Jump to content

Improving our image


Recommended Posts

I have been reading the sad tail of the Velocity crash in N. Las Vegas. All the information is not yet in but one thing that if for sure is there is an airport manager of that facility that does not want us to fly into his little airport. http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8887402

This greatly troubles me. We as a home built comunity must do better to improve the public image of us as pilots and the planes we fly. The news caster made it sound like you could build a velocity rg for $30,000 That is ridicules I wont be able to build a scratch built Cozy IV for that. The driveby media makes it sound like us builders are a bunch of backyard mechanics that throw these things together over night and havent even taken a flying lesson. I am not a pr. person but somehow we have got to improve our public image. When we kill ourselves and passengers in a open field it makes small news. When we fly our planes into the home of somebody sleeping and kill them it makes national news and they start talking about banning our hobby. (for some it is a Passion) I dont know what we should do but we have got to do something. STeve Build on

Steve Harmon

Lovin Life in Idaho

Cozy IV Plans #1466 N232CZ

http://websites.expercraft.com/bigsteve/

Working on Chapter 19,21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy sounds as though he doesn't participate in GA in anything other than a administrative capacity.

 

Don't allow training of pilots from this airport?

Is he prepared to take the bus for his next trip.

 

No student pilot solos? (and on.....and on.....)

 

These airports would be a lot safer if we just quit flying out of them. :rolleyes:

T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon:

 

Not to start another rant but I have decided to put my money on AOPA instead of EAA. I personally dont see EAA doing anything for experimentals or homebuilts but AOPA is actually doing something so I put my money there. STeve Build on

Steve Harmon

Lovin Life in Idaho

Cozy IV Plans #1466 N232CZ

http://websites.expercraft.com/bigsteve/

Working on Chapter 19,21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huzzah Steve. I agree with both of your posts. I have thought for a long while about the flakiness that the outside world/media/public puts on the word "EXPERIMENTAL".

It is annoying in that it makes those think that we are putting together these Rube Goldberg machines and then endangering others with them.

Of course, some of these machines are going to be very experimental due to their 'modifications'..so maybe they aren't far off with their position.:rolleyes:

Both AOPA and EAA have my pittance subscriptions. I really liked AOPA's battling of the user fee efforts this last year. Excellent work in banding the 400,000 members to DO the political letter writing and etc.

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also join both the EAA and AOPA as I have done and been an active memeber for years. In situations like this I believe the EAA has more clout.

In response to this particular Airport Director, he is over reacting to an unfortunate accident and now is shifting the blame away from himself politically. He wants to ban all training and essentially all single engine light aircraft. I'm suprised he isn't called for the banning of all MD-80 aircraft landing at his airports after the spanish crash.

 

The news people and this director do not have the full story of what happened or even the history of the plane or pilot. When that comes about then debate the changes that need to be done if any. General Aviation has a long history and one blow hard is not going to bring it down.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this aviation director is keeping his future political options open. Also some of these regional airports have tried to squeeze out all but the exectutive jet and turboprop business, catering to the money.

I'd like to know how many of the quoted 60 plus incursions were made by experimental aircraft? He paints a broad canvas and recalls all sorts of potential doom and gloom then only mentions experimental aircraft.

...Chrissi

CG Products

www.CozyGirrrl.com

Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this aviation director is keeping his future political options open. Also some of these regional airports have tried to squeeze out all but the exectutive jet and turboprop business, catering to the money.

I'd like to know how many of the quoted 60 plus incursions were made by experimental aircraft? He paints a broad canvas and recalls all sorts of potential doom and gloom then only mentions experimental aircraft.

...Chrissi

he did slightly mention training aircraft. but he did say that that experimentals were very high risk because it was logical that they would be, he had no stats to back this up. why when I read the accident reports there are always at least 5 to one certified to experimental accidents. if we are 15% of the accidents then who is causing the other 85%. the other stat we don't see is number of accidents by builders vs. buyers of experimentals. The more money then brains owners are not good for our hobby. the other one is the guy that knows that his aircraft type is not the best designed aircraft with a high accident rate and still he has to have one. we have a guy at chino that has bought three Q2s in the last 3 years and crashed all three on take off. he is a retired airline pilot with money to burn and his comment was that he is lucky that he was flying a Q2 because it was one of the safest aircraft ever designed and that is why he survived the crashes. being an airline pilot you would think he would know that you are suppose to fly them not crash them. he's is currently looking for his forth. if he keeps this up he will remove all the Q2s from the world. and the world will be a safer place indeed.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this aviation director is keeping his future political options open. Also some of these regional airports have tried to squeeze out all but the exectutive jet and turboprop business, catering to the money.

