Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:35 AM - RV-9A Kit for sale (n7hqk)
2. 11:10 AM - Re: RV Safey Record (RICHARD MILLER)
3. 11:29 AM - Re: RV Safety Record (pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper))
4. 11:56 AM - Re: AD compliance / applicability (glen matejcek)
5. 12:04 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (Ron Lee)
6. 12:08 PM - Re: RV Safey Record (Rob Prior)
7. 12:37 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (John W. Cox)
8. 12:53 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (Rob Prior)
9. 02:33 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (Scott)
10. 03:57 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (Ron Lee)
11. 06:12 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (Scott)
12. 06:38 PM - Re: RV Safety Record (Ron Lee)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-9A Kit for sale |
I won't be able to complete this kit... So it is up for sale.
Includes:
RV-9A kit minus the finishing kit.
Completed to bottom skin on wings and rear lower fuse assy.
O-320 Engine with prop gov (No Prop) and other accessories.
No Tools.
Make a reasonable offer and you can have almost a quick-build in your garage!
See it at: www.mykitlog.com/n7hqk
e-mail me at: n7hqk@yahoo.com
--------
Ray D. Congdon - N7HQK
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175466#175466
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safey Record |
>From the maintenance side of the house i have to say that the manufacturers have
caused a lot of the bogus parts problem with 300$ wheel bearings that can be
had for 50$ at any bearing shop, 500$ voltage regulator that came from a tractor
and 2000$ starters. lets be honest a timkin bearing is a timkin bearing.
and they often go 200,000 miles on a car. show me the cessna that has 200,000
miles on it's mains. That said the biggest problem i find with homebuilts is the
use of non-approved hardware. an bolts are not that expensive, use them. wackie
structural mods that you could never get a 337 for on a certified airplane.
read and head ac43-13 it would slove a lot of problems. and really bad wiring.
the use of industrial grade switches and circuit breakers would go along
way towards solving this, instead of the crap you can get at radioshack. don't
use toggle switches with plastic handles they break way to easy.
Every aircraft is a design compromise, between performance, safety and cost.
it is up to the builder to accept how much compromise you are willing to accept
when you start to play with a design. i personally will not fly in a homebuilt
fiberglass ship. i don't trust bonds that i can not see much less inspect.
i know that aluminum works, and that even boeing and airbus have had problems
with composites. Remember your compromise effects not only you but your family
and that poor smuck on the ground that you land on.
Fly is a privilege not a right. And while we are allowed to build our own aircraft
now, If too many of us get too crazy we will lose that privilege. Just because
you can do it, does not mean that you should. Remember the idiot with the
helium ballons straped to the lawn chair in los angles. There are very few
of us that are qualified to make our own engines from parts in a junk yard. much
less conduct the kind of testing that that would require. and if done right
those engines would cost ten time what a certified engine costs. Flying is expensive
and at some point you have to say i can not afford to do that now. I
would love to be building a rv-10 right now but the cessna 120 project will have
to do for now. Besides i get to test fly everbody elses airplanes and charge
them for it.
this sermon is over and the ushers will now be passing the collection plates
for the rv-10 kit. please open your wallets and dig deep
have fun fly safe
rick
Bob <panamared5@brier.net> wrote:
>>Painting all our opinions with a broad brush and saying we are the cause for
>>low safety records of GA is simply a bit too much. Nobody on this list
>>built an airplane because they wanted to be stupid and reckless. This is
>>just my opinion of course...
>
>Tim, we ARE the cause of our poor safety record. From using questionable
>"non-aviation" items, to ignoring problems during the flight test period, to
>poor judgment when flying.
>
>Frankly it is time for the RV community to develop a safety program that
>highlights the problem areas with the goal of reducing our accident rate
>by as much as 25-50% in the next five years.
How about some facts to prove that RV pilots are responsible for the
poor GA safety record.
It seems to me that there is a strong lobby of people who want
certified standards to apply to experimentals. If you want to do
this with your RV, fine if you think you can. If you expect to buy a
used RV that meets certified standards, well I don't know?
