What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's article on Safety

panhandler1956

panhandler1956

Well Known Member
First I want to thank Doug for posting this article for those of us that don't use, or infrequently use, FACEBOOK. http://www.facebook.com/notes/vans-aircraft-inc/vans-safety-corner/211451808865199

I really appreciate Van's non-emotional and intellectual approach to this issue - I am always impressed by this guy!
I think he is spot on - if we don't fix this issue, someone (FAA / Insurance Industry) will be happy to fix it for us. [ed. One sentence about politics removed by dr. ]. I know of at least one situation where a fellow went out and killed himself in his RV and several folks know his airplane was marginal at best - but no one stepped in and had the adult conversation with him. I think we need to do a better job of policing ourselves.

I have not looked at the statistics so I can only guess where the accidents are occurring, but the likely suspects are:

1) substandard aircraft (as Vans says)
2) reckless careless flying (buzz job/low alt acro/stall spin)
3) pressing into weather
4) fuel starvation (which blows my mind and hopefully isn't in the stats anymore)
5) overall lack of experience or proficiency

I wonder if local groups of A-B (could be EAA chapters) did more as a group to promote safety if we could make a dent. Maybe appoint a 'safety director' in each group so someone is in charge of keeping it going. Since not everyone in an area is organized together, that would be the biggest challenge, getting the outlier's into the fold.

Using the ideas like:
1) safety stand-downs,
2) proficiency standards (not currency),
3) overall flight standards (you are proficient, but reckless)
4) aircraft standards
5) candid debriefs (like formation guys use)
6) mentors for new or less experienced guys
ad nauseum

Might be an opportunity for someone to go overboard (read overzealous 'Safety Director'), but I work in the industry and these are some of the techniques we use and they work.
 
Last edited:
In the Ag Aviation sector...

....we too, have worked hard to reduce/eliminate accidents and the usual yearly fatalities...7 last year, in the USA alone.

We have implemented the PAASS program...Professional Aerial Applicator Support System, to that end. We have experienced Ag pilot operators attend leadership/instructional schools and conduct all-morning sessions at our ag conventions, National and regional, with full participation by both operators and pilots.

I think that a similar program could be developed for A-B pilots and owners but I'm not sure how we'd implement the program.

Best,
 
panhandler1956 said:
I wonder if local groups of A-B (could be EAA chapters) did more as a group to prompt safety if we could make a dent. Maybe appoint a 'safety director' in each group so someone is in charge of keeping it going. Since not everyone in an area is organized together, that would be the biggest challenge, getting the outlier's into the fold.

Using the ideas like:
1) safety stand-downs,
2) proficiency standards (not currency),
3) overall flight standards (you are proficient, but reckless)
4) aircraft standards
5) candid debriefs (like formation guys use)
6) mentors for new or less experienced guys
ad nauseum

Might be an opportunity for someone to go overboard (read overzealous 'Safety Director'), but I work in the industry and these are some of the techniques we use and they work.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestions,

but.......

unfortunately the group that comprises the stats are often individuals who refuse to participate in level-headed activities for increased safety......
 
Last edited:
Individuals...

Sam Buchanan said:
Excellent suggestions,

but.......

unfortunately the group that comprises the stats are often individuals who refuse to participate in level-headed activities for increased safety......
Click to expand...

So very true. I have been involved in what has morphed into the FAAST program for over 30 years. Interesting that in the beginning we were called Accident Prevention Counselors, a little more to the point I feel. The real issue is getting to the percentage of pilots that feel that they are above following procedures and paying attention to the law. Laws like simple physics, not only the FARs. I really don't know the answer to contacting and converting some of the "Mavericks", but if we don't, they could cause us to lose a wonderful hobby.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
For years I have wanted to establish an RV safety program. It could include many of the AOPA safety briefs to hopefully show people how dangerous some flight conditions may be.

Then you have to address the aircraft construction part of it.

There did not appear to be any interest in this so I just do my best to not do stupid things.
 
Not sure what "substandard aircraft" means. Would that be like an aircraft that is designed to be used only on paved runways but sold as being able to be used on grass, dirt and gravel runways? HMMM.

