Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: safety?> Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety > record is a commendable effort for sure but> the NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their > records/reports so analyzing the data can be a muddy> endeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most > trouble for hombuilders/pilots like us)> > > Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some > differences in the way homebuilt> accidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some > comparisons with factory built GA airplanes.> Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely.> > http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts ... nttaja.pdf> > > Mike C.> ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:36:31 -0600
Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety?
Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]"
Fellow Piet builder/ flyers:A long story would tell you why I signed up for a college course inaviation accident investigations - and why at my age I am "in school". It'sfor a good cause - an Instrument rating courtesy of the VA. I have comeacross some interesting observations I think worth sharing with my fellowPietenpol builders/owners and in general to the Experimental home buildercommunity as a whole. I have a request that you all think about safety andperhaps post your thought on how we all can increase safety while flying andfor some of us, building.After reading 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports (2012 all the way to1970s), it's my novice opinion that the predominant Pietenpol accident CAUSEis "failure to control the aircraft" in either take-off or landing phase,usually RESULTS in a stall, stall/spin, hard landing, impact with trees,failure to maintain directional control after landing, and ground loops.HIDDEN in these reports is overloaded aircraft unable to climb due toseveral "contributing factors" such as density altitude, exceeding theaircraft gross weight abilities and aircraft loaded outside their CG limits.Gusty conditions are commonly cited as contributing factors. Every one ofthese accidents is human error. The seconds leading CAUSE of accidents is "Fuel Starvation". In threecases carb icing was determined to be the likely cause, but is never provento be the cause as it "flees the scene of the accident". In a recentaccident (2011) the NTSB stated the cause of the accident was water In thefuel. In another, the tank was improperly built - the internal fingerstrainer was placed over the sump outlet not the supply to the carb and some"Teflon thread tape" was found blocking the fuel supply inlet to the carb.In another, the tank vent was blocked by a wasp nest. My favorite of ALLinvolves a guy who hand props his engine. The fuel shut off valve is in thefront cockpit (reachable during hand propping). The pilots "NORMALPROCEDURE" is to close the fuel valve, prop the engine, then opens the fuelvalve after engine startup. Problem this particular day was he left thefuel valve closed and when the engine quit during the flight, he could notreach the fuel valve to open it - it was in the front cockpit! Every one ofthese accidents is human error.Not listed as fuel starvation, one poor guy ran out of fuel in cruise andmade a successful landing off airport in a field with short "ankle length"grass. He re-filled with 4.5 gallons fuel. On takeoff the left wheelstruck a small rock and the gear collapsed.I read four accident reports where BUZZING was the CAUSE of the accident .Contributing to these accidents are things like flying into a pole at 30 ftAGL, one into a power line, one from a downdraft, and one from failure tomaintain air speed. Every one of these accidents is human error. Fouraccidents and 5 fatalities!The stall/spin on landing or takeoff and BUZZING are the predominant CAUSEof fatal accidents.Next come propellers (everyone pay attention!). There are two knownaccidents caused by in-flight separation of the propeller (both Fords). Inboth cases many (but not all) prop hub bolts had sheared indicating improperinspections of the propeller, bolts, and hub. Rust was visible on thesheared portion of the bolts. The third case involved a homemade prop thatfailed to provide adequate thrust and the plane crashed on takeoff (actuallythe pilot crashed the plane, not the other way around). Every one of theseaccidents is human error.Now here is one that will give those who asked about putting controls upfront will like to hear about - 3 accidents in all. In one accident, thefront passenger inadvertently pulled the throttle closed and the pilot wasunable to overcome the passengers "death grip" on the throttle - theycrashed. In another case, the passenger inadvertently applied left aileron(with his legs when he turned around to look at the pilot) during a"upsetting" takeoff, the pilot could not recover in time and they