What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA issues safety warning for homemade planes

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was important for the FAA to get out there immediatly following an accident where the pilot successfully didn't stall!
 
Amateurs!

The agency also cautioned that since the planes are built by amateurs, there can be differences in performance, including at what speed they might stall.
Click to expand...

Why can't these amateurs make all their planes stall at the same speed? What's wrong with these people?
 
Last edited:
Government

The important thing is that the illusion of action has been created without doing anything, and a solution has been recommended to a problem that never actually occurred. Isn't that the function of government?

Sometimes bad things happen and it's nobody's fault, and nothing can be done to prevent it.
 
Last edited:
Since "stall" to normal people means the engine stopped, the majority of the readers will just assume that homebuilt planes have to fly a little faster so their engines don't quit.

It's appears relevant to this story because his engine did stop.

Why aerodynamic stall speed has anything to do with this event is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
boom3 said:
Since "stall" to normal people means the engine stopped, the majority of the readers will just assume that homebuilt planes have to fly a little faster so their engines don't quit.

It's appears relevant to this story because his engine did stop.

Why aerodynamic stall speed has anything to do with this event is beyond me.
Click to expand...


Because the pilot was close to stall speed when he was about to land, if it was a certified plane he would have only been going 53 mph when he hit him in the head!:rolleyes:
 
What did the FAA say?

Has anyone read the FAA "Safety Warning?" The linked article is a product of the news media writing about something the FAA published. We have all witnessed what the media can do to an aviation story. I would like to read the original document before passing judgement.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
John Clark said:
Has anyone read the FAA "Safety Warning?" The linked article is a product of the news media writing about something the FAA published. We have all witnessed what the media can do to an aviation story. I would like to read the original document before passing judgement.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

Me too - I went to the usual Aviation web sources as soon as I saw this thread, and didn't see a link to any FAA announcement.
 
I don't think we want to point any fingers at the FAA. They are not the idiot who took out the jogger.
 
Jogging with music

Not a good Idea, Maybe he could have heard the air moving over the wings in time to duck and get out of the way LOL ...sorry I am sure that family is suffering a major loss.....but I had to say it


Rich
 
apkp777 said:
I don't think we want to point any fingers at the FAA. They are not the idiot who took out the jogger.
Click to expand...
That's a rather harsh statement. You try landing your RV with oil obscuring your forward visibility someday. I hope you make out as safely as this pilot did. That he was able to get the plane down without *more* damage to people and/or property is pretty amazing in itself.
 
Last edited:
Snowflake said:
That's a rather harsh statement. You try landing your RV with oil obscuring your forward visibility someday. I hope you make out as safely as this pilot did. That he was able to get the plane down without *more* damage to people and/or property is pretty amazing in itself.
Click to expand...

I hardly would consider that pilot a hero. Sorry, he should have put it in the drink, I suspect he wanted to save the plane. That's my opinion. I am sure the lancair pilot had his hands full, and if it's true, though I hadn't heard that before, that he had obscured fwd visibility, he did a good job landing the plane. Unfortunately, he failed to prevent the loss of life. He's not getting a pat on the back from me.

The FAA issued the warning, perhaps in response to this accident, but perhaps not. In general it is a big deal to have an aircraft that has a stall speed about what would be survivable in an off-airport landing.
 
Last edited:
Stall speed is one of the main reasons I dont have an SX-300. (there is of course $$$) The landing gear is an issue too, and then there is that little issue of no tolerance for ice, but basically, I am not interested in a S/E airplane with a stall speed in the 70kt range. Turbine or Piston.

As I see it the EVO Rocket is near the end of the S/E design limits for me... A turbo and go high, would be about the only way to speed it up....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
I wrote about this earlier today on my blog. Apparently it caught the attention of the AP from what i hear, though i don't know if it will do any good.

As for the continuing "the media ..." nonsense. I've also put on the blog at least 6 different examples of positive stories "the media" (it's an awfully big world out there) has provided since the last flare-up on VAF. Not one of the stories was posted on VAF. So, let's at least acknowledge our failing here, too -- we're entirely too selective in reaching these sweeping conclusions, citing only the evidence that reinforces our beliefs while ignoring the data that doesn't.

One of the interesting aspects of this, however, is that the EAA and AOPA's Air Safety Foundation were on opposite sides of the issue in the article. I've been a financial supporter of ASF for a number of years but I doubt I'll continue.
 