Pilot Proficiency. When I flew in the USAF we had, as a minimum, annual flight proficiency check-rides. These checks were done by highly qualified individuals. It was absolutely not uncommon for a pilot to fail a portion of the check-ride. Now how many times have you heard of a civilian/general aviation pilot failing a biannual check-ride? If they are breathing and spell the instructor's name correctly on the check, the odds are they will be passed. Is it because they are better than the Air Force pilots or because the expectations are lower?

IMHO, if you want safer general aviation pilots expect more out of them. Pilots should be professional in both attitude and actions. I honestly do not see that in at least 20% of todays general aviation pilots.

My two cents worth.
 
Safety

Ron Lee said:
For years I have wanted to establish an RV safety program. It could include many of the AOPA safety briefs to hopefully show people how dangerous some flight conditions may be.

Then you have to address the aircraft construction part of it.

There did not appear to be any interest in this so I just do my best to not do stupid things.
Click to expand...

A noble goal, but the real problem is getting the ones that really need it to listen and change their ways. These things always turn into "preaching to the choir." I have been to number of safety meeting where anyone in attendance could have presented the material.

The airlines and the military have a huge advantage in the safety education and it is reflected in the statistics. If you repeatedly display a reckless attitude in initial training or during probation, you get fired. Simple. In the military, you might not get fired, but doing stupid things is never a career enhancing move. In the amateur/homebuilt/recreational end of flying it frequently comes down to something worthy of a Darwin Award to put an end to bad behavior.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Do we have stats on the number of RV accidents which occur with pilots who have just learned to fly their RV (under 100 hours maybe)? If the numbers are so bad and the FAA wants to help fix it why are they so reluctant to allow more CFI's to provide transition training? Talk about "low hanging fruit". They need to cut through the red tape and get the LODA's re-approved. I for one would jump at the chance to help train folks to fly more safely. I've been thinking of a way to install brakes in the rear cockpit of my -8 so I can do some instructing.
 
Actually we need more analysis

The article does a good job about addressing the differences in the metrics, but it does not go far enough in the analysis of why EABs have the record they do. The next step is to look for common factors for both the airplane and the pilots involved. The raw data is all public record, so independent analysis could be done.
 
Type training

The Lancair folks have a program that I am aware of, but dont know a lot of details-------best I can remember is it is tied to lowering insurance for those who participate.

I wonder is this is something we can emulate???
 
Mike S said:
The Lancair folks have a program that I am aware of, but dont know a lot of details-------best I can remember is it is tied to lowering insurance for those who participate.
Click to expand...

Exactly Mike. That is what I considered. If you could get lower insurance rates, maybe you get the people who really benefit from it. As great as I am now, when I first got my RV I really could have used such a program.

It spans the gamut from weather of all sorts, mountain flying, talking to ATC, flight planning resources, maintenance and possibly even construction standards that are not obvious to all of us.

The real benefit is far fewer fatalities. More husbands, fathers, sons alive to see their families. Not dissing the women pilots. I suspect that they are not the problem.
 
Last edited:
RV8R999 said:
If the FAA wants to help fix it why are they so reluctant to allow more CFI's to provide transition training
Click to expand...

I posted nearly the same comment on Van's FB page. I am currently seeking transition training with less than satisfactory success. Currently I am looking at traveling about 1000 miles. I'll do it because I believe it the need for training but I can see how spending a week of a persons limited vacation (assuming not yet retired) and $2000 or more in expense can nudge some to think they could "get by on their own". It could easily keep some from getting remedial or advanced RV training.

A quick search shows at least 40 registered members of VAF are CFIs. I'm guessing many do not publicly offer transition training because of rules, regulations, and insurance risk/cost. But as I said, that only a "guess". I'm not a CFI.
 
Last edited:
Sunriver Ken said:
Not sure what "substandard aircraft" means. Would that be like an aircraft that is designed to be used only on paved runways but sold as being able to be used on grass, dirt and gravel runways? ......
Click to expand...

interesting comment from someone with overweight 9A, with a larger, heavier more powerful engine than recommended by the Vans engineers.


Concerning transition training and insurance premium. Flying with Mike Seager saved me ~$400 the first year. But the bonus is the excellent training in RV flying I received.
 
It is a good read but still interesting they specifically call out the need for qualified instructors yet their own rules prevent those instructors from doing what they want them to do.
 