crashed.Finally in a third incident a seat cushion was interfering with the rudder /brakes. The preflight did not notice this condition and the pilot crashedon takeoff. Every one of these accidents is human error .Notice, I have not yet made mention of any mechanical engine issues so far?Well there are a couple unrelated accidents, where "loss of engine power"(not attributed to carb ice) was listed as a contributing factor but NEVERthe CAUSE of the accident (just as in the case of carb ice). In all thesecases "failure to maintain control of the aircraft" was the CAUSE. Onecase cited a burnt exhaust valve, and another was "overheating" related to ablockage of the oil cooler caused oil starvation - ironically the foreignobject was part of a cylinder ring. In a third case "CAUSE UNKNOWN"resulting in a loss of power. Noted in this case was low compression in 3of the 4 cylinders. And finally a "burred" carb needle caused the needleto stick in the closed position (on landing - pilot needed power and did notget it). Every one of these accidents was CAUSED by human errors.The very oldest Pietenpol accident reports (1970s) available on line containonly a few brief words in the accident report. One mentions improperrigging of a turnbuckle. It broke in fight, the wing shifted and the CG wasdisturbed. In another, the "push-pull" rod failed at the bell crank. Bothof these accidents resulted in fatalities. All caused by human error.Now I am sure there are numerous Pietenpol accidents that did not show up inthe 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports I was able to obtain. I suspectthis because I could not find reports on notable and known accidents ofcertain non Pietenpol accidents I wanted to research. But I think it's fairto say that MOST Pietenpols are inherently safe - because of the design andbecause of the builder/owner/pilot. In my novice opinion, It's the pilotand the "maintainer" that you need to be keeping an eye on to preventaccidents.Summation: Most accidents are the result of a chain of events. Normally itrequires only one link in the chain to be broken to avoid an accident. Whataccident chain links can you break? ALL of them!Our Pietenpol "type club" needs to do a better job to prevent accidents. Isuggest the following:. Better pre-flight inspections with strict adherence to checklistswould have avoided MANY of these accidents. . Not flying aft of the rear CG limits would have avoided MANY ofthese accidents - those of us still building MUST not skip the W&B step atthe end of construction!. Use of carb heat might have avoided several accidents. Always usecarb heat when power is below cruise setting! Make this a checklist item.. Avoiding BUZZING would definitely have prevented fatal accidents -Don't do it!. Adequate training / experience handling difficult landing andtakeoff conditions. Consider not flying in gusty conditions with passengers- or at all.. Better passenger briefing and perhaps requiring usage of anintercom/headsets to communicate with the passenger should be mandatory. I suggest passenger placing their hands on the outboard fuse walls(9 and 3 o'clock) during takeoffs and landings to be part of yourchecklists.. Make front stick removable and keep it uninstalled in mostinstances.. Do a Weight & Balance of the airplane - know your true CG data -and keep within it. . Consider Density altitude, gross weight and performance whentaking a passenger. Pay better attention to slow flight stall/spin avoidanceprocedures - takeoffs and landingsWHAT DO YOU SUGGEST we do to make flying our Pietenpol safer?Bob DewenterPiet builder / Corvair ownerDayton OH________________________________________________________________________________
Fellow Piet builder/ flyers:A long story would tell you why I signed up for a college course inaviation accident investigations - and why at my age I am "in school". It'sfor a good cause - an Instrument rating courtesy of the VA. I have comeacross some interesting observations I think worth sharing with my fellowPietenpol builders/owners and in general to the Experimental home buildercommunity as a whole. I have a request that you all think about safety andperhaps post your thought on how we all can increase safety while flying andfor some of us, building.After reading 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports (2012 all the way to1970s), it's my novice opinion that the predominant Pietenpol accident CAUSEis "failure to control the aircraft" in either take-off or landing phase,usually RESULTS in a stall, stall/spin, hard landing, impact with trees,failure to maintain directional control after landing, and ground loops.HIDDEN in these reports is overloaded aircraft unable to climb due toseveral "contributing factors" such as density altitude, exceeding theaircraft gross weight abilities and aircraft loaded outside their CG limits.Gusty conditions are commonly cited as contributing factors. Every