"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

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)

VFR is OK, but if you are needing to travel on a schedule,
IFR is essential anytime the weather is MVFR and you can't
see the ridges or the towers.

Very true. And even IFR there are days you're not going to be flying
anywhere in a Spam can.

Luckily, the schedules I fly on are usually quite "soft" and allow for
a fair degree of flexibility.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jim Macklin wrote:
If you fly at
180 mph (Bonanza class)


If I'm throttled back.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

The author, Rick Durden, is a regular here, and a straight shooter.
What he says in that article is 100% on the money.

I agree completely. I was there too, and although I haven't been there as many times as Jay has, it was
chaotic enough to really think about the risks involved. We were following two RV's who had no concept
of the traffic pattern, how to hold altitude and speed at the same time, how to follow instructions, how to
wait their turn, etc. I have no idea if they had the Notam, but in short, it was just a mess.

That said, the FAA itself was largely to blame for much of the
confusion over Rush and Green Lakes this year. (I know -- I was
there.) If the controllers had only said "Guys, there's been an
accident on the field, and we don't know how long the hold is going to
be." -- half the planes holding would have diverted to other airports
to wait it out.

Yes, a little information would have gone a long way. I was about "that close" to bailing out of the holding
pattern and going to land somewhere until the rush (no pun) died down. An estimate of the closure time
would have been very helpful, and maybe a calming influence on the rabble.

Mike

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.

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

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