I'd like to know how many of the quoted 60 plus incursions were made by experimental aircraft? He paints a broad canvas and recalls all sorts of potential doom and gloom then only mentions experimental aircraft.

...Chrissi

wait until there is an LSA accident and the media gets a hold of the drivers license only thing with only 7 hours of pilot training in a newly build LSA. still don't agree with the LSA thing. you need a medical to fly a plane but if you fly this type plane you don't. are they not both planes that could crash into a house and cause a fire and kill people on the ground.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that no one ever thinks to have people not build homes near airport approach and departure corridors... It's always the pilot's fault he hits a house. Landing and Take-off are the most critical phases of flight, don't live in an area where these phases occur unless you know and accept the risks... Enough bantering on my part, that's only partially the issue. The aircraft still crashed, the question is why? I read the story but it didn't sound like there was any conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened. Since nothing can be ruled out, all of this is pure speculation on anyone's part, does anyone have more facts they can share?

 

As for the director, he doesn't have much of a point, like I think most would agree. How many times does an experimental aircraft make the news when it crashes? This one I think only made it because it dropped into someone's house. I seem to recall a number of airline accidents in my brief history on this rock that have landed far larger chunks of aircraft in people's houses, yards, and cities. I agree with Cozy Girrl that this guy is really using this as a political game chip, and the media, who is always SO well informed, can't get enough of it. It does bug me that they seem to rationalize all builders into a category, especially when the whole category is so broad. We build everything from ultra-lights to high speed jets, some are more safe than others, and other builders are more qualified than others....

 

People who buy and did not build aren't necessarily the problem either. If it was mechanical failure, then it's ultimately potentially a builder issue. Could be maintenance as well, BOTH of which could affect regular factory built aircraft.

 

Modifiers aren't necessarily the problem either. There have been cases where it's caused problems and loss of life (John Denver from what i gather is the most famous case) but there are plenty of modified aircraft out there that will not fall out of the sky. The key is judicious thought, and thoughtful consideration of a modification within a peer group and experts. There is always risk in making a change, but calculated ones can be safe, and often are.

 

As far as improving image goes, I would start with qaulifications. Maybe builders should be qualified to begin a build by the FAA? Demonstrate building prowress, or more during build safety inspections? This way, stuff found early on in the build could be corrected before it is burried. Another avenue, is pilot training. Maybe more rigor needs to go into transitionary training. Enhanced safety courses. Maybe if the design has been built by enough people, maybe they could get it certified, and then they wouldn't have to call it experimental? This would bring a whole host of issues I don't want to get into in my post, but feel free to expand on it.

 

Most of what I said above has to do with an assumption that mechanical failure is the primary cause of accidents, which I think is initial public perception/reaction. I think that because people are no longer used to having to make stuff on their own that the general public is losing confidence in non-factory built aircraft.

 

But they also don't know how prohibitive the costs of factory built aircraft makes this sport. A new Cessna is $225,000, and you can home-build for a fraction of the cost and get a better performing plane....

 

If safety is their number one, why not get a couple of homebuilts and push them to the breaking point? Why not prove the structural integrity of even a shoddily built one? If we are to improve public image, we need to put our foot down and show them it takes just as much if not more weight to destroy our aircraft, even if it's not built well... Or is some-one afraid it won't pass? I think it would, at least the canards I've seen here :). Are new designs put through their structural paces by their designers? In my mind, the designer can only really affect how the airframe handles against structural loads, and ensures that under their assumptions (I.e. strictly built to specs/plans) that the aircraft is balanceable, and handles well in the air. If there are no designer lead standards for testing airframe integrity then there's no way to know or compare. Maybe part of the answer would be to have an abbreviated certification program for the airframe or something....

 

 

Alright, enough rambling from me, hope some of it made sense. Look forward to the continued discussion, this is definitely an important topic!

 

-Chris Z.

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

 

For those of you not on the COZY mailing list or the canard-aviators mailing list, here's a copy of a posting there.