As far as complying with ADs and SBs, yes I do. But, my oil pump did
not fail until I installed the newer version as required by the
AD. As for Van's fuel tank SB, three years later I am still digging
out proseal from my fuel filter, the result either way is a lack of
fuel flow when there is plenty of fuel.
So maybe, just a hunch, complying with ADs and SBs are not always the
safest thing one can do. Poor judgement in my case was trying to fix
something that was not broken.
And why is safety so important. If I want to kayak a Class V
Whitewater River, who is to say that it is too dangerous and I should
not be allowed to do so, or that I should only Kayak Class II
rivers? To relate this to flying RVs, how many RV accidents could we
prevent if no one flew IMC in an RV? After all IMC flying is much
more dangerous than VFR no wind, no clouds etc. What about outlawing
night flight, or mountain flying, or flying over water or just plain
flying without a purpose? And my pet peeve of all, crashing without
filing a flightplan?
After the EAA Arlington crash a few years ago (the one were a
nonbuilder, did a pull to vertical on takeoff and then completed a
whip stall and landed nose first and killed himself) maybe non
builders should not be allowed to fly RVs? Ridiculous, but I would
like to know how many crashes were by the builder and how many by non builders.
I am all for safety, it is hard to argue against. But turning an
experimental into a certified aircraft that only uses certified parts
and no experimental parts, radios, avionics etc., is not the way.
Somebody define a "questionable non aviation items?"
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safety Record |
I doubt that the RV safety record can ever be brought below the general
aviation average, as these are the "sports cars" of the general aviation
fleet. Pilots fly them for fun and excitement...not just a safe means
of transportation.
I imagine the safety record of better-handling Corvettes over the years
is much poorer that that of Chevrolet sedans.
RV pilots getting sufficient training is the key.
Pete Cowper
RV-8 #81139 (just flipped fuselage)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: AD compliance / applicability |
Hi All-
Well, believe it or not, and with the help of EAA's regulatory liaison,
I've gotten to the bottom of the whole AD / Amateur Built Experimental
issue. Really.
But first: The FAA can't agree internally on the subject. Elements within
the FAA say they do apply, others say they don't, and yet a third faction
says they don't apply but should. And, get this, AC 39-7c is (legally
speaking) incorrect. Go figure. One reason the relevant documents have
not been cleaned up and clarified is that the FAA seems to want us to
believe that AD's do apply in order to increase the likelihood of our
taking corrective action when they are issued.
The highest horsepower document on the subject comes to us from the Federal
Register. The fact that this document is in the register is what causes it
to trump all the other documents and opinions on the subject. The document
itself is all about LSA's, and it contains a table entitled Light-Sport
Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requirements located within section
IV, Comparative Tables. This particular table compares the maintenance
and certification requirements of six different categories of aircraft,
including amateur built. It can be accessed at:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/c03aa95a6
d5f3d57852564720071b601/1d47971728e12ba286256edf004385aa!OpenDocument
Now, should one choose to look up the comparative data in this document, at
the cross reference of Amateur built and Airworthiness Directives, one
would find the wording leaves some room for ambiguity. However, if one
were to look at the adjacent entries for the various other certification
categories, the intent becomes quite clear. AD's are not issued against
our planes, nor anything installed in them.
The foregoing does not relieve us of our requirements to address AD's. We
do not have to comply with an AD, but we do have to address an AD. For
example, the recent RSA AD calls for an A&P to do the work to be in
compliance. If I do the work myself, I will have addressed the AD without
being in compliance, as I am not an A&P. If we fail to address an AD,
either as owner / operator doing the work or as repairman / A&P performing
the condition inspection, we are liable for violation under the careless
and reckless provisions of part 91 of the FAR's, but not under part 39.
Now, don't ask me to rationalize all the conflicting info available to us,
what one guy said, or the hard time one of us got from a particular fed.
