---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 01/23/13: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:42 AM - Re: BRAKES QUESTION? (Chris Rusch) 2. 07:26 AM - Re: BRAKES QUESTION? (Bill Church) 3. 08:55 AM - Re: BRAKES QUESTION? (dgaldrich) 4. 10:07 AM - Re: Re: BRAKES QUESTION? (Greg Bacon) 5. 10:20 AM - How do we increase safety? (Robert Dewenter) 6. 10:51 AM - safety? (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 7. 11:48 AM - Re: How do we increase safety? (tools) 8. 12:33 PM - Re: How do we increase safety? (Bill Church) 9. 01:20 PM - Re: How do we increase safety? (tools) 10. 01:40 PM - Re: How do we increase safety? (TOM STINEMETZE) 11. 02:17 PM - Re: How do we increase safety? (BYD) 12. 02:29 PM - Re: safety? (Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB) 13. 02:36 PM - Re: How do we increase safety? (TOM STINEMETZE) 14. 04:04 PM - Re: Cross wind component (TriScout) 15. 05:57 PM - Re: How do we increase safety? (Jack Phillips) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:20 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: BRAKES QUESTION? From: "Chris Rusch" Thanks for all the input! I think I'm going to run with the hand brake for now....if duriing taxi tests i dont like it, i will add something more elaborate. -------- NX321LR Fully Assembled Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted. Wings covered and primed, one painted Mitsubishi Powered Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392935#392935 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:26:40 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: BRAKES QUESTION? From: "Bill Church" The only problem that I can see with the single lever brake is that it would likely be very difficult to make sure that the braking action on each wheel is the same. If you're using the brakes to hold the plane for a mag check, it will probably be okay, but if you're trying to stop the plane from rolling into something else, and one wheel brakes more than the other, you might end up in a mess. Food for thought. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392942#392942 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:46 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: BRAKES QUESTION? From: "dgaldrich" My Piper Cherokee has a single brake lever and it works just fine. I've gotten to prefer it to the individual toe brakes because of the simplicity and ease of bleeding. My philosophy has been that if I REALLY need to pivot on one wheel because of proximity to something else, it's time for the tow bar. Never had an issue with unwanted differential braking. There are two caveats however. Number one is that it's on a tricycle gear airplane and the nose wheel steering is pretty darn effective. The second is that it's a well designed and proven system from a certified aircraft. You could use those parts -- brake lever, master cylinder, and calipers -- and have no fear of asymmetrical braking. Deviate from the certified stuff and you're back to doing your own R&D but that's what experimental aviation is about. A lot depends on other factors. If your tail wheel is the non-swiveling type or you don't mind dragging the tail around by hand like Rob, then the single lever would be adequate and above all else simple. If you're comfortable breaking the tail wheel loose, then like Jack says, a dual system is necessary. My late father-in-law had a Decathalon and he would taxi up to his hangar at a pretty good clip and at the last minute snap the thing 180 degrees into perfect position to pull it in. Scared the crap out of me the first time he did it but he never hit anything. The fact that he'd been flying since WWII may have had something to do with it. I wish he was still alive to give me a refresher course in tail wheel. do not archive out of habit Dave Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392952#392952 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:07:33 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: BRAKES QUESTION? From: Greg Bacon Wow, what a subjective topic. I hated the single lever on my Cherokee. There were numerous times I wished I had differential braking for ground maneuvering. I think the bottom line here is use what you prefer. On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:55 AM, dgaldrich wrote: > dgaldrich@embarqmail.com> > > My Piper Cherokee has a single brake lever and it works just fine. I've > gotten to prefer it to the individual toe brakes because of the simplicity > and ease of bleeding. My philosophy has been that if I REALLY need to pivot > on one wheel because of proximity to something else, it's time for the tow > bar. Never had an issue with unwanted differential braking. > > There are two caveats however. Number one is that it's on a tricycle gear > airplane and the nose wheel steering is pretty darn effective. The second > is that it's a well designed and proven system from a certified aircraft. > You could use those parts -- brake lever, master cylinder, and calipers -- > and have no fear of asymmetrical braking. Deviate from the certified stuff > and you're back to doing your own R&D but that's what experimental aviation > is about. > > A lot depends on other factors. If your tail wheel is the non-swiveling > type or you don't mind dragging the tail around by hand like Rob, then the > single lever would be adequate and above all else simple. If you're > comfortable breaking the tail wheel