Pietenpol-List: Tank
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:55 pm
Original Posted By: Scott Knowlton
Douwe,The term "Airworthy" has a very specific and understood deffinion if we are speakingof trained professionals operating with good judgement on certified planes.Conversely, it has a very vague definition in homebuilding circles. Consider thatall experimentals have an FAA inspection. Does this deem the plane airworthyif it passes? No. Here is the FAA language:"the FAA or a Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) in your geographicalarea will inspect your amateur-built aircraft for general airworthiness"A lot of people miss-read that to say the inspection makes the plane airworthy.It only says the paperwork is in order, it doesn't even say it is right. On theW&B project, several of the planes we looked at had a W&B sheet that was obviouslycopied from another plane (wheel base different), but this data passedthe DAR. Something like 25% of new homebuilts have a serious mechanical failure(does not always result in incident) during the first 10 hours of flight. Clearly,those planes were not airworthy in my book the day they passed the DAR.Mr. Tools point of adding "Mostly" to your comment is a good one. Working froma book that is mosty right, can only produce a plane that is mostly right. Mypoint is that to be airworthy by the standards of Physics chemistry and gravity,the only organization that uses the death penalty as punishment for non-compliance,a plane must simply be 100% good. Note that a plane which is 99% perfectis certainly better than "Mostly" perfect, but that 1% can be your undoing.I teach people 100% good, all within proven limits. Would you like to see where"mostly" ends up? Get a look at this story, it is about the prettiest 601ever built, but it was owned buy a guy who put the mixture control in his carbtogether incorrectly because he didn't want to pay a pro to do it, nor take thetime to learn it himself. Combine that with low altitude cruising on flight#1, and you end up dead. I told him twice to let a repair station do the carb.the labor charge was $400, too expensive for Ken:http://flycorvair.net/2013/04/20/risk-m ... place/Lots of people like to express opinions on "airworthy." I look at it very differently,I am concerned not with a static condition on a single day, I am concernedwith a mindset and a process called "Effective risk management." I startedwith a degree in accident investigation from Embry-Riddle, but that was justthe jumping off point. I have learned a lot since. You can read this at lengthon the link below. It also has great pictures and fun stories about many ofmy closest friends, who are all dead now. Maybe the things I know cost a lot,and perhaps they are worth thinking about.http://flycorvair.net/2014/01/21/risk-m ... ce-page/At Corvair College#28, Kevin Purtee remarked that he and I are both the same age,have both worked in aviation every day since we were 26, both hold the samedegree from Embry-Riddle, and have both extensively studied and managed riskprograms. Yet he pointed out that he has learned a lot from the things I havewritten on the topic. There is a simple explanation for this. He has worked ina very dangerous environment (combat) but has done so with professionals whounderstand risk management. Conversely, I have spent the same years in the wildernessworking with people who often didn't even think they had anything to learnfrom me. Simply put, I have had a front row seat to countless examples ofdangerous thinking and seen the results. I have enough stories, but right now,someone is working on adding to the list. Just make sure it isn't you.I know several hundred people who have successfully completed and safely flowntheir homebuilt. I also known five times as many that never finished. Ask allthe people who failed, and nearly every one of them will have the same collectionof books, Tony's among them. Ask the people who succeeded, and the commonthread that emerges is that they wisely chose 4 living in person mentors, whohad already built and flown the same plane they were working on, and they usedtheir advise to learn from. The successful do not listen to airport lurkers,armchair experts, people who build race cars, nor even majority approved responsesfrom internet discussion groups. They are more selective, and they use upto date information, and they adjust their built or their plane to advancementslike fuel lines. -wwRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tank
Douwe,The term "Airworthy" has a very specific and understood deffinion if we are speakingof trained professionals operating with good judgement on certified planes.Conversely, it has a very vague definition in homebuilding circles. Consider thatall experimentals have an FAA inspection. Does this deem the plane airworthyif it passes? No. Here is the FAA language:"the FAA or a Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) in your geographicalarea will inspect your amateur-built aircraft for general airworthiness"A lot of people miss-read that to say the inspection makes the plane airworthy.It only says the paperwork is in order, it doesn't even say it is right. On theW&B project, several of the planes we looked at had a W&B sheet that was obviouslycopied from another plane (wheel base different), but this data passedthe DAR. Something like 25% of new homebuilts have a serious mechanical failure(does not always result in incident) during the first 10 hours of flight. Clearly,those planes were not airworthy in my book the day they passed the DAR.Mr. Tools point of adding "Mostly" to your comment is a good one. Working froma book that is mosty right, can only produce a plane that is mostly right. Mypoint is that to be airworthy by the standards of Physics chemistry and gravity,the only organization that uses the death penalty as punishment for non-compliance,a plane must simply be 100% good. Note that a plane which is 99% perfectis certainly better than "Mostly" perfect, but that 1% can be your undoing.I teach people 100% good, all within proven limits. Would you like to see where"mostly" ends up? Get a look at this story, it is about the prettiest 601ever built, but it was owned buy a guy who put the mixture control in his carbtogether incorrectly because he didn't want to pay a pro to do it, nor take thetime to learn it himself. Combine that with low altitude cruising on flight#1, and you end up dead. I told him twice to let a repair station do the carb.the labor charge was $400, too expensive for Ken:http://flycorvair.net/2013/04/20/risk-m ... place/Lots of people like to express opinions on "airworthy." I look at it very differently,I am concerned not with a static condition on a single day, I am concernedwith a mindset and a process called "Effective risk management." I startedwith a degree in accident investigation from Embry-Riddle, but that was justthe jumping off point. I have learned a lot since. You can read this at lengthon the link below. It also has great pictures and fun stories about many ofmy closest friends, who are all dead now. Maybe the things I know cost a lot,and perhaps they are worth thinking about.http://flycorvair.net/2014/01/21/risk-m ... ce-page/At Corvair College#28, Kevin Purtee remarked that he and I are both the same age,have both worked in aviation every day since we were 26, both hold the samedegree from Embry-Riddle, and have both extensively studied and managed riskprograms. Yet he pointed out that he has learned a lot from the things I havewritten on the topic. There is a simple explanation for this. He has worked ina very dangerous environment (combat) but has done so with professionals whounderstand risk management. Conversely, I have spent the same years in the wildernessworking with people who often didn't even think they had anything to learnfrom me. Simply put, I have had a front row seat to countless examples ofdangerous thinking and seen the results. I have enough stories, but right now,someone is working on adding to the list. Just make sure it isn't you.I know several hundred people who have successfully completed and safely flowntheir homebuilt. I also known five times as many that never finished. Ask allthe people who failed, and nearly every one of them will have the same collectionof books, Tony's among them. Ask the people who succeeded, and the commonthread that emerges is that they wisely chose 4 living in person mentors, whohad already built and flown the same plane they were working on, and they usedtheir advise to learn from. The successful do not listen to airport lurkers,armchair experts, people who build race cars, nor even majority approved responsesfrom internet discussion groups. They are more selective, and they use upto date information, and they adjust their built or their plane to advancementslike fuel lines. -wwRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tank
--------My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions:Read this topic online here: