 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
c44588
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 10
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: Seems to me we need to be careful.... |
 |
|
Just a note from someone who cares......
I would suggest that we as a community need to be very careful in ANY "modding" done in association with our beloved aircraft, because:
a) after each significant airframe or engine mod, that pilot, and any subsequent pilot/owner, now becomes a defacto 'Society of Experimental Test Pilots' member for as long as he or she flies that aircraft, like it or not: besides, I hate the 'missing man' formation;
b) we all become indirectly involved in modding decisions, because one way or another, thru insurance costs or resale value, a mistake will impact us all, whether thru the reputation of the aircraft and/or the people who operate them and supply parts to them: perception is 95% of reality; and
c) the good people at the FAA are always looking for a reason to increase their workload it seems (and their oversight of all of us).
Yes, these are experimental and as a result there are things we 'can' do to them, but 'should' we do these things? I may well be a "nervous nelly", but when I read about 'fuel' and 'rib cutting' and 'do-it-yourself' kits, etc., I get somewhat concerned....
As for me, I think I'll leave the engineering of my aircraft's major components to the 50 years of engineering performed by the good people at the Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Company. After all, these ain't no 1955 Buicks we dealing with here....
Just a thought....
JB Coe
N670CJ
Eastsound, WA
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Seems to me we need to be careful.... |
|
|
What your email message says to me is that you are a person who really
wants nothing to do with Experimental Aircraft but would rather buy and
fly a Standard Certificated aircraft right out of the box. The majority
of pilots in this world feel exactly the same way you do, so there is
obviously nothing wrong with the idea!
On the other hand, there are those people who revel in building their
own airplane, or improving someone else's design, and live for the day
that they can change or improve ANYTHING. Sometimes they screw up in
the process. A lot of times they are responsible for major
breakthroughs in engineering design and technology.
In this country we are lucky enough to have a process where certain
aircraft that normally would never be able to fly can instead do so
under the rules and regulations addressed in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category.
Some of these aircraft mentioned above have fantastic looks and
performance that sometimes come at a greatly reduced cost than those
that can be designed and produced in this country with FAA certification
in any category you so choose and can afford.
In this case, and with respect my guess is that you want your cake and
want to eat it too. In other words, you want the safeguards and other
"things" that come with an aircraft made in the United States and
formally certified by the FAA. However, you want the looks, and most
importantly the PRICES that go along with Experimental Exhibition, and
get nervous at even the THOUGHT that some previous owner might have
wanted to improve on something that the original designers over in China
came up with.
Yes, these aircraft ARE "EXPERIMENTAL" and you need to be aware of that
fact and the things that go with it when you PURCHASE one of them. This
designation allows the FAA to determine WHAT we can do, and leave the
SHOULD WE DO IT up to the owner of the aircraft. PERIOD. I like that
concept and get nervous when anyone else even SUGGESTS otherwise.
I believe your concerns are indeed very important and justifiable to
YOU! You do not need to name yourself a "nervous Nelly" to have this
concern. You are in fact welcomed to leave your aircraft alone and
completely stock. However when you say that "we are not dealing with
1955 Buicks here" you are implying that you really don't trust ANYONE to
do anything on these same aircraft in question and your letter suggests
that you find it logical for others to feel the same way as you do.
As I said, the MAJORITY of pilots feel the same way you do. You can see
them at any airport in this country flying any and every model of
certificated aircraft that have been, are, or will be flying.
Those that do NOT feel as you do are out there flying Experimental
aircraft all over the place and again... Usually feel very defensive of
anyone even hinting of doing away with this privilege. So with honest
care and respect to you as an individual, my response to your thought is
that before you try to change everyone else from doing what they love,
to an aircraft they love, that is in a category that allows it, it might
be better for you to sell your aircraft and get one where your viewpoint
is not only welcomed, but ENFORCED as well. There is no question that
your concerns will then be fully addressed and rectified.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
Experimental
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
c44588
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: Seems to me we need to be careful.... |
|
|
Mark, sorry you feel that the only answer is for me to sell my airplane of 10 years and buy a Piper (from my cold, dead fingers BTW). It seems that the mere suggestion of caution when dealing with the engineering, and thus reputation, safety and value of a proven flying machine is to either 'quiet down, and let the modding go forth' or 'sell your aircraft and get out, you girly-man'. Lots goes on in these forums, and a lot of pilots try and share as much of their own judgment and expertise as possible. I would have thought that the terms caution, safety, expertise and aircraft would have been about as controversial as Mom, Apple Pie and The Flag.