one ofthese accidents is human error. The seconds leading CAUSE of accidents is "Fuel Starvation". In threecases carb icing was determined to be the likely cause, but is never provento be the cause as it "flees the scene of the accident". In a recentaccident (2011) the NTSB stated the cause of the accident was water In thefuel. In another, the tank was improperly built - the internal fingerstrainer was placed over the sump outlet not the supply to the carb and some"Teflon thread tape" was found blocking the fuel supply inlet to the carb.In another, the tank vent was blocked by a wasp nest. My favorite of ALLinvolves a guy who hand props his engine. The fuel shut off valve is in thefront cockpit (reachable during hand propping). The pilots "NORMALPROCEDURE" is to close the fuel valve, prop the engine, then opens the fuelvalve after engine startup. Problem this particular day was he left thefuel valve closed and when the engine quit during the flight, he could notreach the fuel valve to open it - it was in the front cockpit! Every one ofthese accidents is human error.Not listed as fuel starvation, one poor guy ran out of fuel in cruise andmade a successful landing off airport in a field with short "ankle length"grass. He re-filled with 4.5 gallons fuel. On takeoff the left wheelstruck a small rock and the gear collapsed.I read four accident reports where BUZZING was the CAUSE of the accident .Contributing to these accidents are things like flying into a pole at 30 ftAGL, one into a power line, one from a downdraft, and one from failure tomaintain air speed. Every one of these accidents is human error. Fouraccidents and 5 fatalities!The stall/spin on landing or takeoff and BUZZING are the predominant CAUSEof fatal accidents.Next come propellers (everyone pay attention!). There are two knownaccidents caused by in-flight separation of the propeller (both Fords). Inboth cases many (but not all) prop hub bolts had sheared indicating improperinspections of the propeller, bolts, and hub. Rust was visible on thesheared portion of the bolts. The third case involved a homemade prop thatfailed to provide adequate thrust and the plane crashed on takeoff (actuallythe pilot crashed the plane, not the other way around). Every one of theseaccidents is human error.Now here is one that will give those who asked about putting controls upfront will like to hear about - 3 accidents in all. In one accident, thefront passenger inadvertently pulled the throttle closed and the pilot wasunable to overcome the passengers "death grip" on the throttle - theycrashed. In another case, the passenger inadvertently applied left aileron(with his legs when he turned around to look at the pilot) during a"upsetting" takeoff, the pilot could not recover in time and they crashed.Finally in a third incident a seat cushion was interfering with the rudder /brakes. The preflight did not notice this condition and the pilot crashedon takeoff. Every one of these accidents is human error .Notice, I have not yet made mention of any mechanical engine issues so far?Well there are a couple unrelated accidents, where "loss of engine power"(not attributed to carb ice) was listed as a contributing factor but NEVERthe CAUSE of the accident (just as in the case of carb ice). In all thesecases "failure to maintain control of the aircraft" was the CAUSE. Onecase cited a burnt exhaust valve, and another was "overheating" related to ablockage of the oil cooler caused oil starvation - ironically the foreignobject was part of a cylinder ring. In a third case "CAUSE UNKNOWN"resulting in a loss of power. Noted in this case was low compression in 3of the 4 cylinders. And finally a "burred" carb needle caused the needleto stick in the closed position (on landing - pilot needed power and did notget it). Every one of these accidents was CAUSED by human errors.The very oldest Pietenpol accident reports (1970s) available on line containonly a few brief words in the accident report. One mentions improperrigging of a turnbuckle. It broke in fight, the wing shifted and the CG wasdisturbed. In another, the "push-pull" rod failed at the bell crank. Bothof these accidents resulted in fatalities. All caused by human error.Now I am sure there are numerous Pietenpol accidents that did not show up inthe 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports I was able to obtain. I suspectthis because I could not find reports on notable and known accidents ofcertain non Pietenpol accidents I wanted to research. But I think it's fairto say that MOST Pietenpols are inherently safe - because of the design andbecause of the builder/owner/pilot. In my novice opinion, It's the pilotand the "maintainer" that you need to be keeping an eye on to preventaccidents.Summation: Most accidents are the result of a chain of events. Normally itrequires only one link in the chain to be broken to avoid an accident. Whataccident chain links