At this point in time, the above represents the official position of the
folks at the top of the food chain.
Bon appetit!
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safety Record |
I doubt that the RV safety record can ever be brought below the general
> aviation average, as these are the "sports cars" of the general aviation
> fleet. Pilots fly them for fun and excitement...not just a safe means
> of transportation.
>
Can't agree with you. When 75% or so of accidends are due to PILOT ERROR,
that can be fixed. I have perhaps 1300 hours in my 6A and because it is
"sporty"
is not an excuse to do stupid things like fly into weather, over mountains
when the
winds are high, stall turning base or any of the other pilot error induced
accidents.
We can and should make things better in the RV community.
Ron Lee
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safey Record |
On 11:05 2008-04-08 RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i personally will not fly in a homebuilt fiberglass ship. i don't trust
> bonds that i can not see much less inspect.
..
> this sermon is over and the ushers will now be passing the collection
> plates for the rv-10 kit. please open your wallets and dig deep
How confident will you be in the fibreglass cowling, canopy, wingtips,
empennage tips, fairings, wheelpants, etc. on your RV-10? Have you flown
in someone else's RV-10 with all of those "scary" fibreglass components
attached?
If you want to be cautious about who you fly with, fine, but outright
fearmongering about fibreglass airplanes is really unwarranted. I'm sure
there are just as many examples of poorly built metal airplanes that showed
now signs of problems until they failed.
-Rob
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV Safety Record |
Like Clint Eastwood said..."A man has to know his limitations".
I evaluate every aircraft I fly in and many that I would not let any
family members fly, I still climb in. Others I won't ever fly in but
will assist on Conditional Inspections. Many, the builder had little
idea of how to do things correctly but blindly followed someone else's
instructions. We would all be safer if we flew often, flew with a
professional observer to hone our skills more frequently and maintained
our aircraft to the safest possible standards.
I have seen some atrocious fiberglass work on components of the RV-10
that are a professional embarrassment and yet scores of novice builders
will buy them and use them without regard. I have seen many plastic
aircraft which exceed the quality of even production certificated
aircraft and push the quality of GA higher and can make most builders
proud.
Everything is out there. Stay Safe, we lost another RV-10 last night
with two soles aboard. "Education... now there is something every man
should strive to continue."
John Cox
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Prior
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Safey Record
On 11:05 2008-04-08 RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i personally will not fly in a homebuilt fiberglass ship. i don't
trust
> bonds that i can not see much less inspect.
..
> this sermon is over and the ushers will now be passing the collection
> plates for the rv-10 kit. please open your wallets and dig deep
How confident will you be in the fibreglass cowling, canopy, wingtips,
empennage tips, fairings, wheelpants, etc. on your RV-10? Have you
flown
in someone else's RV-10 with all of those "scary" fibreglass components
attached?
If you want to be cautious about who you fly with, fine, but outright
fearmongering about fibreglass airplanes is really unwarranted. I'm
sure
there are just as many examples of poorly built metal airplanes that
showed
now signs of problems until they failed.
-Rob
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV Safety Record |
On 12:32 2008-04-08 "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> Everything is out there. Stay Safe, we lost another RV-10 last night
> with two soles aboard.
So only one person (soul) on board? Damn spell checkers... :)
-Rob
do not archive
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safety Record |
Clarify. Are you saying RV pilots account for a major portion of pilot
error accidents compared to pilots of all other experimental airplanes?
I guess that COULD be true since I suspect that a majority of
experimental aircraft are RVs. How many RVs are flying now? 5000?
That's more than Cessna made of models 120, 140 and probably 170 as
well. Also, if you go through NTSB crash reports of commercial
aircraft, pilot error is often cited as cause or at least a contributing
factor. Humans make mistakes. Period. Take the pilot out of the
equation and put a "perfect" computer in his/her place. Oops, forget
that. Airbus tried that. Remember the Paris Air Show when the computer
landed the Airbus in the woods?