 

I've written letters to the following:

 

Editor - Las Vegas Sun letters@lasvegassun.com

 

Editor - Las Vegas Review Journal letters@reviewjournal.com

 

Amanda Hernandez - Channel 8 (KLAS) Reporter ahernandez@klastv.com

 

David Lerner - President of the Clark County Aviation Association

http://www.ccaanv.org/ccaa-officers.php dmlpilot@mac.com

 

Cecil Johnson - Assistant Director of General Aviation, NLV Airport

http://www.vgt.aero/06-ContactUs.asp cecilj@mccarran.com

 

And last but not least, Randy Walker - Director of Aviation

http://www.mccarran.com/04_02_Contact.asp Director@mccarran.com

 

regarding Mr. Walker's comments following last week's tragic Velocity accident at North Las Vegas airport. Although I had to trim the letter to the Sun to get close to their 250 work limit, here's what I sent to each of these folks - the more letters they get in this light, positive yet firm - the more likely they are to have some effect.

 

 

 

Dear XXX:

 

I am writing in response to Director of Clark County Aviation Randy Walker's comments regarding Experimental Aircraft usage of North Las Vegas Airport after last week's tragic fatal accident.

 

My name is Marc J. Zeitlin, and I am a private pilot with almost 1000 hours of flight time in both certificated and experimental aircraft. I am a Mechanical Engineer, and am currently principal engineer for Rocket Motor Development at Scaled Composites in Mojave, CA. I have flown into both McCarran and North Las Vegas Airport numerous times in my experimental aircraft, and have found them both to be friendly, helpful, and safe, both in the air and on the ground.

 

While I understand Mr. Walker's desire to increase the safety level at NLV Airport (and all pilots share his desire to increase safety levels), his suggestion that experimental aircraft be banned from urban airports is an inappropriate response to this tragedy.

 

A short review of accident data publicly available at the NTSB's aviation accident database:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

 

at North Las Vegas Airport from 1982 through the present shows 37 accidents in the 26 year period. Out of those 37 accidents, eight of them were fatal, with a total of 18 fatalities. Experimental aircraft accounted for exactly three out of the 37 accidents - 8% of the total. This accident, involving the experimental Velocity aircraft, was the first fatal accident involving experimental aircraft at NLV airport since 1982 - that's 12.5% of the fatal accidents, and 17% of the fatalities.

 

Cessna aircraft of all types accounted for nineteen of the accidents, or 51%, and Beech aircraft accounted for two of the fatal accidents (25%), and seven of the 18 fatalities, or 39%.

 

It would seem that if Mr. Walker has a desire to ban aircraft that are the most dangerous and cause the most fatalities, banning Cessna and Beech aircraft would provide the best opportunity. Banning experimental aircraft, however fresh this accident is in Mr. Walker's mind, would provide little if any increase in safety level either for flyers or the residents near NLV Airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have a guy at chino that has bought three Q2s in the last 3 years and crashed all three on take off. he is a retired airline pilot with money to burn and his comment was that he is lucky that he was flying a Q2 because it was one of the safest aircraft ever designed and that is why he survived the crashes. being an airline pilot you would think he would know that you are suppose to fly them not crash them. he's is currently looking for his forth. if he keeps this up he will remove all the Q2s from the world. and the world will be a safer place indeed.

.......... sounds like Larry S. :rolleyes:

He's famous!:ROTFLMAO:

T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it didn't sound like there was any conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened.
And there most probably never will be - the NTSB does not do thorough investigations of experimentall aircraft crashes, so unless something obvious jumps out and grabs them by the throat, they'll attribute it to something nebulous. See:

 

http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Accident_Eval/index.html

 

for an investigation done by canard folks, and compare it to the NTSB version.

 

As far as improving image goes, I would start with qaulifications. Maybe builders should be qualified to begin a build by the FAA?
Oh my god, no. By whom would they be "qualified"? In who's hands would you like to put the freedom to build your own aircraft, no matter how crappy? This is the LAST thing we want.

 

Demonstrate building prowress, or more during build safety inspections?
The FAA used to inspect projects 1/2 way through the build. Since they weren't qualified to do so, they stopped, since it had no safety effect. The only inspection from the FAA/DAR is at completion. The EAA, on the other hand, has Technical Advisors (of which I am one) that will, for free, inspect your project as many times as you like during the build and provide advice.

 

Maybe if the design has been built by enough people, maybe they could get it certified, and then they wouldn't have to call it experimental?
There are NO experimental aircraft that could be certificated under Part 23 of the FAR's, no matter how many have been built, and I include ALL Rutan Derivative Canard Composites, including my COZY MKIV, in that statement. Not one. The certification process (and the design process necessary to pass it) is long and onerous, and contributes to the cost differential that you mention. There's a reason they cost more.