Van is missing the point

I just got around to reading the article this afternoon and I can't help but think Van is completely missing the point. It's a noble cause and I can understand why he wants to keep the Feds as far away from his business as possible.

But what Van is missing is that the transition training is NOT the source of a potential 1000% improvement. The source is the pilot. The source is the pilot who was willing to be trained. The training is simply a reflection of a pilots conservative nature. A pilot that is willing to spend the time and money on training is a pilot who is concerned enough with safety to make that investment.

The training is nice, but that's not the real source of safety. The safety concious pilots who are willing to go through transition training make the statistics look more in favor of training than they should.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get transition training - everyone should. But the 1000% increase is reflective of an already safety-conscious and generally conservative group of pilots. And those pilots are the lowest risk to begin with.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Phil said:
I just got around to reading the article this afternoon and I can't help but think Van is completely missing the point. It's a noble cause and I can understand why he wants to keep the Feds as far away from his business as possible.

But what Van is missing is that the transition training is NOT the source of a potential 1000% improvement. The source is the pilot. The source is the pilot who was willing to be trained. The training is simply a reflection of a pilots conservative nature. A pilot that is willing to spend the time and money on training is a pilot who is concerned enough with safety to make that investment.

The training is nice, but that's not the real source of safety. The safety concious pilots who are willing to go through transition training make the statistics look more in favor of training than they should.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get transition training - everyone should. But the 1000% increase is reflective of an already safety-conscious and generally conservative group of pilots. And those pilots are the lowest risk to begin with.

Phil
Click to expand...

Agreed.

In simplified terms, you can't fix stupid.
 
Yes, however, many factors besides being stupid create an environment in which well meaning, mature pilots make bad judgements - such as choosing not to pursue transition training. The fact is since most of us are human we all do stupid things from time to time and have lapses in judgment. We are all really good at rationalizing ourselves into stupid decisions. Creating easy, affordable access to transition training will never change the attitude of the overly cocky, stubborn pilot who thinks he/she knows it all, it might however, help those who normally make great decisions but are on the fence because of all the expense and difficulty in finding the right training.

I don't think a valid argument can be made that access to more training is going to hurt the situation. It certainly won't solve the whole problem but it could make a solid dent.

I'll tell you one thing - the training piece is our best option to preclude draconian FAA limitations if these trends do not reverse themselves.

What is the first thing we do when we have a big problem in the Navy no matter what it is? MORE TRAINING - it makes the bad man go away :)
 
Last edited:
Sunriver Ken said:
Now how many times have you heard of a civilian/general aviation pilot failing a biannual check-ride? If they are breathing and spell the instructor's name correctly on the check, the odds are they will be passed. general aviation pilots expect more out of them.
Click to expand...

That's because we don't have biannual check-rides. If you are talking about the "flight review", no one can fail it because it is NOT a check-ride. It is simply a review. It does happen that people don't pass it. Then they must go back after a certain amount of dual instruction. But you can't "fail" it.
 
RV8R999 said:
What is the first thing we do when we have a big problem in the Navy no matter what it is? MORE TRAINING - it makes the bad man go away :)
Click to expand...

I was just going to point this out. You should know more than anyone, knee jerk reaction? Safety stand around and mando training!!!

If you'll excuse me, I have to go to suicide awareness again... makes me want to kill myself. Then the mandatory DADT sensitivity awareness.
 
RV8R999 said:
It is a good read but still interesting they specifically call out the need for qualified instructors yet their own rules prevent those instructors from doing what they want them to do.
Click to expand...

I got my LODA a few months ago. I believe now that guidance has been issued to FSDO's, the LODA is not that difficult to get. However, as we all know, each FSDO has it's own "personality".:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
political stuff deleted by dr

from the first post also...... just letting folks know I was the one that did it. dr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I found myself on the wrong side of the knee jerk lately but its all good :)

Glad to learn the LODA process is finally working again. I need to figure out rear cockpit brakes first..Hmmmm???
 
RV8R999 said:
If the FAA wants to help fix it why are they so reluctant to allow more CFI's to provide transition training.
Click to expand...
What's to stop a CFI from training people anyway? If the FAA says that if you don't fix it yourself, they'll fix it for you, then why not take matters into your own hands and just start providing training? There seems to be some statistics that support the premise that it reduces the accident rate. Are you really going to get violated for improving safety?
 
