Small Plane Crashes Into House In Vegas

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
Are experimental aircraft banned over congested areas? I seem to remember that, but maybe I'm wrong. Personally, I don't any plane that was built in someone's garage should be allowed to fly over homes, but that's just my opinion.

RIP to the victims.
 

WacoFan

Bigly
Are experimental aircraft banned over congested areas? I seem to remember that, but maybe I'm wrong. Personally, I don't any plane that was built in someone's garage should be allowed to fly over homes, but that's just my opinion.

RIP to the victims.
Certified airplanes crash into houses sometimes too - from 150's all the way up to the Kalitta 747 in Bogota that killed the two inhabitants of a house it hit. I am not sure what the problem with this airplane was so I think it a little soon to ground all experimental airplanes, or restrict their use.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
Certified airplanes crash into houses sometimes too - from 150's all the way up to the Kalitta 747 in Bogota that killed the two inhabitants of a house it hit. I am not sure what the problem with this airplane was so I think it a little soon to ground all experimental airplanes, or restrict their use.
Oh I know - and I'm certainly not suggesting we ground experimental a/c. I just don't agree with kit built planes being flown over the yellow portions of the sectional. That's probably due in no small part to by objection to ever riding in a kit built aircraft. I admit my bias.

That being said, I think if you have a bit of land, you should be able to fly whatever you want over it, with or without a license, up to a reasonable altitude. Gubmn't shouldn't be able to stop you from killing yourself on your own property.
 

ComplexHiAv8r

Well-Known Member
That's probably due in no small part to by objection to ever riding in a kit built aircraft. I admit my bias.
I have seen some real nice RV's that have better build quality then Cirrus or Cessna. You should find someone that has built one, get to know them and review the aircraft and see if you would be comfortable enough to take a flight in it. It might change your thoughts.
 

Boris Badenov

Let's get this thing on the hump!
The highways are a holocaust compared to the injuries and deaths caused by experimental (or any, for that matter) aircraft. Yet we churn out millions of little 16 year old tards with a license, an Eminem album, and a desire to show daddy who's boss. You want to talk about safety and fairness? Lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the driving age to 18 and make it a real test. You're about as likely to get hit by a piece of skylab as you are to get hit by an experimental aircraft.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
I have seen some real nice RV's that have better build quality then Cirrus or Cessna. You should find someone that has built one, get to know them and review the aircraft and see if you would be comfortable enough to take a flight in it. It might change your thoughts.
I don't doubt it - but it's just that uncertainty factor. I just feel more comfortable with a plane built on an assembly line where one person has one task to perform - and the government regulates like Warren G on a clear black night with a clear white moon.

Honestly, my bias stems from the fact that most of the guys I see around the airport who fly their own home builts are whack jobs. A sense of invincibility will get someone killed - a sense of invincibility attached to a person with more money than they know what to do with will get a lot of people killed.

But like I said, I'm sure there are plenty of home builts that are structurally sound - I just won't fly in one and I'd rather they not fly over my house. Mere preference is all. Take it out over the ocean I say.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
The highways are a holocaust compared to the injuries and deaths caused by experimental (or any, for that matter) aircraft. Yet we churn out millions of little 16 year old tards with a license, an Eminem album, and a desire to show daddy who's boss. You want to talk about safety and fairness? Lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the driving age to 18 and make it a real test. You're about as likely to get hit by a piece of skylab as you are to get hit by an experimental aircraft.
I agree 100% - but a teenage girl texting her friend while driving down the Interstate isn't going to kill me in the comfort of my own home.
 

P&H

Well-Known Member
I'm inclined to agree with MurDoughnut. Experimental airplanes should be banned from flying in congested areas, AS should be basic Sport Pilots. Not talking from bias, but from experience teaching Sport Pilot Candidates and Experimental/homebuilt owners (people I refused to sign off and I specifically washed out, but then others took them over and eventually signed them off, one of whom later crashed while soloing). Many just couldn't fly.

The Sport Pilots License is a step back in safety, especially considering the FAA is having a supposed hard-on lately for safety which is nothing but knee-jerk reactions to recent incidents.

Sport Pilot License: Let's take some old people who probably couldn't pass a medical, let them fly an airplane around with 30 hours of experience and no necessary requirement to talk on the radios (it's not even tested), all the while not having to hold a medical certificate. Great idea.

idiots.

rant over.
 

JoelT

Well-Known Member
I have known personally far more people killed in Cessnas than homebuilts. Actually, most everyone I know who has their own plane has a homebuilt. They are in MUCH better shape than the POS at your local flight school. Talk about death traps.
 

Boris Badenov

Let's get this thing on the hump!
Awesome. More 500 hour CFIs telling 30,000 hour ex-ATPs they're dangerous because they don't have a Riddle dispatcher to tell them how much crosswind they can fly in. Let's just say for the sake of argument that this experimental crashed due to something having to do with it's being an experimental rather than something that would have equally screwed a certified aircraft. Accepting that, which is by no means proven, how many people on the ground are killed every year by sport pilots? How many are killed by 16-18 year old drivers? How many by female drivers? Asians? stingrays? meteor strikes? spontaenous combustion?