can you break? ALL of them!Our Pietenpol "type club" needs to do a better job to prevent accidents. Isuggest the following:. Better pre-flight inspections with strict adherence to checklistswould have avoided MANY of these accidents. . Not flying aft of the rear CG limits would have avoided MANY ofthese accidents - those of us still building MUST not skip the W&B step atthe end of construction!. Use of carb heat might have avoided several accidents. Always usecarb heat when power is below cruise setting! Make this a checklist item.. Avoiding BUZZING would definitely have prevented fatal accidents -Don't do it!. Adequate training / experience handling difficult landing andtakeoff conditions. Consider not flying in gusty conditions with passengers- or at all.. Better passenger briefing and perhaps requiring usage of anintercom/headsets to communicate with the passenger should be mandatory. I suggest passenger placing their hands on the outboard fuse walls(9 and 3 o'clock) during takeoffs and landings to be part of yourchecklists.. Make front stick removable and keep it uninstalled in mostinstances.. Do a Weight & Balance of the airplane - know your true CG data -and keep within it. . Consider Density altitude, gross weight and performance whentaking a passenger. Pay better attention to slow flight stall/spin avoidanceprocedures - takeoffs and landingsWHAT DO YOU SUGGEST we do to make flying our Pietenpol safer?Bob DewenterPiet builder / Corvair ownerDayton OH________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "tools"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: safety?Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety record is a commendable effort for sure butthe NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their records/reports so analyzing the data can be a muddyendeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most trouble for hombuilders/pilots like us)Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some differences in the way homebuiltaccidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some comparisons with factory built GA airplanes.Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely.http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts ... ja.pdfMike C.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Subject: Pietenpol-List: safety?Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety record is a commendable effort for sure butthe NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their records/reports so analyzing the data can be a muddyendeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most trouble for hombuilders/pilots like us)Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some differences in the way homebuiltaccidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some comparisons with factory built GA airplanes.Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely.http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts ... ja.pdfMike C.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
GREAT post and great reading. These are manmade machines, in a way, you can withoutinvestigating ALWAYS say it's human error. However, except in a generalway, that's not very useful.Knowing WHAT the human did wrong, is THE BEST information. It's not very usefulto say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use good materials, use goodcraftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfect judgment ALL THETIME.I like your list at the end of the post and is a great starting point. They addresscertain more commonly goofed SPECIFIC items. I have several things to addto the list, learned the hard way, and I'll do that later.For now, all I have to add is a philosophy I used when I was the Aviation SafetyOfficer of VT7 in Meridian MS in the late 90's. Us typical type A overachievingmathematical types are easily defeated by saying it's obvious you CAN NOThave a perfect safety record, so what's the point?I used to remind everyone in the squadron that that fact was absolutely true, sodon't even bother with the Navy's safety record, just their own... Very fewguys were willing to believe that they couldn't do that! Semantics for sure, but seemed to put things in perspective.I do have one disagreement, I believe ALL accidents are a result of a chain, notmost. Theoretically not true I'm sure, but probably closer than "most"! AviationSafety Officer school was SIX WEEKS of learning how all our buddies mortedthemselves, it was morose and depressing. That "chain" is the subject ofpractically ALL safety discussions and a super useful thing to understand in safetyawareness.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