 

If safety is their number one, why not get a couple of homebuilts and push them to the breaking point? Why not prove the structural integrity of even a shoddily built one?
Is your last name Trump, or Buffett? I've got $75K in my plane - it would take me 2 years and $25K to build an airframe to destroy - why, exactly, would I want to do this? No properly built VE/LE/COZY has every had a structural failure - see my OSH fora for more details:

 

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/

 

If we are to improve public image, we need to put our foot down and show them it takes just as much if not more weight to destroy our aircraft, even if it's not built well...
Weight? Put our foot down? What the heck does that mean?

 

System failures are the largest component of non-pilot caused accidents, not structural failures. Fuel and engine systems, in particular.

 

Or is some-one afraid it won't pass?
Pass what? Many homebuilt aircraft have marginal systems safety levels. That's a fact.

 

I think it would, at least the canards I've seen here :).
You haven't seen any canards here - all you've done is talk to builders and flyers electronically. Having seen hundreds of homebuilt aircraft at fly-ins all over the country, I can tell you that whatever test you think these aircraft would "pass", many wouldn't.

 

Are new designs put through their structural paces by their designers?
Not for the most part. It's expensive and difficult to do full structural testing - far easier to overdesign and live with the weight increase. As I stated, there has NEVER been a structural failure of a correctly built Rutan Derivative canard composite aircraft. System failures - yes - left and right - but not structural.

 

In my mind, the designer can only really affect how the airframe handles against structural loads, and ensures that under their assumptions (I.e. strictly built to specs/plans) that the aircraft is balanceable, and handles well in the air.
Balanceable? What does that mean?

 

If there are no designer lead standards for testing airframe integrity then there's no way to know or compare.
Correct.

 

Maybe part of the answer would be to have an abbreviated certification program for the airframe or something....
Another "Oh god, no". What a great way to kill the experimental amateur built aircraft category altogether. There is no need, desire, or advantage to such a program - turning over any more oversight to the FAA would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Exp. Am-Built category.

 

You should join the COZY mailing list and read through the archives of the mailing list, as well as through the archives of this forum. There is not one subject that you've brought up since you joined that has not been addressed multiple times on the mailing list (and here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitor writes:

 

As far as improving image goes, I would start with qaulifications. Maybe builders should be qualified to begin a build by the FAA? Demonstrate building prowress, or more during build safety inspections

Dont even go there. I did not even think of any kind of government involvement when I originally started this thread. We need to change our image and that involves no governmental involvement you involve the government and you get $3,000 hammers.

I think Mark has something with writing letters and challenging perceptions with facts. Educating the media so that they know that craftsmen not "barnyard mechanics are building these things. We need to be responsible enough to know when and where to fly our planes. If we are still working out bugs with the motors We should not be taking off or landing over homes. When I flew my Longeze for the first time it was out of Corona. They had a brand new housing tract at the end of the runway. They let me take off there but I had to land at chino. The only reason they let me do this is because I had the plane all together and they changed the rule while I was preparing for the first flight. To my knowledge know one else can fly out of Corona until they have there test hours complete. I had heating problems so my flight was short but Chino was close. If I had it to do over again I would fly out of Chino for saftey sake. We have to live and learn I guess.

Any type of governmental control will cost us more and make it harder to contiune building and flying our own creations. Dont even go there. Steve Build on

Steve Harmon

Lovin Life in Idaho

Cozy IV Plans #1466 N232CZ

http://websites.expercraft.com/bigsteve/

Working on Chapter 19,21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there most probably never will be - the NTSB does not do thorough investigations of experimentall aircraft crashes, so unless something obvious jumps out and grabs them by the throat, they'll attribute it to something nebulous. See:

 

http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Accident_Eval/index.html

 

for an investigation done by canard folks, and compare it to the NTSB version.

 

The whole point of this thread is how can we improve our image. If we can't get the authorities to care and do more investigating, who is the public going to believe, us? If this is true, then more investigation oversight will be needed to ensure that they figure out what happened.... also, if they do a crappy job investigating how do you know for a fact that "most" crashes are not structural? I gathered that from when I read the NTSB reports from the Cozy's but if they aren't doing a thorough investigation then I don't see how those reports can be trusted. Either way, we're screwed from that avenue.

 

Oh my god, no. By whom would they be "qualified"? In who's hands would you like to put the freedom to build your own aircraft, no matter how crappy? This is the LAST thing we want.

 

Again, since this is an improve the image thread I would point out that allowing crappy aircraft to be built doesn't help. I agree with you from that POV of having the freedom for anyone to build, but at what expense to image? Perhaps nothing will come out of this story, afterall J Denver died years ago in a Long EZ and it didn't seem to change anything, then again I am a youngin and can only speak about my observations thus far :).