LODA

Snowflake said:
What's to stop a CFI from training people anyway? If the FAA says that if you don't fix it yourself, they'll fix it for you, then why not take matters into your own hands and just start providing training? There seems to be some statistics that support the premise that it reduces the accident rate. Are you really going to get violated for improving safety?
Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping a CFI from giving instruction in an experimental. The catch was about a student paying to use the instructor's airplane for the training. The FAA rules are very clear about no flying for "compensation or hire" in an experimental. The work-around for training is called a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority). The FAA stopped issuing LODAs for a while, causing a lot of heartburn. As mentioned in other posts, the process is again in place.

In answer to your question, yes, one could get violated for charging for the use of an airplane for training without a LODA in place. I doubt that the "I was improving safety" argument would impress the inspector.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Ah, okay... So there was a process in place, it just got derailed along the way for some reason. Still... To be told "you fix it or we will" without being granted any leeway to actually *do* anything seems quite disingenuous. I found transition training to be quite helpful... Despite having a number of "casual" flights under my belt in RV's before I started, I was a lot safer once I finished.
 
Good stuff

Lots of good discussion.

The good news is - we are a big community, so we should be able to do something meaningful to help the situation.

The bad news is - we are a big community, so we are definately on the radar in a bad way with the current metrics.

I like how the formation guys have banded together to self-regulate, but they certainly have an easier problem to solve as you can't fly formation by yourself so it forces inclusion.

I agree with the article and posts regarding LODA as being something the FAA can do to help right away. It would certainly make things easier to manage if there was a widespread network of people to do this kind of a/c specific training. Then you could even do recurrent training if we could get the insurance guys to help create incentive.
I assume alot of folks don't (or won't) transition train due to the time and costs to travel to some far away destination. I'm included in that group - case in point.

Question: Do the EAA Tech Counselors and Flight Advisors get much traffic? It would be interesting to know if this resource is underutilized -I would guess it is.
 
panhandler1956 said:
Question: Do the EAA Tech Counselors and Flight Advisors get much traffic? It would be interesting to know if this resource is underutilized -I would guess it is.
Click to expand...

I can only use myself as an example - I do about half a dozen Tech Counselor visits in the Houston area a year - I know there are many more projects than that, but there are also a pretty good number of Tech Counselors.

I get very few calls for Flight Advisor inputs. I have a (somewhat humorous) theory that after a builder has spent the last few months at the airport finishing his project, he is so tired of hearing "this, that, and the other thing" from all the pilots that stop by to pontificate that they don't want to hear anything else. To be a little more serious, I actually DO believe that many folks get "local" advice (qualified or not), and feel that they have what they need. Pilot's frequently populate the "Type A" end of the chart, and it is hard for many to admit that they might want advice or help. It's very hard to fix that, except to say that most of the good/successful Test Pilots I know are very mild-mannered, reflective souls who listen a lot and ask lots of questions. They know that there is always more to learn.

Personally, most of my Tech Counselor and Flight Advisor work goes in to contributions I make to web discussions, magazine columns, and a LOT of PM's I get here on VAF. One only has so much time to contribute. I advocate that people put some thought in to what they are doing, keep themselves open for differing opinions, and realize that there is always more to learn. None of us know it all!

Paul
 
I just read through these posts and there has been a recurring theme here and in other threads about the "non safety concious" (reckless) pilots being the pirmary source of the problem with the AB safety record.

To accept this notion would be to suggest that there are significantly more reckless pilots flying AB aircraft as compared to Manufacturer Built (MB) aircraft, or that AB aircraft are more apt to bite the reckless pilot. This notion may or may not be true, but needs to factor into our thinking about the real reasons for the abominable safety record of AB aircraft.

As was previously stated, we need more analysis on the cause of the AB accidents as compared to the MB accidents. Do AB aircraft have the same type of accidents as MB aircraft, only more of them? Or are there categories where where AB aircraft have a higher percentage of accidents? It is clear there is something specific about AB aircraft and their pilots, as compared to MB aircraft and their pilots, that is causing this huge variation in the the fatal accident frequency. The data should point us to what that is.