GREAT post and great reading. These are manmade machines, in a way, you can withoutinvestigating ALWAYS say it's human error. However, except in a generalway, that's not very useful.Knowing WHAT the human did wrong, is THE BEST information. It's not very usefulto say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use good materials, use goodcraftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfect judgment ALL THETIME.I like your list at the end of the post and is a great starting point. They addresscertain more commonly goofed SPECIFIC items. I have several things to addto the list, learned the hard way, and I'll do that later.For now, all I have to add is a philosophy I used when I was the Aviation SafetyOfficer of VT7 in Meridian MS in the late 90's. Us typical type A overachievingmathematical types are easily defeated by saying it's obvious you CAN NOThave a perfect safety record, so what's the point?I used to remind everyone in the squadron that that fact was absolutely true, sodon't even bother with the Navy's safety record, just their own... Very fewguys were willing to believe that they couldn't do that! Semantics for sure, but seemed to put things in perspective.I do have one disagreement, I believe ALL accidents are a result of a chain, notmost. Theoretically not true I'm sure, but probably closer than "most"! AviationSafety Officer school was SIX WEEKS of learning how all our buddies mortedthemselves, it was morose and depressing. That "chain" is the subject ofpractically ALL safety discussions and a super useful thing to understand in safetyawareness.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "tools"
Just curious as to what is not useful about saying "use good materials", and "usegood craftsmanship", and "use accepted practices" ALL THE TIME. While it simplyisn't possible to exercise *perfect* judgment ALL THE TIME, it IS possibleto exercise GOOD judgement all the time.Bill C. > It's not very useful to say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use goodmaterials, use good craftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfectjudgment ALL THE TIME. > Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Just curious as to what is not useful about saying "use good materials", and "usegood craftsmanship", and "use accepted practices" ALL THE TIME. While it simplyisn't possible to exercise *perfect* judgment ALL THE TIME, it IS possibleto exercise GOOD judgement all the time.Bill C. > It's not very useful to say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use goodmaterials, use good craftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfectjudgment ALL THE TIME. > Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
Well, all of those things can be done all the time, but that they're not to a degreeit's worth talking about leads me to believe it's just vague enough to warranta closer more relevant look. Making it not very useful as a general statement.What materials are most commonly used that are unsafe?What judgment errors are most commonly made with a Pietenpol?What unsafe practices are generally committed with high frequency?If we find things that are unique to the Piet, ie are more people committing errorsassociated with density altitude with a Piet than a GA aircraft that haspublished tables (but the same genre, ie a Cub), maybe we've found something relevant.Something not likely to be found by simply saying, "don't operate yourplane outside it's performance envelope", which itself is more specific thansaying "don't commit an error in judgment. One could have an entire world wide encompassing safety program with one phrase."Don't do anything unsafe..." That's been proven to be not very useful.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:40:09 -0600
Well, all of those things can be done all the time, but that they're not to a degreeit's worth talking about leads me to believe it's just vague enough to warranta closer more relevant look. Making it not very useful as a general statement.What materials are most commonly used that are unsafe?What judgment errors are most commonly made with a Pietenpol?What unsafe practices are generally committed with high frequency?If we find things that are unique to the Piet, ie are more people committing errorsassociated with density altitude with a Piet than a GA aircraft that haspublished tables (but the same genre, ie a Cub), maybe we've found something relevant.Something not likely to be found by simply saying, "don't operate yourplane outside it's performance envelope", which itself is more specific thansaying "don't commit an error in judgment. One could have an entire world wide encompassing safety program with one phrase."Don't do anything unsafe..." That's been proven to be not very useful.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:40:09 -0600
Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB"
> Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds andsuch? AC90-89ARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
> Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds andsuch? AC90-89ARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: safety?
Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: safety?The common wisdom I subscribe to is:Flying is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. The Insurance rates are aboutthe same. Insurance companies do the math. To reduce your accident/death rate stay away from the following:Drinking or drugs) and flyingVFR Flying into IFRdoing aerobatics in a non aerobatic plane,radical showing off down low. not wearing the proper safety gear. fly sick. Not staying or getting current with an instructor.poor maintenance.Granted you can have accidents that are not in those categories, but you significantlyreduce your accident rate if you stay away from these activites. I amwilling to take the residual risk for the joy of flying. Blue Skies,Steve D----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: safety?The common wisdom I subscribe to is:Flying is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. The Insurance rates are aboutthe same. Insurance companies do the math. To reduce your accident/death rate stay away from the following:Drinking or drugs) and flyingVFR Flying into IFRdoing aerobatics in a non aerobatic plane,radical showing off down low. not wearing the proper safety gear. fly sick. Not staying or getting current with an instructor.poor maintenance.Granted you can have accidents that are not in those categories, but you significantlyreduce your accident rate if you stay away from these activites. I amwilling to take the residual risk for the joy of flying. Blue Skies,Steve D----- Original Message -----
RE: Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Thanks for that synopsis, Bob. Unfortunately, all these causes of accidentsare not limited to Pietenpols only. All of general aviation suffers these,with experimental aircraft showing up in these statistics adisproportionately high number of times.I like your list of bulletpoints at the bottom. I particularly like yourlast suggestion. As a CFI, whenever I'm doing a flight review for a privatepilot, I always have him/her go through a series of power-off and power-onstalls, as well as demonstrating turns in slow flight. I also like to pullthe power at some point to simulate an engine failure and determine if theyare able to correctly pick a suitable landing field and set up an approachto it. Then when we are on downwind leg in the traffic pattern, I'll pullit again and tell them to make the runway and land without touching thethrottle. I'm always amazed at the wide patterns people fly, and thenwonder why they can't make the field when the engine quits.A Pietenpol is a very safe airplane, but it does have its quirks. Chiefamong them is the high drag inherent to the design, with the resulting poorglide ratio. Trying to "stretch" a glide in a Pietenpol is a sure-firerecipe for disaster. When flying a traffic pattern in a Piet, you want tostay very close to the runway on the downwind leg. My personal preferenceis to fly the approach a little high, and then when I know I can make thefield, slip it to lose altitude.Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia _____
Thanks for that synopsis, Bob. Unfortunately, all these causes of accidentsare not limited to Pietenpols only. All of general aviation suffers these,with experimental aircraft showing up in these statistics adisproportionately high number of times.I like your list of bulletpoints at the bottom. I particularly like yourlast suggestion. As a CFI, whenever I'm doing a flight review for a privatepilot, I always have him/her go through a series of power-off and power-onstalls, as well as demonstrating turns in slow flight. I also like to pullthe power at some point to simulate an engine failure and determine if theyare able to correctly pick a suitable landing field and set up an approachto it. Then when we are on downwind leg in the traffic pattern, I'll pullit again and tell them to make the runway and land without touching thethrottle. I'm always amazed at the wide patterns people fly, and thenwonder why they can't make the field when the engine quits.A Pietenpol is a very safe airplane, but it does have its quirks. Chiefamong them is the high drag inherent to the design, with the resulting poorglide ratio. Trying to "stretch" a glide in a Pietenpol is a sure-firerecipe for disaster. When flying a traffic pattern in a Piet, you want tostay very close to the runway on the downwind leg. My personal preferenceis to fly the approach a little high, and then when I know I can make thefield, slip it to lose altitude.Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia _____
Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "Robert Gow"
Bob,I have been out flying and had not had a chance to respond to your post until now.It was a great article and thanks for doing the leg work of researching therecords. You have done all of us a real service.The NTSB may do things differently with the record keeping of experimental aircraft,but it is hard to argue with a report of fuel shutoff valves in an unreachableplace, or passengers stepping on the rudder. I think all of your bulletpoints are reasonable, and should be considered by all of us.One bullet point I might add is this - when planning your build, always plan forthe worst. Had the guy that put the fuel shutoff in the cockpit thought thatway, he would have made sure he had access at all times to the valve, not justat start up. In my build, how does that apply? Routing of fuel lines and theconstruction of the fuel tank are big concerns for me. Making sure that if Ihave an off field landing, or the gear