 

The FAA used to inspect projects 1/2 way through the build. Since they weren't qualified to do so, they stopped, since it had no safety effect. The only inspection from the FAA/DAR is at completion. The EAA, on the other hand, has Technical Advisors (of which I am one) that will, for free, inspect your project as many times as you like during the build and provide advice.

 

Did not know this previously, thank you for the information :). Still, who will the public listen to? The EAA or the FAA? It's a hard pill to swallow, but I think public opinion is more swayed by the FAA, not that they are more qualified as you say, but it's the truth as I see it.

 

There are NO experimental aircraft that could be certificated under Part 23 of the FAR's, no matter how many have been built, and I include ALL Rutan Derivative Canard Composites, including my COZY MKIV, in that statement. Not one. The certification process (and the design process necessary to pass it) is long and onerous, and contributes to the cost differential that you mention. There's a reason they cost more.

 

I design jet engines for a living, I am aware of the cost involved in doing this. It is a long road, but a certified aircraft has a better image of approval than the big experimental on the side of the airframe. I agree with you that it would be very costly, but it could improve the image of that particular aircraft model...

 

Is your last name Trump, or Buffett? I've got $75K in my plane - it would take me 2 years and $25K to build an airframe to destroy - why, exactly, would I want to do this? No properly built VE/LE/COZY has every had a structural failure - see my OSH fora for more details:

Again to your point, who investigated those accidents thoroughly enough to know they weren't structural? You said the NTSB doesn't, so how do we know for sure? Have you personally seen the wreckage of those aircraft or have the accident investigation background to know? You very well may, but the NTSB has the final official word on what happened. Like I said, they point to non-structural in all the reports I read, but you called into question their thoroughness...

 

Also, I am not suggesting that you go out and test a wing before you build another one! I am saying you test the prototype as a designer. People don't get killed as often in certified aircraft partly because they test rigorously. Thus, these aircraft have a better public image. They see the engineers and the rigs testing the structures.

 

System failures are the largest component of non-pilot caused accidents, not structural failures. Fuel and engine systems, in particular.

 

From the NTSB reports I've seen I would agree that whatever accidents appeared non-pilot error seem to revolve around this. If we assume they are correct, (see above responses on NTSB validity) then this definitely makes sense. Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on the systems safety and manufacture? Are any of the manufacturers held to rigorous standards? If not, it may not be a problem to us because they know if they have a shoddy product, it will be short lived, but the public won't see it that way....

 

 

Pass what? Many homebuilt aircraft have marginal systems safety levels. That's a fact. Having seen hundreds of homebuilt aircraft at fly-ins all over the country, I can tell you that whatever test you think these aircraft would "pass", many wouldn't.

 

I wouldn't go that far, but you basically gave the media a quote about how many home-builts wouldn't pass testing from a reputable source in the building community...

 

I have seen a number of home-builts including canards in their final stages of completion. Yes my experience is certainly limited compared to yours, but it doesn't make my point any less valid; testing puts people at ease, maybe we could come up with a way to prove home-built aircraft safe to the public without huge costs to any one person?

 

Not for the most part. It's expensive and difficult to do full structural testing - far easier to overdesign and live with the weight increase. As I stated, there has NEVER been a structural failure of a correctly built Rutan Derivative canard composite aircraft. System failures - yes - left and right - but not structural.

 

Doesn't this contradict what you were saying above about marginal safety factors? Over-design means, to me at least, better than marginal safety factors... System failures happening left and right seems like something we could do better about, and if it's the primary driver, maybe we as a community could tackle that issue. Any thoughts Marc on why that is, or anyone else? If it's not structural and it's systems, then maybe we can do something about it as a group :).

 

Balanceable? What does that mean?

Poor grammar on my part. I was referring to Weight and Balance.

 

Another "Oh god, no". What a great way to kill the experimental amateur built aircraft category altogether. There is no need, desire, or advantage to such a program - turning over any more oversight to the FAA would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Exp. Am-Built category.

 

This seems to be a bit over-the-top. I am suggesting a way to compromise and hopefully improve our image as a home-built community. Do you just not like testing, or is it the increased cost to the designers which will get passed on to us? I would hope it's the cost side... I DONT believe it would be disasterous, but it could come with un-wanted consequences, but it could also improve image. Initially what would likely happen though is the public would say "There! They got the regulation those rascal home-builders needed" and it would not be overly positive. However, over time as they saw the over-sight they could no longer directly blame us for accidents.