I don't think RV pilots have the market cornered on doing things to get
themselves into trouble. A lot of GA accidents deal with VFR flight
into IFR conditions. Yes, poor decision making perhaps, but I feel
slighted that you think RV pilots are the only ones dumb enough to do
stuff like that...
Maybe I'm taking it all out of context?
Scott
Ron Lee wrote:
>
> I doubt that the RV safety record can ever be brought below the general
>
>> aviation average, as these are the "sports cars" of the general aviation
>> fleet. Pilots fly them for fun and excitement...not just a safe means
>> of transportation.
>>
>
> Can't agree with you. When 75% or so of accidends are due to PILOT
> ERROR,
> that can be fixed. I have perhaps 1300 hours in my 6A and because it
> is "sporty"
> is not an excuse to do stupid things like fly into weather, over
> mountains when the
> winds are high, stall turning base or any of the other pilot error
> induced accidents.
>
> We can and should make things better in the RV community.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safety Record |
Maybe I'm taking it all out of context?
>
> Scott
Yes you are. Read the Nall report...perhaps put out by AOPA.
It may be that experiemnetals have a higher accident rate than
the certified fleet. If so, that is even worse.
I reject the notion that we as a community cannot make things better.
It will never be a zero accident rate but what exists today is
unacceptable.
Ron Lee
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safety Record |
I guess I don't see what is acceptable. What is the accident rate per
100,000 miles in GA experimentals compared to certified GA, commercial
aviation and even cars and motorcycles?
I might agree that experimentals have a higher rate of accidents than
certified, but comparing an RV to a Cessna 150 isn't necessarily
indicative of unacceptable accident rate. Ever fly a 150? Most of us
would be hard pressed to get into trouble as fast as in an RV simply
because things happen faster in an RV. In a 150, if you botch a
maneuver, just let go of the yoke and it will probably right itself.
They are designed that way on purpose. On the other hand, you don't see
many people doing an airshow routine in a 150.
What is it, specifically, that appalls you about the experimental
accident rate?
Scott
Ron Lee wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm taking it all out of context?
>
>>
>> Scott
>
>
> Yes you are. Read the Nall report...perhaps put out by AOPA.
>
> It may be that experiemnetals have a higher accident rate than the
> certified fleet. If so, that is even worse.
>
> I reject the notion that we as a community cannot make things better.
>
> It will never be a zero accident rate but what exists today is
> unacceptable.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Safety Record |
Scott,before I answer this, please read the Nall report.
Then go to this website: http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp
Read the RV accident reports for a few years and tell me
if you think it is acceptable when perhaps 75% are
PREVENTABLE
As I mentioned, not everyone would want to make an effort to
not kill themself. Some percentage will do something utterly
stupid and get killed. If they did not have hull insurance, a
family and never took anyone with them I would not worry about it.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott" <acepilot@bloomer.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Safety Record
>
> I guess I don't see what is acceptable. What is the accident rate per
> 100,000 miles in GA experimentals compared to certified GA, commercial
> aviation and even cars and motorcycles?
>
> I might agree that experimentals have a higher rate of accidents than
> certified, but comparing an RV to a Cessna 150 isn't necessarily
> indicative of unacceptable accident rate. Ever fly a 150? Most of us
> would be hard pressed to get into trouble as fast as in an RV simply
> because things happen faster in an RV. In a 150, if you botch a
> maneuver, just let go of the yoke and it will probably right itself.
> They are designed that way on purpose. On the other hand, you don't see
> many people doing an airshow routine in a 150.
>
> What is it, specifically, that appalls you about the experimental
> accident rate?
>
> Scott
>
>
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe I'm taking it all out of context?
>>
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Yes you are. Read the Nall report...perhaps put out by AOPA.
>>
>> It may be that experiemnetals have a higher accident rate than the
>> certified fleet. If so, that is even worse.
>>
>> I reject the notion that we as a community cannot make things better.
>>
>> It will never be a zero accident rate but what exists today is
>> unacceptable.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|