loose, then like Jack says, a dual > system is necessary. My late father-in-law had a Decathalon and he would > taxi up to his hangar at a pretty good clip and at the last minute snap the > thing 180 degrees into perfect position to pull it in. Scared the crap out > of me the first time he did it but he never hit anything. The fact that > he'd been flying since WWII may have had something to do with it. I wish > he was still alive to give me a refresher course in tail wheel. > > do not archive out of habit > > Dave > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392952#392952 > > -- Greg Bacon Prairie Home, MO NX114D(Mountain Piet) ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:20:38 AM PST US From: "Robert Dewenter" Subject: Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety? Fellow Piet builder/ flyers: A long story would tell you why I signed up for a college course in aviation accident investigations - and why at my age I am "in school". It's for a good cause - an Instrument rating courtesy of the VA. I have come across some interesting observations I think worth sharing with my fellow Pietenpol builders/owners and in general to the Experimental home builder community as a whole. I have a request that you all think about safety and perhaps post your thought on how we all can increase safety while flying and for some of us, building. After reading 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports (2012 all the way to 1970s), it's my novice opinion that the predominant Pietenpol accident CAUSE is "failure to control the aircraft" in either take-off or landing phase, usually RESULTS in a stall, stall/spin, hard landing, impact with trees, failure to maintain directional control after landing, and ground loops. HIDDEN in these reports is overloaded aircraft unable to climb due to several "contributing factors" such as density altitude, exceeding the aircraft gross weight abilities and aircraft loaded outside their CG limits. Gusty conditions are commonly cited as contributing factors. Every one of these accidents is human error. The seconds leading CAUSE of accidents is "Fuel Starvation". In three cases carb icing was determined to be the likely cause, but is never proven to be the cause as it "flees the scene of the accident". In a recent accident (2011) the NTSB stated the cause of the accident was water In the fuel. In another, the tank was improperly built - the internal finger strainer was placed over the sump outlet not the supply to the carb and some "Teflon thread tape" was found blocking the fuel supply inlet to the carb. In another, the tank vent was blocked by a wasp nest. My favorite of ALL involves a guy who hand props his engine. The fuel shut off valve is in the front cockpit (reachable during hand propping). The pilots "NORMAL PROCEDURE" is to close the fuel valve, prop the engine, then opens the fuel valve after engine startup. Problem this particular day was he left the fuel valve closed and when the engine quit during the flight, he could not reach the fuel valve to open it - it was in the front cockpit! Every one of these accidents is human error. Not listed as fuel starvation, one poor guy ran out of fuel in cruise and made a successful landing off airport in a field with short "ankle length" grass. He re-filled with 4.5 gallons fuel. On takeoff the left wheel struck a small rock and the gear collapsed. I read four accident reports where BUZZING was the CAUSE of the accident . Contributing to these accidents are things like flying into a pole at 30 ft AGL, one into a power line, one from a downdraft, and one from failure to maintain air speed. Every one of these accidents is human error. Four accidents and 5 fatalities! The stall/spin on landing or takeoff and BUZZING are the predominant CAUSE of fatal accidents. Next come propellers (everyone pay attention!). There are two known accidents caused by in-flight separation of the propeller (both Fords). In both cases many (but not all) prop hub bolts had sheared indicating improper inspections of the propeller, bolts, and hub. Rust was visible on the sheared portion of the bolts. The third case involved a homemade prop that failed to provide adequate thrust and the plane crashed on takeoff (actually the pilot crashed the plane, not the other way around). Every one of these accidents is human error. Now here is one that will give those who asked about putting controls up front will like to hear about - 3 accidents in all. In one accident, the front passenger inadvertently pulled the throttle closed and the pilot was unable to overcome the passengers "death grip" on the throttle - they crashed. In another case, the passenger inadvertently applied left aileron (with his legs when he turned around to look at the pilot) during a "upsetting" takeoff, the pilot could not recover in time and they crashed. Finally in a third incident a seat cushion was interfering with the rudder / brakes. The preflight did not notice this condition and the pilot crashed on takeoff. Every one of these accidents is human error . Notice, I have not yet made mention of any mechanical engine issues so far? Well there are a couple unrelated accidents, where "loss of engine power" (not attributed to carb ice) was listed as a contributing factor but NEVER the CAUSE of the accident (just as in the case of carb ice). In all these cases "failure to maintain control of the aircraft" was the CAUSE. One case cited a burnt exhaust