REFLECTOR:Accidents, statistics and random thoughts

[Ronnie Brown]

I agree that we need to take the factory checkouts seriously and use them
whenever we can.  However for those of us who don't live near the factory,
here's a couple of suggestions:

Excellent sources of assistance are EAA's Technical Counselor and Flight
Advisor programs.  I used three different TC's and a FA and found them very
helpful. It always helps to have another set of eyes looking at our "perfect
craftsmanship".

And if you have fellow Velocity builder/owners nearby, by all means get them
involved in the inspection process.

See ya at Oshkosh!
Ronnie Brown
Cornelius, NC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
To: <reflector@tvbf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: REFLECTOR:Accidents, statistics and random thoughts


| Scott,
|
| Your point is well taken, especially about legal liability.  Sometimes,
it's
| best to not know, and do nothing than attempt to be informed and take
steps
| to improve a situation.  That would result in a blood-sucking lawyer (yes,
| Chris, some of your buddies are less than admirable creatures) pointing
out
| that "you knew about the problem, yet failed to take effective action."
| And, the reason they know the action was "ineffective" was because it
didn't
| prevent the accident, even though the pilot himself violated every common
| sense rule known to man.  It's always someone else's fault.
|
| However, that same situation supports the notion of an independent third
| party gathering and analyzing the information.  As such, any conclusion
| would just be an expression of opinion.  Oddly, the less expert the party,
| the better.  Then, if they are every called as an expert witness, they can
| demur that "this is just a hobby, it's interesting but nothing more."
| There's no point in handing a lawyer a "nuclear weapon" by using the third
| party as an expert.  Of course, it's even possible the gathered facts
could
| be an equally effective defense.
|
| So, while there always remains a slight litigious risk, the idea that pain
| and planes can be saved would certainly seem to argue for taking on that
| risk.
|
| The problem with quality of workmanship is interesting.  It's easy to see
| why non-builders fall into the trap of the "10' inspection."  Stand back
10'
| look at 'er, and if she looks good (which Velocities always do), then she
| must be built good!  NOT.
|
| I'm unsure of what a builder's excuse is for a plane the quality of a
1980s
| American built car, another words, looks good, piece of junk.  As a kid,
we
| built go-karts that way.  I'm not sure that anyone should want something
| that goes 2 miles high and 4 times as fast as the speed limit to be
| constructed that way, yet it happens.  Since no one would do that on
| purpose, we can only attribute it to ignorance.  Fortunately, ignorance
can
| be cured by education.  Stupidity goes all the way to the bone and lasts
| forever.
|
| So, yes, Scott, I think the factory is onto the right idea in encouraging
| Condition Inspections, access to workshop for builders and pilot
checkouts.
| However, one gap that I think exists that could still be plugged is pilot
| training, not just a check out.  New pilots, be they buyers or builders
| nearing completion, are often desperately hungry for flying time and, more
| specifically, flying time in a Velocity.
|
| I know many plane owners tend to be cheap.  They'll spend $100K, $150K,
even
| $200K and years building a plane, then carp about the need to spend a
couple
| thousand dollars for a conditional inspection and quality time in a good
| Velocity with a good instructor.  Like the Factory does for builders, set
| out a few trailers for them to stay cheap while they're getting in their
| hours (by the way, if you need any extra trailers, give a ring, Tennessee
| has plenty).
|
| A second gap, that falls in the area of education, would be a video that
| highlights BC (Builder's Crap), similar to the VVNews section.  But for
the
| video, the crap can be referred to as mistakes and misunderstandings.
That
| way, the feelings of us ignorant bastards won't be hurt.  Remember, even
| when you're savings someone's life, you have to be kind and gentle.
|
| By the way, don't worry about the stupid ones.  They won't be around to
| bother any one for long anyhow.
|
| Well, I must go now as my legs are cramping up so I will step down off
this
| Ivory box.
|
| Chuck
| N27GV
|
| Isn't this amazing.  People will read rants like this and I don't even
have
| to pay 'em.  Is this a great country or what!!
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On
| Behalf Of Scott Baker
| Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:14 PM
| To: reflector@tvbf.org
| Subject: REFLECTOR:Accidents, statistics and random thoughts
|
|
| Chuck,
| Your first paragraph implies that the major kit makers have the
information,
| and are failing to "voluntarily submit" it to the public.  I can tell you
| that Velocity is lucky when a builder shares any information with the
| factory regarding such matters.  That data that comes into the factory
| following accidents and incidents is no different, and no more complete
than
| what is reported in the NTSB report.  The factory is rarely consulted nor
| does it have first hand knowledge of the  majority of Velocity accidents -
| and therefore isn't in a position to judge what happened or why.
| There are times when Velocity staff members are privy to accidents - and
we
| have a pretty good idea as to what and why.  But the legal world being
what
| it is - we are not going to stick our necks out to point any fingers of
| blame - especially when the builder or the pilot has an opposite opinion.
| There are times (too many) when Mike Snyder (chief A&P; IA at Velocity)
| comes into the lunch room visibly shaken at the poor condition of some of
| the aircraft that come to the Service Center for inspection - yet every
| builder is convinced that their Velocity is a masterpiece of workmanship
and
| engineering.  This is why Velocity is pushing for more detailed and
| professional inspections of the aircraft.
| There are many reasons why aircraft have accidents - and the aircraft's
| mechanical systems is just one ingredient to the stew.  Pilot proficiency,
| pilot experience, pilot decision making, winds and other weather factors,
| fuel contamination, fuel exhaustion, not closing or locking the door,
| forgetting to put the landing gear down, hard landings, flying outside of
| the recommended cg or weight limitations of the aircraft, fluid leaks,
| blocked fuel vent lines, and the list (unfortunately and tragically) goes
on
| and on.  This list, by the way is not based on theory.  In my time with
| Velocity I can recall of an actual Velocity accident or incident that was
| caused by each and every one of these factors.
| Fly safe; build safe; manage risks.
| Best regards,
| Scott B
|
|
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
| To: <reflector@tvbf.org>
| Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:09 PM
| Subject: REFLECTOR:Accident History
|
|
| > It's probably totally impractical but it'd certainly be interesting and
| > useful if the major kit makers would each voluntarily submit an
accounting
| > of their planes flying, accident history (broken down to test flying,
| first
| > 50 hours, and thereafter, etc.), severity of injury/fatalities, and
damage
| > to planes.  Yes, some of the information is available on the NTSB but we
| > want/need more information to understand what is happening, why it's
| > happening and to whom.
| >
| > Statistical analysis is a wonderful thing and can be enlightening.  This
| > isn't about bashing one particular manufacturer or gaining a competitive
| > edge over another kit builder; this is about saving hardware and lives.
| For
| > that, competition can be set aside.
| >
| > I think Velocity's undertaking of Condition Inspections and Pilot
| Checkouts
| > is an example of such analysis, even though it may have been anecdotal
and
| > informal.  A systemic weakness was identified and steps were taken to
| > correct.  It's hard to quantify how many planes are in one piece and how
| > many pilots are healthy because of the hardware and piloting defects
that
| > were detected and corrected.
| >
| > Everyone would benefit from a common depository of this information.
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| To change your email address, visit
| http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
|
| Visit the gallery!  tvbf:jamaicangoose
| _______________________________________________
| To change your email address, visit
http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
|
| Visit the gallery!  tvbf:jamaicangoose
|