The concept of 'experimental' obviously involves a lesser level of manufacturing scrutiny and resulting greater freedom in modification than does a standard category aircraft; this opens up the opportunity for us all to fly aircraft that otherwise have not gone thru the western civilian safety standards one assumes have been followed to obtain a standard category aircraft rating (one of which I also own, BTW; and its a Piper). That said, safety should be, and I'm sure is, the No. 1 concern for us as a group flying warbirds.That is the only way to avoid those "awkward moments afield" and the aching desire the FAA has to jump in. This is precisely what you and I both correctly want to avoid. Just as with the 'FAST' effort, which I fully support, the thrust of my 'suggestion' is that we try to insist on caution and expertise when diving into modifications of major systems in these aircraft. I know that most on this board do carefully insist on that attitude as a matter of self preservation. I thought it a good idea to raise the issue again given the context of some recent discussions on fuel systems, control surfaces, adf shelf collapses, etc... Merely a reference to the golden rule, not an indictment.
What someone does to any of these aircraft impacts us all, like it or not. I just point out the fact that we should be serious about this stuff, as I know we are, and generally cautious as a group when talking up mods; the result will be better and longer flying aircraft, I'm sure.
I don't even know you Mark, but I'm sure you're a good guy if you're flying one of these airplanes...and I'd honestly hate to see YOU sell yours!
There, I'm done. I go back to my chair in the corner and shut up.
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: Seems to me we need to be careful.... |
|
|
| Quote: | Mark, sorry you feel that the only answer is for me to sell my airplane
of 10 years
|
| Quote: | and buy a Piper (from my cold, dead fingers BTW). It seems that the
mere suggestion
|
| Quote: | of caution when dealing with the engineering, and thus reputation,
safety and value
|
| Quote: | of a proven flying machine is to either 'quiet down, and let the
modding go forth'
|
| Quote: | or 'sell your aircraft and get out, you girly-man'. Lots goes on in
these forums,
|
| Quote: | and a lot of pilots try and share as much of their own judgment and
expertise as
|
| Quote: | possible. I would have thought that the terms caution, safety,
expertise and
|
| Quote: | aircraft would have been about as controversial as Mom, Apple Pie and
The Flag.
|
I did not imply you were a "Girly Girl". I said that your feelings are
in fact shared by the majority. What you said was that possibly
modifying aircraft, even if it is legal, should possibly be left to
people who are more expert in the matter, and yes... This is a
paraphrase.
What I said is that the FAA has different categories of aircraft for
people with different views on this very subject. Instead of purchasing
an aircraft that is built and maintained exactly in accordance with your
offered viewpoint, you purchased one that was not. You then suggested
that maybe by common sense agreement we ought not to do the very thing
that the category we are in allows us to do in the first place.
By all means, keep your aircraft and do with it what you will! But
please do not suggest that I should limit my involvement with my
aircraft that is within the scope of it's certification and my own
abilities because you are not sure of yours, and thus by implication
suggest that I should not be sure of mine! That is in effect exactly
what you conveyed, although maybe you did not mean to.
| Quote: | The concept of 'experimental' obviously involves a lesser level of
manufacturing
|
| Quote: | scrutiny and resulting greater freedom in modification than does a
standard
|
| Quote: | category aircraft;
|
"Experimental obviously involves a lesser level of manufacturing
scrutiny". ????? I happen to disagree with that statement too! It is
not a matter of "Manufacturer Scrutiny" but in fact Manufacturer
Standards, meaning that it can actually be built to a DIFFERENT
standard, in many cases "higher and better". Yes, indeed, the category
allows greater freedom in modification, which was my exact point.
| Quote: | this opens up the opportunity for us all to fly aircraft that otherwise
have not
|
| Quote: | gone thru the western civilian safety standards one assumes have been
followed
|
| Quote: | to obtain a standard category aircraft rating (one of which I also own,
BTW; and its a Piper).
|
This is but ONE thing that the Experimental Category opens up. Looking
at the big picture, it is a very small part. I am keeping my mind on
the big picture, not just the "Exhibition" part.
| Quote: | That said, safety should be, and I'm sure is, the No. 1 concern for us
as a group flying warbirds.
|
That is an interesting statement, and I am going to go way out on a
ledge and say that it is NOT the number one concern of all of us and
hopefully never will be. Let me explain:
1. The safest way to operate warbirds is not to. Take all the fuel out
of them, put them in a museum, and open it up for the general public to
view on weekends.
