Experimental Aircraft Regulations in the U.S.

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,748
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
I've been around planes my entire life (well, since I was 9 years old at least). The "guv'mint" attitude is fatalistic pessimism. The biggest thing holding aviation back- "experimental" and otherwise- in terms of safety is a fatalistic attitude that is prevalent among pilots and builders. Do away with the majority of deaths (about 70% of them are preventable with aggressive engineering and quality construction) and you take away the FAA's primary reason for watching us like hawks.
If you've ever been here (NL) for some time you won't ever dare saying the above again. Yes, experimental aviation here is a lot safer. Because people can't fly new designs or modifications. Why don't we ground them altogether. That's even safer...

The government both here and in the US has a bad track record. If they'd do what you would suggest (common sense measures that increases safety) the negative attitude wouldn't be justified. But they've persistently shown not to and pick useless measures. Just come look here to see where you guys will be in a few decades. Impossibly expensive and utterly over-regulated.



What would be far better is if the EAA would harshly lobby against new regulations and try to impose those recommendations (from the NTSB) herself. That way you can keep the common sense part and grouping together with some insurers it would be fairly easy to enforce as well. Not willing to do a rigorous test flight program? Fine, your insurance bill just went up 10K.
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,894
Location
Evansville, Indiana
What would be far better is if the EAA would harshly lobby against new regulations and try to impose those recommendations (from the NTSB) herself.
That's exactly what I suggested. Either The problem with fatalistic attitudes has nothing to do with government action or inaction. It has everything to do with the attitude that we can't stop it or, more directly related, to my points earlier in this thread that 500-700 dead pilots and passengers a year is just the price of "doing business" in general aviation. You do away with most of those fatalities and the FAA loses the public impetus to apply those regulations and it makes them look heavy handed to the general public when you turn around and say "We're a group dedicated to safety, and we've reduced the fatal crash rate 50/60/70% through our actions and desire to do better. The government is trying to pick on us for no good reason." That will garner us a lot more support than making that claim as a hobby that kills roughly 1 person for every nine hundred to one thousand active pilots annually.


That way you can keep the common sense part and grouping together with some insurers it would be fairly easy to enforce as well. Not willing to do a rigorous test flight program? Fine, your insurance bill just went up 10K.
That's a **** good idea.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,748
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
That's a **** good idea.
We have the same thing here for sailplanes. You fly legally fly them without a license or any experience. Getting insurance is impossible without a (self-regulated) license though. Our national aeroclub is also licensed by the government to give internationally valid GPL's. While a (theoretical) PPL in exams alone is around 1200 US$ (theoretical exams only, really), a GPL is around 30 euro's and all exams etc are free.



Ow and from the mod side, if this discussion continous I'll merge post #15 and further into the other topic :)
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,894
Location
Evansville, Indiana
While a (theoretical) PPL in exams alone is around 1200 US$ (theoretical exams only, really), a GPL is around 30 euro's and all exams etc are free.
Question: Can one use that to get an FAA glider endorsement? If so, I know where our next vacation is going to be. LOL
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
6,990
Location
Rocky Mountains
What's to say pilots will pay any more attention to that than they do any of the other safety devices (stall horns, air speed indicators, etc)?

I don't think it would take that long for most pilots to use them if they were standard issue. Sure some pilots just aren't going to pay attention like we should, no matter what the equipment list, but that isn't justification for not installing a very useful instrument.

Stall horns, stick shakers and the like get ignored, or pushed past their limits, because of the human tendency to use up any margin given. Running red lights because the orange "isn't that old" is a good example.

Air speed indicators give a trend that can be watched but the speed of stall is never the same. AOA's give a trend as well but the end point is much more definitive.
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,894
Location
Evansville, Indiana
I don't think it would take that long for most pilots to use them if they were standard issue. Sure some pilots just aren't going to pay attention like we should, no matter what the equipment list, but that isn't justification for not installing a very useful instrument.

Stall horns, stick shakers and the like get ignored, or pushed past their limits, because of the human tendency to use up any margin given. Running red lights because the orange "isn't that old" is a good example.

Air speed indicators give a trend that can be watched but the speed of stall is never the same. AOA's give a trend as well but the end point is much more definitive.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just argue that saying "If we do this, then we have no real safety concerns to worry about" or things along that line does a great disservice. It's simply not that simple. ;)
 
Top