I have read threads where it has been suggested the NTSB does not do a thorough job of investigating AB aircraft accidents. IF this is true then we may be missing some critical data points. Additional focus by the NTSB on AB accidents may yield some currently unknown information that will help us all to fly more safely.

My $.02
 
Freedom is precious

Flying for the first 500 hours is like the first couple of years of driving a car. The majority make it through the process but most make mistakes that they learn by. I got transition training from Mike Seager and it was a special and valuable experience. I do not think the same would be true of every CFI that meets the minimum requirements to get that rating. I personally do not want someone adding more controls and restrictions on my freedom to fly because the FAA or Van or anybody else thinks the sky is falling. Yes I remember the Los Angeles mid-air between the Archer and the Mexican airliner that caused the BFR we have today - I hate it. Each pilot is faced with unique risks and if they do not recognize them or handle them wrong bad things happen.

Most pilots of ABE airplanes are not aware of the cause of the ABE airplane accidents. The reports we see are saturated with Cessna and piper and Beechcraft and Cirrus accidents that do have absolutely conforming to drawings aircraft verified by a system of inspections, analysis, demonstrations and test. There is absolutely no control of the builders and some go into the projects with the idea that it is a simple "put tab A in slot B until done" process. All EAB designs whether they are one of a kind or kits should be reviewed an approved by the FAA or DER before the first prototype is flown. All modifications should be likewise reviewed and approved. There should be mandatory training and certification of builders by the kit manufacturers in addition to the existing end of the line inspection and certification and the manufacturer should be required to test fly the completed aircraft with the builder in the airplane and certify the pilot as competent in that particular airplane and familiar with all systems and limitations of that specific and unique airplane. All unique systems not controlled by the kit manufacturer should be signed off by the manufacturer and the certs should be accounted for and reviewed by the DAR or FAA inspector at the time of the Airworthiness certification. Many of these unique aircraft are sold to users like John Denver who do not know what is in them. The individual decisions are not fully understood by them in the beginning even to their satisfaction and we builders know others will never know exactly what we have done and what we have compromised by our build decisions.

We all have different flying styles and interests and missions - I personally couldn't care less if all flying was restricted to single airplane operations with no aerobatics or formation flying, always on airways controlled by instrument flight rules, every airport had a control tower and no private strips were allowed. I suspect that many CFIs and other religiously "safety first" pilots would start to waffle over such restrictions but feel fully justified to impose their own set of standards and limits on others. Just as an aside I don't think the "video game" flying is necessarily a good thing either.

If you are going to get serious about this you have to give up the double standard and flight freedoms. In my very humble opinion it is not worth it.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Bob Axsom said:
If you are going to get serious about this you have to give up the double standard and flight freedoms. In my very humble opinion it is not worth it.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

Bob,
I have to agree with ya. I would say that maybe an incremental approach would move the dial enough to keep 'the man' at bay and not sacrifice our freedoms.

Also, as Paul and others have alluded to, this website probably does more for safety in our little world than anthing else. Reading about what to do and not to do and where others have fallen is a huge education. Maybe required daily reading will get me an insurance break? ;) - thanks Doug!
 
Sig600 said:
In simplified terms, you can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. It's a shame that these high accident rates are being credited to A-B group and not just GA. A stupid pilot is a stupid pilot no matter what they fly. Unfortunately, they were flying a A-B when their brain clicked off. It could have easily been a spam can or other certified aircraft on a different day.

If the statistics show that a large portion of the accidents where mechanical or structural, than I could see that more design, inspection, training, etc, for both manufacture and builder may be necessary.:mad:

I certainly agree/support transition training if done properly, and not just so you can check another box before you fly. For example, I know of an individual who has a 9A and went for his transition training. Unfortunately, Van's only has a 6A. After several hours of training and getting yelled at for trying to fly a 9A profile instead of the 6A, he was sent home without a logbook endorsement , but had the hours logged in his log book which was enough for the Insurance company. Yes, I agree he should have listened and demonstrate he could fly the 6A profile, but in his mind he went for 9A training and wanted to experience that approach. It didn't get him to the point where he could experience what a 9A profile felt like. So, his first flight had several mis-approaches as he tried to fly the 6A landing profile which doesn't work very well for the 9A. :eek:

I have @550 hrs total time. All except 60 in low wing aircraft with @350 in my Mooney. I WANT 9A transition training!! I'm not looking forward to spending $2,000 to fly the same profile in a 6A as I do in my Mooney.
But, I'll pay my $2,000 toll, get a 6A checkout, and somehow apply that to my first flight in my 9A. I just wish that Van's would make their 9A available for training.