 

You should join the COZY mailing list and read through the archives of the mailing list, as well as through the archives of this forum. There is not one subject that you've brought up since you joined that has not been addressed multiple times on the mailing list (and here).

 

If you don't want to talk again about the subjects I bring up, don't post to them. I do the research if I have time, and maybe I want fresh perspective on it rather than some older posts from years ago. Sorry, but forums are for asking questions, and many people here are more than happy to find the post they made and post a fresh link... If people don't want me here they should say so, I'll find somewhere else to talk and annoy people with my questions and insights if that's how people feel.

 

Bottom line is I came to this forum looking for friends and colleagues in home-built aircraft. Most people are fine and answer questions as they see it, which is what I want, honesty and perspective which help to temper my own ambitions.

 

But, I do have a problem with the people who blow off others (This is not directed at you Marc) just because they are armchair at this point. Just because someone doesn't have direct experience (I.e. they have the plans and are laying fiber) doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. How many builders are engineers, how many are just pilots, or not pilots at all and are going to get their license at a later time in the build? All bring different perspectives and knowledge to this forum, all valuable :), even if they haven't lifted a hammer yet...

 

The people who have built should be encouraging others to build, but I have had a number of posts back to me that have really made me think twice about whether this is an inclusive community in that regard. For people who have started building it seems fine, eveyone's buddy buddy; but for those still dreaming there are a number of people who post a lot that like to take out the AAA gun and shoot at people for thinking big or just dreaming to build. If Rutan hadn't been dreaming big we wouldn't have this forum.

 

Sometimes it really bugs me how people approach answering posts. They don't take a lot of time to think about how the answer can be interpreted (I am definitely one of those people too) and it comes off differently than perhaps intended. All discussion here should be un-heated, and honest. No one I have seen post here has been 100% wrong in what they say, just remember that....

 

Talk to y'all later, sorry for the rant at the end :)... I thought it was relevant because it's not just about public image, it's about the image we all project as builders, dreamers, and fliers to those who are "outsiders" to the building community.

 

-Chris Z.

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reports by the media are based on sensationalism. The bigger it is, the better the story. Top ranked among these will be that an experimental airplanes crashed into a house. This would be followed by a private airplane crashing into a house. Of even lower priority would be a small plane crashed.

 

None of this would have anything to do with image. We have a pretty good image amoung ourselves but very little to the outside world. We are a very small community without the real resources to improve our image.

 

The vast community does not even know what the EAA is or care.

 

But one sensational report like this just told millions that an "experimental" airplane just killed three people and they didn't report this in a positive manner.

 

How do you fight that.

 

You can quote statistics untill your face turns blue and it won't matter.

 

Now,report something like "an experimental plane and pilot saves three kids spotted on a raft" and you have an instant image build up.

 

Until then we have to settle improving our image one person at a time.

 

Finding blame is not the answer either. Since when does a persons money have a relationship to safety. I built my own plane but if I had the money

I might buy a COZY IV or a O-320 for my plane. I might be safer or I might not.

 

It is enough trouble keeping our image as clean as we can and to not do things that would call unwanted attention to ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RGlos,

I think you hit it on the head right there about media sensationalism. I'm not sure people would care what kind of plane the person saved the people in. It's been my observation that people care about objects when people are killed because they want to blame the object over the human who may have been in error. The facts do work against us, though because we are still more accident prone per 10,000 flight hours than general aviation aircraft. As I said before though, the FAA paint homebuilts with a broad brush in their reporting, including ultralights and such into their experimental category. Since GA aircraft are certified to the same rigorous safety standards it's appropriate to put them in the same category. However, home-builts are all put into one category because we don't have a rigorous process for testing even though some are clearly more safe than others :)... Just some more thoughts :), very valid point though about us not having a lot of resources to improve the image. Now, if we had some-one famous who built their plane and they could speak as a counter-point to the news, then the story would be re-balanced so to speak :). What is needed I guess would be a counter-arguement like they have in politics (1 republican guru and 1 democrat etc...)... But I don't think we got the fair perspective that brings.

 

Whether we like it or not, that director guy had some good points given the current situation. We should have dialogue about training near and around populated areas, and we should perhaps talk about the kind of aircraft that are allowed to fly into that airspace. Does this mean there aren't counter-arguements to these restrictions, of course! Neither POV is completely right or completely wrong, but in this case from what I saw, the counter-points were not made, and that's partly why the story looks less objective than it should be.

