lml@lancaironline.net Mailing List Archive

Absolutely correct. Ask my Canadian friend who recently completed his lancair why he could not receive training in his aircraft. I am a comm pilot with 6000 tt, 500 in Lancairs and was not permitted to fly that airplane because it has a high wing loading (and therefore requires a specific type rating for that specific airframe). The rules that are supposed to enhance safety can be barriers to efficient accessible training. Without that, people will tend to cut corners or go without.

Paul

On 2013-12-06, at 10:52, Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure I get your point Hamid. No one suggested that individuals shouldn't do all they can to improve safety. But its not a secret that even well-intentioned FAA rules can compromise safety. For example, new Lancair builders seeking to improve their chances of surviving their first hundred hours via training face many regulatory barriers.

The "industry" the author refers to in regards to Part 23 aircraft (she specifies older, in-service certified aircraft) is comprised of owners, maintainers, flight instructors and technology suppliers. Granted, flight instructors are limited in what they can do by the owners' willingness to engage them, but owners are clamoring for safety upgrades. The maintainers and technology suppliers who want to meet this demand are stymied by certification requirements that makes what should be relatively inexpensive safety improvements economically unfeasible.

This is something the FAA acknowledged as long ago as 2009:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/directorates_field/small_airplanes/media/CPS_Part_23.pdf

"While the existing approach has produced safe airplanes for decades, technological advances have changed the original assumptions of the part 23 divisions. The new small turbine engines, composite airframes, and lightweight digital electronics offer part 23 airplanes the operational capability and performance of traditionally larger part 25 airplanes. Part 23 standards have evolved beyond their original intent to address the increasing performance and complexity. Unfortunately, the slow, simple part 23 airplanes have suffered as the standards have shifted towards more complex airplanes."

I believe the study cited in the original article did a good job of verifying and quantifying the assumptions made in the FAA's 2009 report.

Respectfully,

--Mark

Hamid wrote:

Early in the article it states a fact: "...neither the overall accident rate nor the fatal rate has budged in more than a decade, despite industry efforts to reduce accidents." If the barrier to entry created by certification were a major factor in this, Experimental aviation would not only continue to improve drastically, in pace with the rapid advance in technology, but become as safe as driving. The fact is that it has not.

The biggest contributor to accidents, as has been discussed and demonstrated many many times here on LML, is the faulty hardware between the pilot's ears, not the hardware that was not installed due to certification. But PhDs are granted for blaming the government for certification rules and not for calling out the idiot on his quest for a Darwin award.

Regards,

Hamid

On 12/5/2013 10:57 AM, Mark Sletten wrote:

Very interesting study regarding the effects of FAA certification requirements on flight safety.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Research-Study-Aircraft-Certification-Rules-Dont-Necessarily-Improve-Safety221068-1.html

--Mark