|
I find Jeff's
comments
offensive at so many levels that I am having difficulty sorting my
thoughts.
In a world FULL of nattering bureaucrats who cloak their perpetual
avarice
quest for dominion over the plurality in a veil of mock concern for the
public
good, one can taken refuge in the reasoned sanity of self
responsibility
afforded by the Experimental Aircraft category. To have one of our own
betray
that sanity with a call borne from self proclaimed ignorance is the
pinnacle of
demagoguery. The grave risk is that others, who have forsaken reasoned
thought,
are quick to rally to the standard of "We do this for your own
safety".
What I find particularly repugnant is that this misinformed implied
attribution
of fault to the design is counterproductive to the true mitigation of
risk. The
fundamental design is valid as demonstrated both analytically and
empirically.
Claiming intrinsic fault in the design at this point is equivalent to
claiming
that obesity is the product of cutlery. Tabloid headline "400 pound
woman cries "Spoons made me fat!""
The reason that the NTSB starts with the assumption that all accidents
are the
fault of the pilot is that if they simply applied a "Pilot Error"
rubber stamp after “Cause:” on ALL accident reports they would be right
90% of
the time. I am unaware of ANY accident involving a Lancair that was
the
result of a design induced failure.
Perspicacity is not requisite as a simple review of Part 91 accidents
shows they are
precipitated predominantly (~90%) by three classes of pilot error; fuel
starvation, stall / spin and VFR pilot in IMC. The balance, ~10%, is a
mix of
other causes including mechanical failure. In the Experimental Category
we have
the additional, and significant added factor of "Builder
Error". If "Builder Error" induced accidents are removed
from the database it is likely that the accident causality distribution
will
closely match that in the Part 91 general case.
Builder Error is induced in several ways, including:
1) The builder does not comply with the assembly instructions and good
workmanship practices. Examples include the builder failing to remove
peal ply,
substituting materials, failing to vent internal cavities, failure to
keep
fuel tanks free of contamination. etc. etc.
2) The builder deviates from the design without proper analysis. The
experimental builder is predisposed to "do things differently" and
will deviate from a demonstrated working solution in an effort to
"Improve" the design. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes
not. The engineering wisdom needed to evaluate the suitability of a
design
change is not miraculously bestowed on a builder when they write the
kit
deposit check. Many builders, while capable of following directions,
completely
lack the requisite analytical skills to the extent that they do not
even
realize that what they are contemplating may have fatal consequences.
One
builder decided that the aileron pushrods located in the wings would
work
better if they were used in torsion rather in tension / compression.
When I
asked if they had analyzed the effect the torsional modulus would have
on
flutter they responded with a blank stare that haunts me to this day.
3) Builders that fail to properly maintain their aircraft. You KNOW you
could do better,
don't you?
The FAA recognizes, and correctly so, that every Experimental aircraft
has a
unique manufacturer, the builder. Therefore, every experimental
aircraft, while
they may share similarities with others, are recognized as unique and a
member
of a fleet of one. This fact precludes "grounding the whole
fleet" as both a legal and functional impracticality.
Lancairs' high performance places them outside the realm of
"certifiable" and therefore, arguably, they are not as safe as a
Piper Cub, a plane that can just barely kill you. This performance is
WHY we
want them. This was not some hidden fact sprung on the unsuspecting
builder
during flight testing. You were fully informed, if not seduced by the
promise of speed and grace. Do not NOW have the audacity and
intellectual
dishonesty to propose that this performance constitutes a design flaw.
Better
one should relocate next to an aerodrome and shake their raised fist in
anger
at the noise. At least then one would have the camaraderie of like
minded
miscreants who have abandoned self responsibility and critical
thinking.
Lancair is not responsible for the safety of an aircraft you build any
more
than a chicken is responsible if your soufflé fails to rise. As pilots
and
builders it is essential that we shoulder the responsibility for our
own safety
and the actions that affect same. Those that look to others to
ensure their aeronautical safety will at best be disappointed or at
worst be
making an appointment for a dirt nap.
The litigious elements in our society offer monetary rewards for those
who
adopt the premise that personal responsibility can be assigned to
others.
The siren song of a jury punitive award is irresistible to most. This
attitude
is an artifice that is infiltrating citizens' perception of the nature
of
responsibility. Efforts spent on a misguided call for others into
action result
in the perception that all is being done to remediate the situation.
Would you
stand beneath the falling piano pontificating on the need for higher
Block and Tackle
Safety Standards?
We have met the enemy and they is us. Point the finger at the factory,
it is
the builder, it is you, and DO something about it. Inspect YOUR
airplane.
Maintain YOUR airplane. Practice YOUR skills and emergency procedures.
Keep
current in YOUR airplane.
Builder Pilots who look to others as responsible for their safety and
their
actions are, indeed, unsafe in ANY plane.
Regards
Brent Regan
|