collapses, the fuel lines are stout enoughto take the forces and making sure my tank and fuel system are not affectedby the deteriorating effects of ethanol. No, I do not plan to use ethanol fuelin my airplane, but what if it is inadvertently introduced? I am planning forthe worst. Just one example.Again, nice job, Bob.P.S. Are there any areas of construction that weasel oil is beneficial? How aboutweasel varnish? [Laughing]--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Bob,I have been out flying and had not had a chance to respond to your post until now.It was a great article and thanks for doing the leg work of researching therecords. You have done all of us a real service.The NTSB may do things differently with the record keeping of experimental aircraft,but it is hard to argue with a report of fuel shutoff valves in an unreachableplace, or passengers stepping on the rudder. I think all of your bulletpoints are reasonable, and should be considered by all of us.One bullet point I might add is this - when planning your build, always plan forthe worst. Had the guy that put the fuel shutoff in the cockpit thought thatway, he would have made sure he had access at all times to the valve, not justat start up. In my build, how does that apply? Routing of fuel lines and theconstruction of the fuel tank are big concerns for me. Making sure that if Ihave an off field landing, or the gear collapses, the fuel lines are stout enoughto take the forces and making sure my tank and fuel system are not affectedby the deteriorating effects of ethanol. No, I do not plan to use ethanol fuelin my airplane, but what if it is inadvertently introduced? I am planning forthe worst. Just one example.Again, nice job, Bob.P.S. Are there any areas of construction that weasel oil is beneficial? How aboutweasel varnish? [Laughing]--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: "kevinpurtee"
I have thought about putting those gizmo's on my plane too. I keep hearing howgood they work. The part that bothers me is that sometimes after I return homefrom an afternoon of flying there is a 30 knot wind at my home airport. Ithink they would take away my ability to taxi or even land if I had them. ThereforeI will use that money to buy more fuel so I can convert the fuel into noisewhich is converted into flight which is equal to pleasure/lower blood pressure.Oh yea, they also add to the empty weight.Keep them light,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
I have thought about putting those gizmo's on my plane too. I keep hearing howgood they work. The part that bothers me is that sometimes after I return homefrom an afternoon of flying there is a 30 knot wind at my home airport. Ithink they would take away my ability to taxi or even land if I had them. ThereforeI will use that money to buy more fuel so I can convert the fuel into noisewhich is converted into flight which is equal to pleasure/lower blood pressure.Oh yea, they also add to the empty weight.Keep them light,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How do we increase safety?
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Hi Bob - One quick comment about the "poor guy" who "ran out of fuel in cruiseand made a successful landing off airport in a field." I, along with severalhundred other people, watched him take off for that flight from a fly-in we wereattending. His float gauge was indicating empty. Several people mentionedit to him. His partner asked him about it. Shelley offered to go get him gas.He said he didn't need any fuel.Some accident chains are easier to decipher than others.--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/San Marcos, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Hi Bob - One quick comment about the "poor guy" who "ran out of fuel in cruiseand made a successful landing off airport in a field." I, along with severalhundred other people, watched him take off for that flight from a fly-in we wereattending. His float gauge was indicating empty. Several people mentionedit to him. His partner asked him about it. Shelley offered to go get him gas.He said he didn't need any fuel.Some accident chains are easier to decipher than others.--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/San Marcos, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
No they wouldn't. I actually think he is going to add a pair of bad 70s lambchop sideburns to the airplane.John HofmannVice-President, Information TechnologyThe Rees Group, Inc.2424 American LaneMadison, WI 53704Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150Fax: 608.443.2474Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.comOn Jan 28, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Michael Perez wrote:> Paul, a canard or winglets would look great on a Pietenpol.> > Michael Perez> Pietenpol HINT Videos> Karetaker Aero> www.karetakeraero.com> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:27:43 -0800 (PST)
No they wouldn't. I actually think he is going to add a pair of bad 70s lambchop sideburns to the airplane.John HofmannVice-President, Information TechnologyThe Rees Group, Inc.2424 American LaneMadison, WI 53704Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150Fax: 608.443.2474Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.comOn Jan 28, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Michael Perez wrote:> Paul, a canard or winglets would look great on a Pietenpol.> > Michael Perez> Pietenpol HINT Videos> Karetaker Aero> www.karetakeraero.com> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:27:43 -0800 (PST)