B25Flyer said:
Stall speed is one of the main reasons I dont have an SX-300. (there is of course $$$) The landing gear is an issue too, and then there is that little issue of no tolerance for ice, but basically, I am not interested in a S/E airplane with a stall speed in the 70kt range. Turbine or Piston.

As I see it the EVO Rocket is near the end of the S/E design limits for me... A turbo and go high, would be about the only way to speed it up....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Click to expand...

I agree, I chose the RV 9 partly because of the low stall speed (44mph). Makes for very survivable off-field landing. Not that the mid-50's of the other RV's is outside that range, but >61kts is really quick and I doubt you can expect much good from an unprepared landing strip.
 
As I mentioned in the piece I wrote, a plane doesn't have *A* stall speed. To me, THAT'S the primary gaffe the article made and it's the one that we often make, too.

An RV-9 may have a 44 knot stall speed, but only in one configuration and only in certain conditions. On a given day, it -- and any other airplane -- may have any number of stall speeds.

When I read about plane's stalling, it is very seldom in the configuration that most people cite when indicating their planes stall speed.

My guess is most people ONLY know the stall speed of their plane in level flight, full flaps, calm weather, in landing configuration, standard temperature, one passenger. That alone is a mistake we all have the power to change immediately.
 
The FAA's InFO was for >61kts not 61mph. Seems lots are confusing this. I have flown lots of planes with stall speeds higher and lower than 61kts. I don't see the defect with the plane. Seems that pilot error still most popular way to kill yourself. What makes the RV such an awesome aircraft is that we have an operating envelop that begins at relatively low speed. Yeah, I like to go fast too, but the low speed handling is key to survivability in off-field situations.
 
Bob Collins said:
As I mentioned in the piece I wrote, a plane doesn't have *A* stall speed. To me, THAT'S the primary gaffe the article made and it's the one that we often make, too.

An RV-9 may have a 44 knot stall speed, but only in one configuration and only in certain conditions. On a given day, it -- and any other airplane -- may have any number of stall speeds.

When I read about plane's stalling, it is very seldom in the configuration that most people cite when indicating their planes stall speed.

My guess is most people ONLY know the stall speed of their plane in level flight, full flaps, calm weather, in landing configuration, standard temperature, one passenger. That alone is a mistake we all have the power to change immediately.
Click to expand...

RV9 44MPH solo stall speed is the factory number. Of course flight testing of an individuals version of the RV9 or any other model will determine the stall speed of their aircraft. Still stall speed in more or less meaningless in most situations as recovery from the stall needs to be at the onset and not when fully developed. Still, the difference of 44-50mph stall speed and 70-80mph is really significant. Thus again the point of the FAA's InFO. For someone who may have learned to fly in an aircraft that stalls at 40kts then hops in a homebuilt that stalls at >61kts with perhaps minimal training and inadequate discovery of the flight characteristics of their aircraft can mean disaster.
 
apkp777 said:
I don't think we want to point any fingers at the FAA. They are not the idiot who took out the jogger.
Click to expand...
A pretty damning statement considering you don't know the full circumstances.

If it came to landing on a beach (that I may or may not be able to see clearly) or putting the airplane down in the water risking both my and my passengers life, I'm going the beach, and if there's a few people scattered about on it, I'll take my chances. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator and I don't pretend I'd not try to save myself (and the KRviatrix too)...And that's even assuming he knew the bloke was there and hit him. If he didn't, I think your comments are way out of line.

apkp777 said:
I hardly would consider that pilot a hero. Sorry, he should have put it in the drink, I suspect he wanted to save the plane. That's my opinion. I am sure the lancair pilot had his hands full, and if it's true, though I hadn't heard that before, that he had obscured fwd visibility, he did a good job landing the plane. Unfortunately, he failed to prevent the loss of life. He's not getting a pat on the back from me.
Click to expand...
So Captain Al Haynes and his crew shouldn't get a pat on the back because they killed 111 people when UAL232 lost the hydraulics? Or what about the crew of that 767 that ditched after running out of fuel enroute to Australia a few years ago?

If it came down to one life lost to save a likely two or more, I wouldn't hesitate, and neither should you. Unfortunately, it is simple mathematics in play, and something the doo-gooders need to realise too, although that is for another topic...
 