I know, let's just outlaw death, that'll freaking work.
 

P&H

Well-Known Member
Awesome. More 500 hour CFIs telling 30,000 hour ex-ATPs they're dangerous because they don't have a Riddle dispatcher to tell them how much crosswind they can fly in. Let's just say for the sake of argument that this experimental crashed due to something having to do with it's being an experimental rather than something that would have equally screwed a certified aircraft. Accepting that, which is by no means proven, how many people on the ground are killed every year by sport pilots? How many are killed by 16-18 year old drivers? How many by female drivers? Asians? stingrays? meteor strikes? spontaenous combustion?

I know, let's just outlaw death, that'll freaking work.
Who here has 30,000 hours? And once you're an ATP, you don't become an Ex-ATP.

Who went to Riddle or is a 500 hr CFI?

oh by the way, I don't know if you're aware of this, but there are many more 16-18 year old drivers in existence than there are experimental plane pilots or sport pilots. Nice try with the statistics, though. Did you know in the decades that the Concorde flew, one single crash made it the most dangerous airplane in the world? Why? There were only, what, 6 or 7?

Experimental airplanes, there may be room for them as long as the FAA regulates them and they go through the same inspections normal planes go through. I can handle that. But Sport Pilots are a different story. It's the pilot, not the plane, that is dangerous.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
Awesome. More 500 hour CFIs telling 30,000 hour ex-ATPs they're dangerous because they don't have a Riddle dispatcher to tell them how much crosswind they can fly in. Let's just say for the sake of argument that this experimental crashed due to something having to do with it's being an experimental rather than something that would have equally screwed a certified aircraft. Accepting that, which is by no means proven, how many people on the ground are killed every year by sport pilots? How many are killed by 16-18 year old drivers? How many by female drivers? Asians? stingrays? meteor strikes? spontaenous combustion?

I know, let's just outlaw death, that'll freaking work.
This just comes down to standards - that's all. I don't like the idea of someone being able to build an aircraft with no supervision or without having to have it pass any sort of test, and then fly it over my home. Yes, I'm more likely to be hit by a Cessna, but if you were to look solely at accidents caused by non-pilot induced structural or mechanical failures, I would have to think that it weights more heavily towards home builts. There's not much the FAA can do to keep pilots from making stupid decisions, but there is something they can do to potentially ward off poor aircraft construction.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
I have known personally far more people killed in Cessnas than homebuilts. Actually, most everyone I know who has their own plane has a homebuilt. They are in MUCH better shape than the POS at your local flight school. Talk about death traps.
That's an issue of maintenance rather than manufacturing. I owned a 1972 172 that, while old, was meticulously inspected on a regular basis by our mechanic. That airplane flew 350 hours a year without letting any of us down.

My point had more to do with the manufacturing of the aircraft. I feel pretty confident that even a 30 year old Cessna was manufactured with a high level of quality (even if the owners let it go to crap). I just don't know with a home built because all you have to go off of is the owner's word.

Think about this - if it were legal to have an untrained, un-certified, self-described aviation enthusiast rebuild your Cessna after an annual inspection, would you feel just as confident flying it as if a certified A&P had done it? No offense to the first guy, but I sure wouldn't.
 

Polar742

All the responsibility none of the authority
You are aware that each and every step of each and every experimental's building process is documented with photography and inspections by an individual designated and trained to conduct such inspections.

Production aircraft, however, are inspected in samplings. there are random parts pulled off the line and inspected, maybe every 10th part or assembly.

Just a FYI. I'd recommend using www.eaa.org as a reference, so I don't talk too far out of school. They have some great info regarding the building/inspection of experimental aircraft.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
You are aware that each and every step of each and every experimental's building process is documented with photography and inspections by an individual designated and trained to conduct such inspections.

Production aircraft, however, are inspected in samplings. there are random parts pulled off the line and inspected, maybe every 10th part or assembly.

Just a FYI. I'd recommend using www.eaa.org as a reference, so I don't talk too far out of school. They have some great info regarding the building/inspection of experimental aircraft.
Yeah, I'll definitely check out their site. I'd certainly like to learn more about the process.
 

Polar742

All the responsibility none of the authority
Yeah, I'll definitely check out their site. I'd certainly like to learn more about the process.
You may never fly in or build one, but it's good to have a background in all the process and work that goes into one.

Then again, all the legendary WWII aircraft were built by people off the street, most of which hadn't seen an airplane until they cut metal for one....

good talk....
 

EineBeBoP

Well-Known Member
Are experimental aircraft banned over congested areas? I seem to remember that, but maybe I'm wrong. Personally, I don't any plane that was built in someone's garage should be allowed to fly over homes, but that's just my opinion.

RIP to the victims.

This came up in class the other day.
I think that an experimental plane has to be flown for between 80 to 100 hours without any major issues over unpopulated areas before its allowed into congested city areas.

So you have to prove that the aircraft flies well before you can endanger anyone below you.
 
Top