 

-Chris Z.

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, if they do a crappy job investigating how do you know for a fact that "most" crashes are not structural?
Because most crashes aren't fatal, so you ask the pilot what happened. It's pretty simple.

 

I gathered that from when I read the NTSB reports from the Cozy's but if they aren't doing a thorough investigation then I don't see how those reports can be trusted.
The only accidents that you can't conclusively say what happened are the fatal ones with little evidence after the fact. Even crashes such as Glenn Saunders':

 

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Glenn_Saunders/index.html

 

are understood. If a structural failure occurs (wing spar breaks, canard departs [such as with Steve Drybread in the Berkut], etc.) it's almost always obvious from the remains of the aircraft.

 

Again, since this is an improve the image thread I would point out that allowing crappy aircraft to be built doesn't help.
It's better than the alternative, which would end up with NO experimental aircraft being built in the Am-Built category.

 

I agree with you from that POV of having the freedom for anyone to build, but at what expense to image?
I'll take freedom over image every time.

 

Still, who will the public listen to? The EAA or the FAA?
Neither - they listen to the local news, which generally knows nothing.

 

... I agree with you that it would be very costly, but it could improve the image of that particular aircraft model...
There have been a few experimentals that have been modified to be certificated. None have been commercially successful. This will not be a fruitful path.

 

Again to your point, who investigated those accidents thoroughly enough to know they weren't structural? You said the NTSB doesn't, so how do we know for sure?
See above. When I say that the NTSB doesn't do a thorough investigation, it's crashes such as Jim Marshall's COZY crash last month in TX that will remain mostly unexplained, even with the eyewitness information. It was possibly systems failure, possibly pilot error, but definitely NOT structural failure. A structural failure is almost always obvious, with a plane fluttering out of the sky with a piece missing, or becoming a lawn dart.

 

Also, I am not suggesting that you go out and test a wing before you build another one! I am saying you test the prototype as a designer.
Agreed. Feel free to attempt to get designers to build static test articles and test to failure. Hardly ever happens - just too time and cost intensive. I agree that it SHOULD happen, but it doesn't, and mostly won't.

 

People don't get killed as often in certified aircraft partly because they test rigorously.
Systems, though. Structural failures, even of experimental aircraft, are extremely rare, and are a tiny proportion of the total number of accidents, fatal or otherwise. You're concentrating on the wrong bar in the histogram.

 

Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on the systems safety and manufacture?
Agreed. But FAA oversight is not the answer, because they suck at it, and don't know what they're looking at. EAA tech advisors are the way to go.

 

I wouldn't go that far, but you basically gave the media a quote about how many home-builts wouldn't pass testing from a reputable source in the building community...
I stated a fact. If people don't like the fact that our aircraft aren't as safe as the GA aircraft population as a whole, then the answer is to build safer aircraft by using the available advisors and methodologies available, not by asking the FAA to be a nanny (which they're not capable of being, even if it were advisable).

 

Doesn't this contradict what you were saying above about marginal safety factors? Over-design means, to me at least, better than marginal safety factors...
Structural over-design (at least in the canard composite community) and marginal systems design. No contradiction.

 

Any thoughts Marc on why that is, or anyone else? If it's not structural and it's systems, then maybe we can do something about it as a group :).
Yes. Many folks are determined not to take advice from those who know their ass from a hole in the ground, and go their own way no matter what they're told. It's a fairly human condition. Usually, in the case of experimentals, if you ask around at the home airport of the person who has an accident, many of their acquaintances will say "it was just a matter of time - we tried to tell him, but he wouldn't listen". Short of tying the guy to the boiler in the basement and not letting him fly, what is there to be done?

 

I am suggesting a way to compromise and hopefully improve our image as a home-built community.
And I'm telling you that it's a nice thought, but won't happen.

 

Do you just not like testing, or is it the increased cost to the designers which will get passed on to us?
That's pretty funny. I'm the principal engineer in charge of Rocket Motor development at Scaled Composites. We'll be testing the crap out of the next generation of RM's. But it's expensive, difficult and long-term. Asking guys that are designing stuff in their basement to lay out 10's of thousands of bucks to test things is a good idea, and nice in theory, but it just won't happen on a large scale, and since they test only one instance anyway, there's no statistical significance to the results, especially for systems.

 

Since the COZY is a plans-built, there's clearly no cost increase to the builders.

 

However, over time as they saw the over-sight they could no longer directly blame us for accidents.
Yeah, that's what would happen :-).

