Small Plane Crashes Into House In Vegas

[WacoFan]

Thats it! If we just outlaw experimental airplanes and sport pilots, all instances of airplanes hitting fixed structures would end.

Seriously, some people go to kit planes because they want an airplane with capabilities that are more than planes currently available, or don't want to buy a clapped out used plane that would accomplish close to that.

Case in point is an airplane called a Bearhawk. Fill all four seats, fill it up with gas and go - from rough, short strips.

Is there any production plane that can match a Lancair IVSP's performance?

What production plane is as cool as a Pitts Model 12? (hint - there aren't any)

Here, in my mind, is the ultimate homebuilt - a Mullicoupe. A cross between a Howard DGA and a Monocoupe. Powered with a Pratt and Whitney R985. Cruises at 225MPH at 10,000. Cruise climb - 160MPH at 1,800FPM. It is kick ass.

Mullicoupes:

They simply don't produce anything this cool - you have to build it yourself.

 

[NJA_Capt]

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. 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.

This is quite possibly the most ill-informed post I have read lately.

• You claim the FAA makes knee jerk reactions to recent accidents and then make one yourself wanting to ban homebuilts.
• Homebuilts are already regulated and certified by the FAA.
• The SP certificate was originally created to spur more "new" pilots to the industry. However, most of the new SP are former "professional" pilots who are downsizing during retirement.
• People who build experimental aircraft know their aircraft inside and out....far better than any person who buys a manufacturer a/c.
• You don't like "30 hour" pilots?......like 40 for a PPL is significantly more.
• There are poor aviators in any group, it is not specific to experimental and SP. Most of the poor airmanship and bad habits I saw while flying was done by Civil Air Patrol pilots.
• Several of the "production" model aircraft currently being produced started life as "kit built" aircraft.
• Myself and several airline pilot friends currently fly homebuilts....we aren't exactly newbies.

 

[NJA_Capt]

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).

Ever restored one of those 30+ year old Cessnas? I have. From the ground up. I can state without a doubt that the rivets in our homebuilt are bucked to better standards than the Cessna.

...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.

Ever met some of the people that work on the assembly line? I have. By the way, many of the mechanics that are doing the annual inspections aren't licensed either, just the inspector that signs it off.

 

[WacoFan]

Ever restored one of those 30+ year old Cessnas? I have. From the ground up. I can state without a doubt that the rivets in our homebuilt are bucked to better standards than the Cessna.


Ever met some of the people that work on the assembly line? I have. By the way, many of the mechanics that are doing the annual inspections aren't licensed either, just the inspector that signs it off.

Two exceptional posts NJA_Capt. I agree with you obviously. Loved the picture.

 

[OldTownPilot]

<- Building an RV-7 in 4 months when I have a job and a place to live.



Crap happens, experimental certified or production certified. Doesn't phase me one way or the other. Mechanically nobody knows a specific airplane better than an experimental builder.

 

[NJA_Capt]

Two exceptional posts NJA_Capt. I agree with you obviously. Loved the picture.

Thanks.

Here's one of my favorite "disclaimers."

PASSENGER WARNING - this aircraft is amateur-built and
does not comply with federal safety regulations for standard aircraft....
The Ark was also amateur built unlike the professionally built Titanic.

 

[SIUav8er]

Crap happens, experimental certified or production certified. Doesn't phase me one way or the other. Mechanically nobody knows a specific airplane better than an experimental builder.

exactly what i was gonna say. some of the "experimental homebuilt" aircraft that I have seen far exceed the quality and workmanship of any production aircraft.

saying this thing crashed into the house as a result of it being an experimental airplane sounds like something we hear on CNN! i didnt expect to hear some assumption like that on an aviation forum by pilots... lol

 

[P&H]

This is quite possibly the most ill-informed post I have read lately.

• You claim the FAA makes knee jerk reactions to recent accidents and then make one yourself wanting to ban homebuilts.
• Homebuilts are already regulated and certified by the FAA.
• The SP certificate was originally created to spur more "new" pilots to the industry. However, most of the new SP are former "professional" pilots who are downsizing during retirement.
• People who build experimental aircraft know their aircraft inside and out....far better than any person who buys a manufacturer a/c.
• You don't like "30 hour" pilots?......like 40 for a PPL is significantly more.
• There are poor aviators in any group, it is not specific to experimental and SP. Most of the poor airmanship and bad habits I saw while flying was done by Civil Air Patrol pilots.
• Several of the "production" model aircraft currently being produced started life as "kit built" aircraft.
• Myself and several airline pilot friends currently fly homebuilts....we aren't exactly newbies.

