"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

On 10 Oct 2006 11:56:56 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:

Oshkosh is
well run, and continues to have a very good safety record, despite
these few transgressions. Pilots policing themselves (with peer
pressure and harsh articles like Rick's) will ultimately have the
desired effect, and will go a long ways toward stopping the "Morons to
Oshkosh".

All should be aware, that EAA members do not typify airmen in general.
They are a 'special' group of airmen, many of whom do a lot more
building than flying throughout the year, which may account for the
issue Mr. Durden's article addresses.

Larry Dighera wrote:
All should be aware, that EAA members do not typify airmen in general.
They are a 'special' group of airmen, many of whom do a lot more
building than flying throughout the year, which may account for the
issue Mr. Durden's article addresses.

Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error. Homebuilt aircraft admittedly have more accidents
overall due to mechanical failures, but that has nothing to do with what was
going on at Oshkosh. In my opinion, Mr. Durden's article was about too many
pilots with too little concern for safety trying to be in the same place at
the same time.

Tom Young (building the world's safest RV-4)

Tom Young wrote:




Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error.

I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me.
Big EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a
test pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111.
He should know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25
years after his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy
you've ever met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it
up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
pounds over gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just
like on the General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way. Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies
20 miles away and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system.
Then he proceeds to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane
in half. Breaks his back and has to walk out to a road to be found.
Scratch one ****box Kitfox. Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This
is ****box number two. Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel. Takes it out for
taxi practice on another day with a storm approaching, ground loops it
and breaks the spar a couple feet in from the end. Opens up the wing
and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
back up. Not even remotely airworthy. Most EAA guys I've seen aren't
this bad but they are the absolute bottom of the barrel pilot skill wise.

Newps wrote:
Tom Young wrote:




Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error.

I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me.
Big EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a
test pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111.
He should know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25
years after his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy
you've ever met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it
up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
pounds over gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just
like on the General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way. Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies
20 miles away and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system.
Then he proceeds to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane
in half. Breaks his back and has to walk out to a road to be found.
Scratch one ****box Kitfox. Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This
is ****box number two. Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel. Takes it out for
taxi practice on another day with a storm approaching, ground loops it
and breaks the spar a couple feet in from the end. Opens up the wing
and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
back up. Not even remotely airworthy. Most EAA guys I've seen aren't
this bad but they are the absolute bottom of the barrel pilot skill wise.


And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

I'm rearranging this just a bit for clarity. Responses below.

Skylune wrote:
And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

Assuming this ex-test pilot was in the US, no, all of this is definitely not
legal. Here are some illegal things this guy did, per Newps' description:

Newps wrote:
loaded it
up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
pounds over gross.

He flew the airplane outside of its operating limitations.

Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way.

He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a tailwheel endorsement.

Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief.

He can only make major repairs or alterations if he's certificated to do so.
I guess he could be, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel.

The aircraft was not in airworthy condition.

Opens up the wing
and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
back up. Not even remotely airworthy.

Enough said.

Bottom line is, the necessary regulations are already in place to make
experimental aviation a safe activity, but there are plenty of rules in the
FARs that builders and pilots can ignore if they choose. Personal
responsibility is crucial.

Tom Young

Tom Young wrote

Newps wrote:
loaded it up with so much crap that with a full tank
and him on board he was 50 pounds over gross.

He flew the airplane outside of its operating limitations.

AS builder of the aircraft, he gets to set the GTOW to any
number that he desires.

Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way.

He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
tailwheel endorsement.

(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—

(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
the authority of—
(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
a passenger


Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief.

He can only make major repairs or alterations if he's certificated to
do so. I guess he could be, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

His airplane, he can do anything he wants to provided an airman
certificated to determine the airworthiness of aircraft makes a
determination that it is in fact airworthy and so states in the
aircraft log book.

Bob Moore
Builder and Test Pilot....MiniMax

Bob Moore wrote:
Tom Young wrote

Newps wrote:
loaded it up with so much crap that with a full tank
and him on board he was 50 pounds over gross.

He flew the airplane outside of its operating limitations.

AS builder of the aircraft, he gets to set the GTOW to any
number that he desires.

Yes, but just on the fly like that? I assumed that the builder sets it when
he originally certifies the airplane and has to recertify if he wants to
change it later. Am I wrong about that?

Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way.

He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
tailwheel endorsement.

(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to-

(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
the authority of-
(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
a passenger

Ack. I didn't see paragraph (k). My mistake.

Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief.

He can only make major repairs or alterations if he's certificated to
do so. I guess he could be, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

His airplane, he can do anything he wants to provided an airman
certificated to determine the airworthiness of aircraft makes a
determination that it is in fact airworthy and so states in the
aircraft log book.

That much I knew, actually. I took the statement that the repair wasn't
airworthy at face value, but only to make the point that the FARs do include
provisions about shoddy mechanical work.

Anyway, thanks for the correx.

Tom (still learning the rules) Young

Bob Moore wrote:
Tom Young wrote

Newps wrote:

Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way.
He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
tailwheel endorsement.

(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—

(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
the authority of—
(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
a passenger


When did they amend 61.5(b) to include "tailwheel" as a rating?

Kris

Bob Moore wrote:

His airplane, he can do anything he wants to provided an airman
certificated to determine the airworthiness of aircraft makes a
determination that it is in fact airworthy and so states in the
aircraft log book.

Bob Moore
Builder and Test Pilot....MiniMax


Hey Bob. I've always liked the mini-max. Do you have any pictures you
can share showing the build progress and in flight. It would be nice if
someone familiar with the performance of the mini-max would build a sim
model of this guy that actually flew like the real thing.

Of course it needs to be FS9 compatible.

This web site was last updated in 1996 so nothing in the whole web site
is up to date. I leave it online in case someone can get some information.

http://members.tripod.com/~DragonFlight/3drmini.html


--

boB
Wing 70


U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas
5NM West of Gray Army/Killeen Regional (KGRK)

On 2006-10-11, Skylune wrote:
And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

Where did you get that idiotic idea from?
I can cite probably a dozen violations of the FARs if I had them in
front of me, but I don't - so these are the ones I can immediately think
of without even trying:

- careless and reckless operation of an aircraft
- flying an aircraft over its gross weight
- unapproved repairs (even if he was an A&P, the repair he made to the
certificated Chief was illegal)
- no tailwheel signoff
- aircraft in an unairworthy condition (both of them)

A good FAA inspector would probably be able to find much more than that
(and probably get his ticket yanked as well).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de