valve, and another was "overheating" related to a blockage of the oil cooler caused oil starvation - ironically the foreign object was part of a cylinder ring. In a third case "CAUSE UNKNOWN" resulting in a loss of power. Noted in this case was low compression in 3 of the 4 cylinders. And finally a "burred" carb needle caused the needle to stick in the closed position (on landing - pilot needed power and did not get it). Every one of these accidents was CAUSED by human errors. The very oldest Pietenpol accident reports (1970s) available on line contain only a few brief words in the accident report. One mentions improper rigging of a turnbuckle. It broke in fight, the wing shifted and the CG was disturbed. In another, the "push-pull" rod failed at the bell crank. Both of these accidents resulted in fatalities. All caused by human error. Now I am sure there are numerous Pietenpol accidents that did not show up in the 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports I was able to obtain. I suspect this because I could not find reports on notable and known accidents of certain non Pietenpol accidents I wanted to research. But I think it's fair to say that MOST Pietenpols are inherently safe - because of the design and because of the builder/owner/pilot. In my novice opinion, It's the pilot and the "maintainer" that you need to be keeping an eye on to prevent accidents. Summation: Most accidents are the result of a chain of events. Normally it requires only one link in the chain to be broken to avoid an accident. What accident chain links can you break? ALL of them! Our Pietenpol "type club" needs to do a better job to prevent accidents. I suggest the following: . Better pre-flight inspections with strict adherence to checklists would have avoided MANY of these accidents. . Not flying aft of the rear CG limits would have avoided MANY of these accidents - those of us still building MUST not skip the W&B step at the end of construction! . Use of carb heat might have avoided several accidents. Always use carb heat when power is below cruise setting! Make this a checklist item. . Avoiding BUZZING would definitely have prevented fatal accidents - Don't do it! . Adequate training / experience handling difficult landing and takeoff conditions. Consider not flying in gusty conditions with passengers - or at all. . Better passenger briefing and perhaps requiring usage of an intercom/headsets to communicate with the passenger should be mandatory . I suggest passenger placing their hands on the outboard fuse walls (9 and 3 o'clock) during takeoffs and landings to be part of your checklists. . Make front stick removable and keep it uninstalled in most instances. . Do a Weight & Balance of the airplane - know your true CG data - and keep within it. . Consider Density altitude, gross weight and performance when taking a passenger . Pay better attention to slow flight stall/spin avoidance procedures - takeoffs and landings WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST we do to make flying our Pietenpol safer? Bob Dewenter Piet builder / Corvair owner Dayton OH ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:51:41 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: safety? Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety record is a commendable effort for sure but the NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their records/report s so analyzing the data can be a muddy endeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most trouble f or hombuilders/pilots like us) Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some differences in the way homebuilt accidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some comparisons with fa ctory built GA airplanes. Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely. http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf Mike C. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:48:09 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety? From: "tools" GREAT post and great reading. These are manmade machines, in a way, you can without investigating ALWAYS say it's human error. However, except in a general way, that's not very useful. Knowing WHAT the human did wrong, is THE BEST information. It's not very useful to say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use good materials, use good craftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfect judgment ALL THE TIME. I like your list at the end of the post and is a great starting point. They address certain more commonly goofed SPECIFIC items. I have several things to add to the list, learned the hard way, and I'll do that later. For now, all I have to add is a philosophy I used when I was the Aviation Safety Officer of VT7 in Meridian MS in the late 90's. Us typical type A overachieving mathematical types are easily defeated by saying it's obvious you CAN NOT have a perfect safety record, so what's the point? I used to remind everyone in the squadron that that fact was absolutely true, so don't even bother with the Navy's safety record, just their own... Very few guys were willing to believe that they couldn't do that! Semantics for sure, but seemed to put things in perspective. I do have one disagreement, I believe ALL accidents are a result of a chain, not most. Theoretically not true I'm sure, but probably closer than "most"! Aviation Safety Officer school was SIX WEEKS of learning how all our buddies morted themselves, it was morose and depressing. That "chain" is the subject of practically ALL safety discussions and a super useful thing to understand in safety awareness. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392959#392959 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:33:19 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety? From: "Bill Church" Just curious as to what is not useful about saying "use good materials", and "use good craftsmanship", and "use accepted practices" ALL THE TIME. While it simply isn't possible to exercise *perfect* judgment ALL THE TIME, it IS possible to exercise GOOD judgement all the time. Bill C. > It's not very useful to say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use good materials, use good craftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfect judgment ALL THE TIME. > Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392962#392962 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:20:15 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety? From: "tools" Well, all of those things can be done all the time, but that they're not to a degree it's worth talking about leads me to believe it's just vague enough to warrant a closer more relevant look. Making it not very useful as a general statement. What materials are most commonly used that are unsafe? What judgment errors are most commonly made with a Pietenpol? What unsafe practices are generally committed with high frequency? If we find things that are unique to the Piet, ie are more people committing errors associated with density altitude with a Piet than a GA aircraft that has published tables (but the same genre, ie a Cub), maybe we've found something relevant. Something not likely to be found by simply saying, "don't operate your plane outside it's performance envelope", which itself is more specific than saying "don't commit an error in judgment. One could have an entire world wide encompassing safety program with one phrase. "Don't do anything unsafe..." That's been proven to be not very useful. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392966#392966 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:39 PM PST US From: "TOM STINEMETZE" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety? All good points to consider but that brings up a series of other questions - perhaps answered elsewhere. For instance; How do you go about developing your own "performance envelope" in a manner that keeps you safe and not putting yourself and your aircraft in danger? I know that this is part of what the 40-hour (for most of us) fly-off period is supposed to be for. Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds and such? Tom Stinemetze N328X >>> "tools" 1/23/2013 3:19 PM >>> Well, all of those things can be done all the time, but that they're not to a degree it's worth talking about leads me to believe it's just vague enough to warrant a closer more relevant look. Making it not very useful as a general statement. What materials are most commonly used that are unsafe? What judgment errors are most commonly made with a Pietenpol? What unsafe practices are generally committed with high frequency? If we find things that are unique to the Piet, ie are more people committing errors associated with density altitude with a Piet than a GA aircraft that has published tables (but the same genre, ie a Cub), maybe we've found something relevant. Something not likely to be found by simply saying, "don't operate your plane outside it's performance envelope", which itself is more specific than saying "don't commit an error in judgment. One could have an entire world wide encompassing safety program with one phrase. "Don't do anything unsafe..." That's been proven to be not very useful. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:17:23 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety? From: "BYD" > Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds and such? AC90-89A Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392971#392971 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:29:56 PM PST US From: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: safety? The common wisdom I subscribe to is: Flying is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. The Insurance rates are about the same. Insurance companies do the math. To reduce your accident/death rate stay away from the following: Drinking or drugs) and flying VFR Flying into IFR doing aerobatics in a non aerobatic plane, radical showing off down low. not wearing the proper safety gear. fly sick. Not staying or getting current with an instructor. poor maintenance. Granted you can have accidents that are not in those categories, but you significantly reduce your accident rate if you stay away from these activites. I am willing to take the residual risk for the joy of flying. Blue Skies, Steve D ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: safety? > Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety > record is a commendable effort for sure but > the NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their > records/reports so analyzing the data can be a muddy > endeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most > trouble for hombuilders/pilots like us) > > > Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some > differences in the way homebuilt > accidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some > comparisons with factory built GA