Bob Collins said:
I...

One of the interesting aspects of this, however, is that the EAA and AOPA's Air Safety Foundation were on opposite sides of the issue in the article. I've been a financial supporter of ASF for a number of years but I doubt I'll continue.
Click to expand...

I cut off all support for ASF over a year ago after the Scott Crossfield defaming by BL. His current article is another such character assassination of a pilot based on his assumed mental attitude of the person involved.

Bob Axsom
 
apkp777 said:
For someone who may have learned to fly in an aircraft that stalls at 40kts then hops in a homebuilt that stalls at >61kts with perhaps minimal training and inadequate discovery of the flight characteristics of their aircraft can mean disaster.
Click to expand...

That's really a great point and it centers precisely on where the problem is -- us. We have a responsibility to fly these airplanes properly by getting the proper transition training and knowing these airplanes intimately. Let's face it, every few weeks there's another story about a crash and we all know that in most cases, it's poor judgment of a pilot or a pilot that's gotten behind his/her airplane.

In my case, I've been thinking about whether I should make the first flight in my RV-7A. Friends have said, "Oh, you've GOT to experience the thrill of taking off in a plane you built for the first time."

And that may be true, but the proper response should be, "Do you think you're CAPABLE of making the first flight?"

We have met the enemy and he is...well, you know.
 
Not sure I understand what all the hoopla is about, the information in the report is based on fact and anyone interested in aviation safety could have put it together. Its all there in the NTSB reports.

The only question I have is the conclusion concerning stall speed, amateur built and accidents. (maybe that's what the hoopla is about) Lots of airplanes have a relatively high stall speed and have not killed as many people as this particular airplane. It could well be the accident rate is the result of inadequate pilot training and not a stall speed above 61 knots or that the airplane is amateur built.

Granted, some airplanes can not be landed off field with a margin of safety afforded an RV due to its relatively slow stall speed. But that is not the overwhelming factor with the Lancair. It usually comes to grief long before it hits the ground due to pilot decision making from the time it took off.

The beach landing was a fluke, a very unlucky day for the jogger. Same thing could have happened with a RV-9. Stall speed had nothing to do with it.
 
KRviator said:
A pretty damning statement considering you don't know the full circumstances.

If it came to landing on a beach (that I may or may not be able to see clearly) or putting the airplane down in the water risking both my and my passengers life, I'm going the beach, and if there's a few people scattered about on it, I'll take my chances. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator and I don't pretend I'd not try to save myself (and the KRviatrix too)...And that's even assuming he knew the bloke was there and hit him. If he didn't, I think your comments are way out of line.

So Captain Al Haynes and his crew shouldn't get a pat on the back because they killed 111 people when UAL232 lost the hydraulics? Or what about the crew of that 767 that ditched after running out of fuel enroute to Australia a few years ago?

If it came down to one life lost to save a likely two or more, I wouldn't hesitate, and neither should you. Unfortunately, it is simple mathematics in play, and something the doo-gooders need to realise too, although that is for another topic...
Click to expand...

I have had an engine failure and had to make a forced landing. The thought of my own death was very real and that of my passenger. I initially believed "this is the day I die" (that's the thought that went through my mind). But I also considered the lives of the people on the ground. My situation there wasn't anyone to worry about, so I focused on saving myself and passenger, my insurance would take care of the plane. I agree that the Lancair pilot had his hands full. The aircraft is very high performance and the power off glide speed probably around 85 mph or higher. I am sure he did his best, I am not calling him a murderer. But the flight ended in tragedy and the pilot failed to prevent loss of life. Maybe me calling him an idiot is a bit strong, not the first time I have spoke before thinking, still he had the option of landing in the surf, the cold waters in March, there would have been no one out there.

I think the FAA's response is appropriate. They have to do something. A safety warning gets them off the hook and we should be relieved that harsher steps weren't taken. I just received a forwarded email of the Fox news report from a friend with the FAA's action. My reply was, "it doesn't apply to my aircraft". And I am glad it doesn't.

I am completely satisfied with the Home built experimental regulations. It could be more strict and will be if we don't self-police.
 
mikegraycmg said:
The important thing is that the illusion of action has been created without doing anything, and a solution has been recommended to a problem that never actually occurred. Isn't that the function of government?
Click to expand...

My favorite quote to today. I'm stealing it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top