REFLECTOR:Accidents, statistics and random thoughts

[Chuck Jensen]

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