airplanes. > Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely. > > http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf > > > Mike C. > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:59 PM PST US From: "TOM STINEMETZE" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety? Thank you Bill! Just what I was needing. Stinemetze, N328X >>> "BYD" 1/23/2013 4:17 PM >>> > Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds and such? AC90-89A ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:59 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component From: "TriScout" I agree w/last two posts. Spot on. I got "caught" coming back to home airfeld w/25kts direct x-wind (sans gusts) and it gets your attention on downwind(and then on final) when you see the crab angle required. I was quite surprised at how well it handled troughout landing/rollout. I just bugged it up 10 on final, de-crabbed last 10 feet, Hoovered it on the upwind wheel, and as the downwind wheel touched..."tap".."tap" on downwind heel brake to counter the weathervane into wind....seemed to work ok (GN-1/A65). I was about to go try it again, but thought it best not to press my good fortune.. 15 plus Knots and "gusting" ... I'd rather take the 25 Knotter w/out the gusts. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392985#392985 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 05:57:18 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety? Thanks for that synopsis, Bob. Unfortunately, all these causes of accidents are not limited to Pietenpols only. All of general aviation suffers these, with experimental aircraft showing up in these statistics a disproportionately high number of times. I like your list of bulletpoints at the bottom. I particularly like your last suggestion. As a CFI, whenever I'm doing a flight review for a private pilot, I always have him/her go through a series of power-off and power-on stalls, as well as demonstrating turns in slow flight. I also like to pull the power at some point to simulate an engine failure and determine if they are able to correctly pick a suitable landing field and set up an approach to it. Then when we are on downwind leg in the traffic pattern, I'll pull it again and tell them to make the runway and land without touching the throttle. I'm always amazed at the wide patterns people fly, and then wonder why they can't make the field when the engine quits. A Pietenpol is a very safe airplane, but it does have its quirks. Chief among them is the high drag inherent to the design, with the resulting poor glide ratio. Trying to "stretch" a glide in a Pietenpol is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. When flying a traffic pattern in a Piet, you want to stay very close to the runway on the downwind leg. My personal preference is to fly the approach a little high, and then when I know I can make the field, slip it to lose altitude. Jack Phillips NX899JP Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Dewenter Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:20 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety? Fellow Piet builder/ flyers: A long story would tell you why I signed up for a college course in aviation accident investigations - and why at my age I am "in school". It's for a good cause - an Instrument rating courtesy of the VA. I have come across some interesting observations I think worth sharing with my fellow Pietenpol builders/owners and in general to the Experimental home builder community as a whole. I have a request that you all think about safety and perhaps post your thought on how we all can increase safety while flying and for some of us, building. After reading 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports (2012 all the way to 1970s), it's my novice opinion that the predominant Pietenpol accident CAUSE is "failure to control the aircraft" in either take-off or landing phase, usually RESULTS in a stall, stall/spin, hard landing, impact with trees, failure to maintain directional control after landing, and ground loops. HIDDEN in these reports is overloaded aircraft unable to climb due to several "contributing factors" such as density altitude, exceeding the aircraft gross weight abilities and aircraft loaded outside their CG limits. Gusty conditions are commonly cited as contributing factors. Every one of these accidents is human error. The seconds leading CAUSE of accidents is "Fuel Starvation". In three cases carb icing was determined to be the likely cause, but is never proven to be the cause as it "flees the scene of the accident". In a recent accident (2011) the NTSB stated the cause of the accident was water In the fuel. In another, the tank was improperly built - the internal finger strainer was placed over the sump outlet not the supply to the carb and some "Teflon thread tape" was found blocking the fuel supply inlet to the carb. In another, the tank vent was blocked by a wasp nest. My favorite of ALL involves a guy who hand props his engine. The fuel shut off valve is in the front cockpit (reachable during hand propping). The pilots "NORMAL PROCEDURE" is to close the fuel valve, prop the engine, then opens the fuel valve after engine startup. Problem this particular day was he left the fuel valve closed and when the engine quit during the flight, he could not reach the fuel valve to open it - it was in the front cockpit! Every one of these accidents is human error. Not listed as fuel