Just my rant + 2cents worth.
 
Mirror

(Note: though I make observations on previous post themes, my comments are not specific to anyone)

As I read these responses, I can't help but reflect on how many of them perceive the cause of accidents (reckless pilots, bad design, bad building, bad training, etc.). Many of the posts, if not explicitly saying it, come across with the feeling that it "is all those other guys... not me."

There is psychological concept called illusory superiority. A wikipedia cut and paste illustrates the idea...

"Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%.

McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions relating to driving skill (examples include the "dangerous-safe" dimension and the "considerate-inconsiderate" dimension. Only a small minority rated themselves as below average (the midpoint of the dimension scale) at any point, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being above the average driver."

I think we suffer from this in aviation. All the blaming on stuff that doesn't apply to "me" is not only ignorant, it keeps "me" from doing what I need to do to be safer.

I think if we were all to look in the mirror and seriously identify the safety issues with what we saw, it would be a good thing.
 
Let me get this straight

Are you saying that if we convince ourselves that we are not as good as we think we are that will do something to improve the safety record of EAB with respect to pilots who only fly production aircraft? I don't think you are right in that view.

Bob Axsom

java said:
(Note: though I make observations on previous post themes, my comments are not specific to anyone)

As I read these responses, I can't help but reflect on how many of them perceive the cause of accidents (reckless pilots, bad design, bad building, bad training, etc.). Many of the posts, if not explicitly saying it, come across with the feeling that it "is all those other guys... not me."

There is psychological concept called illusory superiority. A wikipedia cut and paste illustrates the idea...

"Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%.

McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions relating to driving skill (examples include the "dangerous-safe" dimension and the "considerate-inconsiderate" dimension. Only a small minority rated themselves as below average (the midpoint of the dimension scale) at any point, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being above the average driver."

I think we suffer from this in aviation. All the blaming on stuff that doesn't apply to "me" is not only ignorant, it keeps "me" from doing what I need to do to be safer.

I think if we were all to look in the mirror and seriously identify the safety issues with what we saw, it would be a good thing.
Click to expand...
 
java said:
Many of the posts, if not explicitly saying it, come across with the feeling that it "is all those other guys... not me."
Click to expand...

You are correct. No point wasting efforts on those of us who are not the problem.
 
Bob Axsom wrote:
All EAB designs whether they are one of a kind or kits should be reviewed an approved by the FAA or DER before the first prototype is flown. All modifications should be likewise reviewed and approved. There should be mandatory training and certification of builders by the kit manufacturers in addition to the existing end of the line inspection and certification and the manufacturer should be required to test fly the completed aircraft with the builder in the airplane and certify the pilot as competent in that particular airplane and familiar with all systems and limitations of that specific and unique airplane. All unique systems not controlled by the kit manufacturer should be signed off by the manufacturer and the certs should be accounted for and reviewed by the DAR or FAA inspector at the time of the Airworthiness certification.

Bob, that pretty much sounds like a certified airplane to me. We should be very careful about what we "wish" for. What about mods (speed mods, for instance) done after the airplane is "certified" by the DAR/DER/FAA Inspector? Would they no longer be allowed? I am afraid costs would increase dramatically with these kinds of requirements. I also suspect these kinds of requirements would speed the end of EAB aircraft, as we know them.
 
Bob Axsom said:
Are you saying that if we convince ourselves that we are not as good as we think we are that will do something to improve the safety record of EAB with respect to pilots who only fly production aircraft? I don't think you are right in that view.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

My comments don't differentiate EAB vs. production aircraft, merely a view towards safety.

Also, I'm not saying we should "convince ourselves" as if it were a trick, or psychological manipulation that misrepresents reality. Just the opposite, really. I'm saying we should look at ourselves with steely eyes and apply some reality where perhaps we haven't been.