 

If you don't want to talk again about the subjects I bring up, don't post to them.
Thank you for that insight into using the internet, which I've been doing since 1987. In fact, I don't post to the subject matters that I don't want to talk about. I thought by indicating that there was information that you could gather from reliable sources that had been through them thoroughly in the past, you might learn something.

 

I do the research if I have time, and maybe I want fresh perspective on it rather than some older posts from years ago.
Sometimes fresh perspective is useful, for sure. But understanding the background of the subject matter at hand is even more useful.

 

If people don't want me here they should say so, I'll find somewhere else to talk and annoy people with my questions and insights if that's how people feel.
Thicken your skin a bit - no-one's asked anyone to go anywhere.

 

But, I do have a problem with the people who blow off others (This is not directed at you Marc) just because they are armchair at this point.
I agree that nobody should be "blown-off" just because they're not yet builders/flyers. But if you'd been around for 13.5 years or more, you'd know that EVERY question, modification, issue, or suggestion that anyone has made here (or anywhere) has been made before, discussed before, dissected before, and analyzed before. Some are good, but most are not. Once one has been building/LISTENING for a period of time, they come to understand that. It gets extremely tiresome for folks that HAVE been around for a long time to answer the questions of folks that want others to do their research for them. That's a part of the "blow-off" phenomena that you've been mildly experiencing.

 

Just because someone doesn't have direct experience (I.e. they have the plans and are laying fiber) doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about.
No, but it's a good indicator. Certainly not a guarantee, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of this thread is how can we improve our image.

If this crash had involved a CE-172, even under the exact same circumstances, that Aviation Director would not be calling for termination of single-engine fixed wing operations and no reporter would have seriously asked the question.

 

The problem is the "strangeness" of Experimental aircraft. God knows, the public knows so little about us and the words "Experimental", "homebuilt" and "homemade" just guarantee public recoil.

 

The best thing you can do is invite your local reporters and editors for an airplane ride or just to come see your project and talk about it. Give them some appreciation for the care that most of us give to building and operating our airplanes.

-Kent

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this crash had involved a CE-172, even under the exact same circumstances, that Aviation Director would not be calling for termination of single-engine fixed wing operations and no reporter would have seriously asked the question.-Kent

Actually it did (second crash) circumstances (lost power) and he (Randy Walker) didn't have anything to say about it. Not exactly a C-172 but close enough.

 

See http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=5730644

 

Not enough Ooooooughs and Ahhhhhh's and no deaths for the reporters........Awe

 

At least the media got the pictures right, they are certainly an aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

When your airplane is done I will go out in a raft in Monterey Bay with a couple of orphans or something, and mayday a call to be 'found', and you fly over and 'find' me and we will call the media in to meet us.

Wah- laaa, instant positive media response to our experimentals, being as how I will go on and on about how fantastic being located by that incredible plane was....You can stand next to your plane and demonstrate how fantastic the visibility is out of the canopy. I'll pay the orphans to look fantastically grateful.

It's all good.

 

I'll put it on my calender.

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is really tragic and what should be I think of greatest concern with this latest incident is the fact that two innocent folks were killed just siting in there home. The family and friends of those victims are likely outraged.

 

People will ask why pilots are allowed to fly experimental aircraft (or certified for that matter). The fact that this sort of accident is so unlikely to happen will be overlooked.

 

Friends and family of mine are almost on a daily basis citing aircraft accidents to me. I am tired of it. Even while I point out to them that traffic fatalities that occur daily are ignored by the media they continue, "Hey Martin did you hear about the Cessna (all small aircraft are a Cessna) that crashed yesterday!"

 

I digress... Let's just make sure not to crash into houses, schools and the like. (Even if they did build them at the end of a runway). At my home airport there is a golf course just north of the longer runway. I like to consider that that is an option if I lose power at a low altitude. However when considering the number of lawyers likely to be on the course at any given time, I would probably be best off aiming for the retention pond just next to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

When your airplane is done I will go out in a raft in Monterey Bay with a couple of orphans or something, and mayday a call to be 'found', and you fly over and 'find' me and we will call the media in to meet us.

Wah- laaa, instant positive media response to our experimentals, being as how I will go on and on about how fantastic being located by that incredible plane was....You can stand next to your plane and demonstrate how fantastic the visibility is out of the canopy. I'll pay the orphans to look fantastically grateful.

It's all good.

 

I'll put it on my calender.

OK, but with the 20b i dont think i'll make it back..........can i stop for fuel at N vagas ?

Steve M. Parkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information