starvation, one poor guy ran out of fuel in cruise and made a successful landing off airport in a field with short "ankle length" grass. He re-filled with 4.5 gallons fuel. On takeoff the left wheel struck a small rock and the gear collapsed. I read four accident reports where BUZZING was the CAUSE of the accident . Contributing to these accidents are things like flying into a pole at 30 ft AGL, one into a power line, one from a downdraft, and one from failure to maintain air speed. Every one of these accidents is human error. Four accidents and 5 fatalities! The stall/spin on landing or takeoff and BUZZING are the predominant CAUSE of fatal accidents. Next come propellers (everyone pay attention!). There are two known accidents caused by in-flight separation of the propeller (both Fords). In both cases many (but not all) prop hub bolts had sheared indicating improper inspections of the propeller, bolts, and hub. Rust was visible on the sheared portion of the bolts. The third case involved a homemade prop that failed to provide adequate thrust and the plane crashed on takeoff (actually the pilot crashed the plane, not the other way around). Every one of these accidents is human error. Now here is one that will give those who asked about putting controls up front will like to hear about - 3 accidents in all. In one accident, the front passenger inadvertently pulled the throttle closed and the pilot was unable to overcome the passengers "death grip" on the throttle - they crashed. In another case, the passenger inadvertently applied left aileron (with his legs when he turned around to look at the pilot) during a "upsetting" takeoff, the pilot could not recover in time and they crashed. Finally in a third incident a seat cushion was interfering with the rudder / brakes. The preflight did not notice this condition and the pilot crashed on takeoff. Every one of these accidents is human error . Notice, I have not yet made mention of any mechanical engine issues so far? Well there are a couple unrelated accidents, where "loss of engine power" (not attributed to carb ice) was listed as a contributing factor but NEVER the CAUSE of the accident (just as in the case of carb ice). In all these cases "failure to maintain control of the aircraft" was the CAUSE. One case cited a burnt exhaust valve, and another was "overheating" related to a blockage of the oil cooler caused oil starvation - ironically the foreign object was part of a cylinder ring. In a third case "CAUSE UNKNOWN" resulting in a loss of power. Noted in this case was low compression in 3 of the 4 cylinders. And finally a "burred" carb needle caused the needle to stick in the closed position (on landing - pilot needed power and did not get it). Every one of these accidents was CAUSED by human errors. The very oldest Pietenpol accident reports (1970s) available on line contain only a few brief words in the accident report. One mentions improper rigging of a turnbuckle. It broke in fight, the wing shifted and the CG was disturbed. In another, the "push-pull" rod failed at the bell crank. Both of these accidents resulted in fatalities. All caused by human error. Now I am sure there are numerous Pietenpol accidents that did not show up in the 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports I was able to obtain. I suspect this because I could not find reports on notable and known accidents of certain non Pietenpol accidents I wanted to research. But I think it's fair to say that MOST Pietenpols are inherently safe - because of the design and because of the builder/owner/pilot. In my novice opinion, It's the pilot and the "maintainer" that you need to be keeping an eye on to prevent accidents. Summation: Most accidents are the result of a chain of events. Normally it requires only one link in the chain to be broken to avoid an accident. What accident chain links can you break? ALL of them! Our Pietenpol "type club" needs to do a better job to prevent accidents. I suggest the following: * Better pre-flight inspections with strict adherence to checklists would have avoided MANY of these accidents. * Not flying aft of the rear CG limits would have avoided MANY of these accidents - those of us still building MUST not skip the W&B step at the end of construction! * Use of carb heat might have avoided several accidents. Always use carb heat when power is below cruise setting! Make this a checklist item. * Avoiding BUZZING would definitely have prevented fatal accidents - Don't do it! * Adequate training / experience handling difficult landing and takeoff conditions. Consider not flying in gusty conditions with passengers - or at all. * Better passenger briefing and perhaps requiring usage of an intercom/headsets to communicate with the passenger should be mandatory * I suggest passenger placing their hands on the outboard fuse walls (9 and 3 o'clock) during takeoffs and landings to be part of your checklists. * Make front stick removable and keep it uninstalled in most instances. * Do a Weight & Balance of the airplane - know your true CG data - and keep within it. * Consider Density altitude, gross weight and performance when taking a passenger * Pay better attention to slow flight stall/spin avoidance procedures - takeoffs and landings WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST we do to make flying our Pietenpol safer? Bob Dewenter Piet builder / Corvair owner Dayton OH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.