If you disbelieve the studies, or think that pilots are somehow psychologically less susceptible to thinking they are "better than others", such that the study can't be extrapolated to them, then disregard my observation and reference to the studies. What I do know, from an unarguable fact perspective, is that 93% of people cannot be above the median, regardless of how confident of their skills they are.
 
ok, so get the CFI's with current LODA's and lots of RV experience to give check rides to CFI's who do not yet have LODA's as a pre-requisite for providing transition training. In this way we police ourselves and ensure a level of standardization within the RV community - hopefully spawning similar programs for other groups. Would be hard for the FAA to argue we were not working to solve the problem.

To really know if this would have an effect we need to understand how many EAB accidents occur very early in the pilots experience with the particular plane in question. Having more CFIs will do little for the pilot with 1000 RV8 hours who decides today is his day to be the stupid one.

There are two distinct problems to solve: The first and most important is reducing the number of accidents. The second is showing the FAA we have a visible plan and are actively involved in solving the first problem necessary to preserve our flying/building privileges. To be blunt - the plan probably doesn't need to be terribly effective in solving the first problem in order to solve the second - provided it is active, public, and relevant.
 
Ron Lee said:
You are correct. No point wasting efforts on those of us who are not the problem.
Click to expand...

Uhmm. Not sure what to say Ron. This could either be a tongue in cheek comment indicating agreement, or a response indicating you took offense (if so, apologies for the offense).

Either way, good discussion. Thank you for it.
 
I am not offended Java. Just stating the fact that I am not the problem.

For Ken, we need to know the true problem areas. Then implement a reasonable program to try to reduce those problem areas. A program just to have one is pointless unless it is designed to fix something.

If it works then perhaps our insurance rates drop. Less aircraft are damaged. Fewer people die.
 
Aviation Safety is a huge field, encompassing many different topics and countless statistics. Many doubt that we know the causes of Ab accidents, and while we may not know them all, that doesn't mean we can't learn something by studying what we do know. The last six months or so of Kitplanes Magazine has featured a series of articles by Ron Wantaja on the accident records of various popular lines of kit aircraft. He does a good job of laying the data out in a fairly easy to read format, and is good food for thought. you see, it doesn't really make any difference if a particular percentage of accidents is caused by a certain thing - lets say lack of transition training - but the fact that accidents ARE attributed to it makes it one place that we can look (among others) for ways to make the record better.

The truth is, there is no single magic bullet that is going to lower the accident rate for our type of aviation. Right now, Van is focusing on transition training - in the future, it may be something else. We need to work on ALL the causes of accidents, a little at a time, to make things better - a little at a time. Safety is a process, not and end-point. We can't really truly be "safe" (unless we give up aviation altogether, something few would wish to do), but we can get "safer" with time if we choose to address those things that have gotten people in the past.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Ironflight said:
Aviation Safety is a huge field, encompassing many different topics and countless statistics. Many doubt that we know the causes of Ab accidents, and while we may not know them all, that doesn't mean we can't learn something by studying what we do know. The last six months or so of Kitplanes Magazine has featured a series of articles by Ron Wantaja on the accident records of various popular lines of kit aircraft. He does a good job of laying the data out in a fairly easy to read format, and is good food for thought. you see, it doesn't really make any difference if a particular percentage of accidents is caused by a certain thing - lets say lack of transition training - but the fact that accidents ARE attributed to it makes it one place that we can look (among others) for ways to make the record better.

The truth is, there is no single magic bullet that is going to lower the accident rate for our type of aviation. Right now, Van is focusing on transition training - in the future, it may be something else. We need to work on ALL the causes of accidents, a little at a time, to make things better - a little at a time. Safety is a process, not and end-point. We can't really truly be "safe" (unless we give up aviation altogether, something few would wish to do), but we can get "safer" with time if we choose to address those things that have gotten people in the past.

Paul
Click to expand...

Well stated, Paul.

It is no secret what will improve flight safety - STANDARDIZATION, it works - but getting people in this segment of aviation to sign on is about impossible. We are a little like the rebels driving around Libya in their Toyota pick ups. They do not wish to follow orders or be lead. They roar down the road shooting in the air and celebrating nothing.