2. Failing that, fly them only at certain events, in a straight line,
at partial power, and keep the time in the air to a minimum.
3. Never do formation. Not safe enough.
4. Never do aerobatics. Never safe enough.
5. Never carry passengers. Not safe EVER!
"Safety" is a catch phrase that everyone bows in reverence to. I, on
the other hand, am more than willing to stand up and say: Safety is
something we should try to adhere to while doing whatever it is that we
love to do. In the case of modifying aircraft, we should always do that
in a safe fashion. We should NEVER avoid even thinking about it because
to change something the original builder came up with is "inherently
unsafe".
| Quote: | That is the only way to avoid those "awkward moments afield" and the
aching
|
| Quote: | desire the FAA has to jump in.
|
Actually it (the FAA) usually does NOT work that way, but just the
opposite. When a Experimental Homebuilt rips the wings right off, the
FAA usually just looks at it, says: "Oh well, that is what Experimental
is all about" and writes a boiler plate report and goes no further at
all.
| Quote: | This is precisely what you and I both correctly want to avoid.
|
I am not worried about the FAA jumping in on any case such as this, and
by and large there have been plenty of cases in the past where they
could have, and have not.
| Quote: | Just as with the 'FAST' effort, which I fully support, the thrust of my
'suggestion' is
|
| Quote: | that we try to insist on caution and expertise when diving into
modifications of major
|
| Quote: | systems in these aircraft.
|
FAST is about continuing to operate aircraft in an inherently unsafe
manner (formation flight) in a way such as to maintain the best degree
of safety possible. It in no way ever suggests just doing away with
formation flying to begin with simply because very few pilots should be
trusted to have the ability in the first place.
| Quote: | I know that most on this board do carefully insist on that attitude as
a matter of self !
|
| Quote: | preservation. I thought it a good idea to raise the issue again given
the context of
|
| Quote: | some recent discussions on fuel systems, control surfaces, adf shelf
collapses, etc...
|
| Quote: | Merely a reference to the golden rule, not an indictment.
|
And I fully understand that your heart is in the right place, but with
respect, and I MEAN THAT, I think it is over the edge to suggest not
doing it to begin with.
| Quote: | What someone does to any of these aircraft impacts us all, like it or
not.
|
And like it or not, there is a premise in this country that if I
exercise the freedom that this country offers me to do something that
has a certain degree of danger involved, then everyone else does not
have to pay if I screw it up. Now, the fact REALLY is that in today's
litigious society, this is oftentimes not the case, and is why General
Aviation almost got sued out of existence some decades ago. Since then
we have learned that we need to protect ourselves from such nonsense and
not just stop making aircraft, which is in reality what just about
happened.
| Quote: | I just point out the fact that we should be serious about this stuff,
as I know we are, and generally cautious as a group when talking up
mods;
|
| Quote: | the result will be better and longer flying aircraft, I'm sure.
|
Nothing wrong with caution, or being serious. The goal is ALWAYS better
and longer flying aircraft. No sweat!
However what you said was: "Yes, these are experimental and as a result
there are things we 'can' do to them, but 'should' we do these things?
As for me, I think I'll leave the engineering of my aircraft's major
components to the 50 years of engineering performed by the good people
at the Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Company. After all, these ain't
no 1955 Buicks we dealing with here...."
And that was what I objected to. If you just meant to imply that we all
should be cautious and serious, well then of course I agree!
| Quote: | I don't even know you Mark, but I'm sure you're a good guy if you're
flying one of these airplanes...
|
| Quote: | and I'd honestly hate to see YOU sell yours!
|
Concur on all accounts. In addition, I not only would wish you well,
but I would offer encouragement and help should you decide to modify
your own in such a manner as to improve or change any manner of it in
order to more perfectly suit your personal flying requirements! This is
what everyone was already doing regarding the modification discussion
you mentioned..... Working together to create a new and safe
modification to an Experimental Aircraft and rambling ideas around on
how it has been done in the past and how it might be better done in the
future.
| Quote: | There, I'm done. I go back to my chair in the corner and shut up.
|
Ditto! 
Mark Bitterlich
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
salkeld
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Seems to me we need to be careful.... |
|
|
Nice to be concerned, But there's nothing wrong with a "mod" done properly, to a set standard.
As far as safety is concerned, keeping the FOD out of the aircraft & regular, good maintenance will go a long way... (amongst other things)
Matt
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