Most of the new SP pilots are former professional pilots? Is that a real statistic or just something you've observed. And you gave me all these points about how all the SP pilots you know are experienced, etc etc, but my post was about the SP License program itself.

The oldest SP candidate I had was 85, the youngest was in his lower 60s, had quadruple bypass surgery, still chain smoked and ate burgers, fries, and a sugary cola every lunch we had together.

Sorry, many of these people should not be flying airplanes. They'd never pass a medical.

Turns out my 85+ year old student who I was only doing transition training with was the best I had in the SP program. The rest were atrocious, and I had enough to know.

So if you're going to call my post ill-informed, look at where I'm coming from.

Two exceptional posts NJA_Capt. I agree with you obviously. Loved the picture.

That's cute you have a fan club.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Not looking so good for your home builder here ...

http://www.lvrj.com/news/27308329.html

 

[Murdoughnut]

saying this thing crashed into the house as a result of it being an experimental airplane sounds like something we hear on CNN! i didnt expect to hear some assumption like that on an aviation forum by pilots... lol

The aircraft had 5 hours TT - it's an assumption I won't lose sleep over.

 

[OldTownPilot]

Most of the new SP pilots are former professional pilots? Is that a real statistic or just something you've observed. And you gave me all these points about how all the SP pilots you know are experienced, etc etc, but my post was about the SP License program itself.

The oldest SP candidate I had was 85, the youngest was in his lower 60s, had quadruple bypass surgery, still chain smoked and ate burgers, fries, and a sugary cola every lunch we had together.

Sorry, many of these people should not be flying airplanes. They'd never pass a medical.

Turns out my 85+ year old student who I was only doing transition training with was the best I had in the SP program. The rest were atrocious, and I had enough to know.

So if you're going to call my post ill-informed, look at where I'm coming from.



That's cute you have a fan club.

The only student that we have at at the school go for a light sport license was a 24 year old, kidney transplant recipient when he was very young. He went sport pilot because he wanted to fly and did not want to chance having a denied medical. Top notch guy, top notch pilot. I'd be much more worried with some of the private pilot students that have come though.

Just because of the type of license they get (or the type of airplane they fly), doesn't mean you should jump to stereotypes saying all sport pilots are hacks waiting to croak, and experimental are built with duct tape and bondo falling out of the sky daily. I would have thought a group of pilots would understand this, But apparently not.

 

[Murdoughnut]

"Homebuilt plane crashes accounted for 15.5 percent of general aviation crashes in 2006, when the planes made up a little more than 10 percent of the total fleet, indicating a slightly worse safety record than general aviation as a whole, said Chris Dancy, an AOPA spokesman."

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/new...mebuilt_plane_pilots_remain_enthusiastic.html

Some on here have argued that homebuilt pilots are generally more experienced pilots when compared to the rest of GA. I would buy that - I imagine a lot of those guys have considerable experience flying GA before they get into kit planes. So that would mean that more experienced pilots are accounting for more accidents in homebuilts than less experienced pilots in production aircraft.

 

[darrenf]

Lumping all experimental into a category of higher risk makes no more sense then saying being a pilot is one of the most dangerous jobs. Also, some experimental aircraft are actually built in factories under supervision of factory personnel. It comes down to knowing your equipment to minimize risk. I doubt anyone here finds fault with you for being suspicious of something Mr. Doughnut, but to throw out the baby with the bathwater could be upsetting to those who have spent time with EXP aircraft that were done properly, and represent a marked improvement over many aircraft that have 60 year old designs.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Lumping all experimental into a category of higher risk makes no more sense then saying being a pilot is one of the most dangerous jobs. Also, some experimental aircraft are actually built in factories under supervision of factory personnel. It comes down to knowing your equipment to minimize risk. I doubt anyone here finds fault with you for being suspicious of something Mr. Doughnut, but to throw out the baby with the bathwater could be upsetting to those who have spent time with EXP aircraft that were done properly, and represent a marked improvement over many aircraft that have 60 year old designs.