All that being said, many here do try to fly safely and do subscribe to a certain level of standardization, like using a check list as a starter. It's just a few who hit the headlines and prompt these high level meetings to discuss flight safety of AB airplanes. And it is those few who will cause some changes that none of us will like if flight safety does not improve.

To that end, we must keep harping flight safety and as individuals do our best not to become a statistic.
 
Actually Ken I have worked for the government. I just do not believe in a placebo/fill the square safety program.

As Paul noted, our accident rate is due to many factors. One is running out of gas. I make sure that I won't fall into that category with a fuel flow system (aircraft equipage) and not stretching fuel legs (Human judgment).

VMC into IMC is another area. I avoid becoming that statistic mainly with judgment since I do not have XM weather on board. That does mean that I have had to divert or change flight plans on multiple trips. I do have a Trio autopilot so if somehow I did enter VMC my odds are improved.

If transition training can help, that should be easy to implement. If the FAA really wants us to improve our safety record. The FAA should have as its goal of having RV qualified transition training assets in over 75% of the US states by the end of 2011.

Modify the goal as required but just do it. Perhaps it is having such an asset with five hours driving time of 80% of the population by the end of the year.

At this point I can only do my best to make sure that I never end up in a NTSB report.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the FAA should also do a bit of introspection as well.

For example: the local FAA "inspector" comes out to do an "airworthiness inspection" of your aircraft, and all they look at is the paperwork?
 
What is 'safety' ? a lack of accidents?

Ron Lee said:
Actually Ken I have worked for the government. I just do not believe in a placebo/fill the square safety program.

As Paul noted, our accident rate is due to many factors. One is running out of gas. I make sure that I won't fall into that category with a fuel flow system (aircraft equipage) and not stretching fuel legs (Human judgment).

VMC into IMC is another area. I avoid becoming that statistic mainly with judgment since I do not have XM weather on board. That does mean that I have had to divert or change flight plans on multiple trips. I do have a Trio autopilot so if somehow I did enter VMC my odds are improved.

If transition training can help, that should be easy to implement. If the FAA really wants us to improve our safety record. The FAA should have as its goal of having RV qualified transition training assets in over 75% of the US states by the end of 2011.

Modify the goal as required but just do it. Perhaps it is having such an asset with five hours driving time of 80% of the population by the end of the year.

At this point I can only do my best to make sure that I never end up in a NTSB report.
Click to expand...


Ron makes 3+ excellent points.....that could be taken right from the stats.

1. fuel / engine management
2. weather / CFIT etc.
3. training ( piloting skill & currency)

my perspective is;
1. I can fly conservatively, and avoid most fuel related problems. I am NOT an A&P/AME, so I may not be as good at managing my engine, leading to a higher risk of failure. This is true of a good chunk of EAB pilots, so should we not include training here?

2. I am a chicken, and don't venture out in poor weather. Also NOT a meteorologist....This almost guarantees that one day, I'll be challenged in some mountain pass, and may come out on the losing side of a thunderstorm.
How do I learn more about weather? certainly not from a book; you have to FLY in it.

3. Training - there may not be a qualified CFI- RV check pilot in the less populated areas, but there are older CFI's...... if you dig, who have a wealth of knowledge to share. (Too bad most flying club meeting focus on the price of avgas and iPod connectivity problems!) Is the FAA really the one who is going to develop and manage a pool of type-specific check pilots? hmmmmm
.and.....currency; if you fly less than 50 hours a year, you're probably not very proficient. ( me - 10 hrs. - calling the kettle black!)

some food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Five Deadly Attitudes

Anti-Authority: "Don't tell me!" - When people have this attitude they may resent having someone tell them what to do or they think of rules and regs as silly or unneeded.

Impulsivity: "Do something quickly!" - This is what people do when they feel the need to do something, anything and now. Usually they do the first thing that pops into their mind.

Invulnerability: "It won't happen to me!" - Accidents happen only to other people. Thinking this may lead to taking more unnecessary risks.

Macho: "I can do it!" - These guys we all know. Trying to prove that they are better than anyone else and taking more risks. Both sexes are susceptible to this attitude.

Resignation: "What's the use?" - These people think that they do not make a great deal of difference in what happens to them. When things are going well they think: "Good luck". And when things are not so well, they seem to think that someone is out to get them.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top