"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

Newps wrote:
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.

Good story, but it sounds like the decision of a macho doofus who
overestimated his skills and underestimated the demands of his aircraft, not
your average experimental builder. Most of us -- the ones with brains,
anyway -- work with EAA tech counselors to get building advice and
inspections during the building process, and we work with flight advisors
for checking out the aircraft THOROUGHLY before the first flight and during
the testing phase. Many builders wouldn't even consider being the first to
test fly their airplane, because, yeah, that makes them a test pilot and
they know they don't have the skills.

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.

****box number two is not an experimental aircraft, so this accident goes
into the non-experimental category. From where I'm standing it looks like a
wash: one accident for an experimental aircraft, one for a normal aircraft.

Tom Young