I've actually focused my attention home builts and that process - not experimental a/c for which I know there is a distinction.

I have nothing against homebuilt pilots - I just won't ride with them, nor do I recommend that others do the same. I also don't think they should be allowed over the yellow portions of the sectional. That's all - just my opinion.

I have an inherent distrust of pilots that I don't know and/or haven't flown with. It stems from the fact that I was supposed to fly as safety pilot with a guy on a Tuesday, but it ended up being cancelled after he killed himself and two others three days prior. As much as the uncertainty surrounding someone's flying skills bother me, uncertainty about their ability to build an airplane is down right frightening to me.

Like I said - kudos to homebuilt pilots - just take it out over the water.

 

[NJA_Capt]

Most of the new SP pilots are former professional pilots? Is that a real statistic or just something you've observed. And you gave me all these points about how all the SP pilots you know are experienced, etc etc, but my post was about the SP License program itself.

I stand corrected....sort of. The EAA stated that the "recent" applicants (2007) were new pilots, but makes no mention of SPs as a whole.

While some believed that the primary source of sport pilots would be those who are downgrading their pilot certificates, perhaps due to an inability to maintain a medical certificate, the bulk of recent sport pilot students and applicants are coming from the ranking of those new to flying. The past year has seen the addition of more than 1,700 sport pilot certificates. http://www.eaa.org/media/pr/2007/2007-08-31_sportpilot.asp

 

[JoelT]

I've actually focused my attention home builts and that process - not experimental a/c for which I know there is a distinction.

I have nothing against homebuilt pilots - I just won't ride with them, nor do I recommend that others do the same. I also don't think they should be allowed over the yellow portions of the sectional. That's all - just my opinion.

I have an inherent distrust of pilots that I don't know and/or haven't flown with. It stems from the fact that I was supposed to fly as safety pilot with a guy on a Tuesday, but it ended up being cancelled after he killed himself and two others three days prior. As much as the uncertainty surrounding someone's flying skills bother me, uncertainty about their ability to build an airplane is down right frightening to me.

Like I said - kudos to homebuilt pilots - just take it out over the water.

Settle down Iceman. :laff:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Supp...47A46BA8B1D05E9E26/ice-man-from-top-gun-.aspx

 

[darrenf]

Settle down Iceman. :laff:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Supp...47A46BA8B1D05E9E26/ice-man-from-top-gun-.aspx

How is SNL still on the air??

 

[WacoFan]

That's cute you have a fan club.

That's cute, you end a rebuttal with a snarky post.

Seriously, get an app into the FAA, you would be exceptional there and fit in with the rest of the feds that would love to curtail any form of flying that wasn't airline, corporate, or patronized the existing manufacturers.

 

[WacoFan]

"Homebuilt plane crashes accounted for 15.5 percent of general aviation crashes in 2006, when the planes made up a little more than 10 percent of the total fleet, indicating a slightly worse safety record than general aviation as a whole, said Chris Dancy, an AOPA spokesman."

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/new...mebuilt_plane_pilots_remain_enthusiastic.html

Some on here have argued that homebuilt pilots are generally more experienced pilots when compared to the rest of GA. I would buy that - I imagine a lot of those guys have considerable experience flying GA before they get into kit planes. So that would mean that more experienced pilots are accounting for more accidents in homebuilts than less experienced pilots in production aircraft.

This could well be a function of what the airplanes are built to do and the configuration. How many of the experimental fleet is built and used for aerobatics vs. the general aviation population? How many of the experimentals are taildraggers vs the gen av population? If "crashes" also includes groundloops (many of which are non-injury causing but damage the airplane) that alone could make up the statistical difference. I would take more digging to show the true risk. Sure, a groundloop is a bad thing, but it many times is not injury causing. Many of the experimentals do things like fly formation, are frequently at flyins (locally dense, often NORDO traffic), aerobatics and other things that are outside the realm of flying A to B and therefore carry more risk.

Of course, it won't really matter much - P&H will soon be an FAA man and no sport flying, antiques, or experimentals will be buzzing around.

 

[ETAV8R]

Who here has 30,000 hours?

My dad has over 27K hrs. Crap he's not on JC