---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 04/08/08: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:35:30 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: RV-9A Kit for sale From: "n7hqk" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:10:09 AM PST US From: RICHARD MILLER Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:29:12 AM PST US From: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper) Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:56:14 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:04:10 PM PST US From: "Ron Lee" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:08:33 PM PST US From: "Rob Prior" Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Safey Record On 11:05 2008-04-08 RICHARD MILLER 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:37:07 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Safety Record From: "John W. Cox" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:53:52 PM PST US From: "Rob Prior" Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Safety Record On 12:32 2008-04-08 "John W. Cox" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:33:34 PM PST US From: Scott Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:38 PM PST US From: "Ron Lee" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:12:05 PM PST US From: Scott 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 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:59 PM PST US From: "Ron Lee" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-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/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-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.