governing the balance of general aviation. Those participating in general aviation, and in experimental aviation in particular, voluntarily assume certain risks. Information regarding those risks should be freely available. But, at some point, further regulation?even well-intended regulation tailored to reducing risks--becomes too intrusive and burdensome. At some point, further regulation threatens the spirit of experimental aviation, from the Wright Flyer to SpaceShipOne and everything in between.

If the FAA ?would essentially put you [kit companies] out of business,? then what would become of experimental aviation? If kit companies are regulated out of business, what would that leave?scratch building? It?s difficult to understand how a return to the days of scratch-building would produce safer aircraft than those produced from kits marketed by companies such as Van?s.

I suppose we might all be safer and more secure if we gave up the experimental aviation freedoms we now enjoy. But, maybe Franklin was right. Maybe those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Again, I sincerely applaud Van?s efforts to improve A-B safety. Further, I submit that Van?s approach may be just one part of the solution. While promoting pilot education, maybe we should also be discussing the appropriate bounds of FAA regulation as it applies to experimental aviation. After all, regulating kit companies ?out of business? seems much different from regulating them into line with the standards maintained by production aircraft companies.

In the alternative, maybe I?m just one of those anti-authority people mentioned by Van!

My first reaction is that Big Brother isn?t about to wait for us to give it up, because they know we won?t. It is their intention to take it away under the thinly-veiled guise of ?safety?.

But now that I?ve taken my meds and had a chance to reflect further, I think it?s wonderful that my government is SO concerned about my well being that they will intervene to keep me from making a serious lapse in judgment. Such a lapse might include?oh, let?s say, flying an airplane that someone built in their garage. Clearly a normal ?compliant? person would not do such a dangerous thing. Frankly, anyone that would go off of that cliff would have to be kinda crazy?you know, a risk taker?outside the box?maybe even anti-authority! Such a person MUST be protected from himself?not only for his own sake but also for the benefit of society at large. Can you imagine what would happen if this kind of behavior were to become widespread?