Kit planes called popular, safe

[Paul]

Homebuilt aircraft like the one involved in Sunday's fatal crash are increasingly popular, but "kitplane" experts say that's nothing to worry about.

"The safety record … is very similar to factory-built aircraft," said Dick Knapinski, spokesman for the Experimental Aircraft Association, based in Wisconsin. "They are safe."

More than 27,000 homebuilt aircraft are registered with the Federal Aviation Administration, Knapinski said. That's about 15 to 20 percent of general aviation aircraft. Those registration figures increase by about 1,000 each year.

Of the roughly 8,000 general aviation accidents reported to the FAA during the last five years, about 1,100 involved aircraft constructed by amateurs, according to an FAA database. About 19 percent of all fatal accidents involved homebuilt planes. Most of those accidents were due to pilot error.

One of the most popular homebuilt aircraft brands is Glasair, which made the parts for the plane involved in Sunday's crash. About 1,200 Glasair and GlaStar planes are registered to fly, according to the company's Web site.

sacbee.com

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Mr. Knapinski is full of B.S. Many kitplanes designs have flying "quirks" in them that can kill your average unsuspecting pilot. That's why many of them can't be certified. The kitplane industry needs to be more strictly regulated. I think the people who sell these kits need to prove their design is just as "airworthy" as a manufactured,certified aircraft. I also think that once a kit is "certified" that is has to be inspected during several stages of construction by an IA qualified A+P mechanic and any deviations to the plans have to be approved by the FAA on a Form 337 with an IA signoff.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Princess your ignorance and big government ideas are absolutely beyond belief. There has to be a communist country left for you to join. There is nothing wrong with the current experimental system now.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Princess your ignorance and big government ideas are absolutely beyond belief. There has to be a communist country left for you to join. There is nothing wrong with the current experimental system now.

How would you know PTO? You're not a pilot or a mechanic either.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Mr. Knapinski is full of B.S. Many kitplanes designs have flying "quirks" in them that can kill your average unsuspecting pilot.

Yes there are some out there but to say most is simply ignorance. There are over five hundred kit aircraft available. Most of these designs already go through strict testing without government control. You already have the most powerful regulation there is, Public Opinion. The experimental side of aviation is very small and a weak design doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving.

That's why many of them can't be certified. The kitplane industry needs to be more strictly regulated.

Heavy regulation has all but killed the private sector of aviation and now you want to kill the experimental category?

I think the people who sell these kits need to prove their design is just as "airworthy" as a manufactured,certified aircraft. I also think that once a kit is "certified" that is has to be inspected during several stages of construction by an IA qualified A+P mechanic and any deviations to the plans have to be approved by the FAA on a Form 337 with an IA signoff.

Some of this is already required, I really do think you should educate yourself a bit more about the Experimental Aircraft Category. As far as the form 337 goes, get a life Princess and keep your big government to yourself. This alone kills what the experimental category is all about. Hence the term EXPERIMENTAL. Why don’t you give Burt Rutan a call and give him an earful of your wonderful ideas.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Call Burt Rutan? Let's see here, an aircraft designer who's designs have never been certified by the FAA, except for one:the Beech Starship. The Beech Starship is considered the biggest failure and/or blunder in Aviation history. It's so bad Beech is buying back all 70 or so produced so they can be scrapped. Ask John Denver about the airworthiness of Burt Rutan's designs.

A legitmate kit maker would/should have no problems complying with some basic standards for air worthiness. In fact,they should welcome it. If the kit is well designed and built by the plans with supervision(FAA,IA,A+P), I believe the experimental sticker should be removed,and the aircraft should be operated in the normal category. If the kit makers/FAA don't come up with some sort of better regulation, eventually the lawyers will sue the kit plane manufacturers out of business.

Do you really want an airplane to be assembled by some unsupervised goober with little,if any,aircraft experience? Do you really want an airplane flying over your house with an engine from a YUGO powering it?

Experimental category ought to be just that:EXPERIMENTAL!
No flying with passengers and no flying over heavily populated areas which the FAA for some reason refuses to enforce.

 

[Paul]

Both of you have great points in this discussion. I however must point out a few things that may be said in error.

First PTO:

Heavy regulation has all but killed the private sector of aviation ...

GA in America is still strong and is getting stronger. 2005 saw $15.1 billion (yes, with a “Bâ€￾) in aircraft sales, and $41 billion contributed to the US economy.

Heavy regulation has killed GA in Russia, and put GA under duress in places like Australia.

Princess Kidagakash:

Ask John Denver about the airworthiness of Burt Rutan's designs.

There were several reasons listed by the NTSB for this accident. The Long-EZ design (interior) was one of them. However, that particular Long-EZ that John Denver was flying was the only one of 1200+ produced to have the fuel-valve located behind the pilot.

Being unfamiliar with a new aircraft was among the chain of events blamed for his accident.

So, yes John Denver might have an issue with Burt Rutan's design, but overall those designs have shown to be airworthy. So much so that the EZ design is being used for the Rocket Racing League.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Thanks Paul for proving my point. A design change was made that wasn't per the plans and look what happened.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

You are correct Paul but those numbers are very misleading, for it is corporate America that is providing the boost. As far as your average American worker goes, there is less and less that can maintain and operate a decent certified cross country aircraft. Just this past weekend while departing my home airport I was shocked to see the few privately owned aircraft tied down at the tarmac. I recall when that same tarmac was lined up with four or five rows with thirty to forty aircraft in each row. Last weekend there might have been fifteen aircraft there.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Call Burt Rutan? Let's see here, an aircraft designer who's designs have never been certified by the FAA, except for one:the Beech Starship. The Beech Starship is considered the biggest failure and/or blunder in Aviation history. It's so bad Beech is buying back all 70 or so produced so they can be scrapped. Ask John Denver about the airworthiness of Burt Rutan's designs.

I didn't follow the Beech Starship but if I do recall it is a great aircraft that didn't get any public support. Thus it didn't make it.As far as his designs not being certified by the FAA... well that's kind of the point.

A legitmate kit maker would/should have no problems complying with some basic standards for air worthiness. In fact,they should welcome it. If the kit is well designed and built by the plans with supervision(FAA,IA,A+P), I believe the experimental sticker should be removed,and the aircraft should be operated in the normal category. If the kit makers/FAA don't come up with some sort of better regulation, eventually the lawyers will sue the kit plane manufacturers out of business.

There are FAA required inspection points during the building stages. You are wanting to treat the kit maker as an aircraft manufacturer. That is not the case here. The owner/builder is the manufacturer of the aircraft not the kit company. What you are proposing is that an American Citizen be denied the right to sit in his home design and build his own aircraft and deny him the right to fly it at his leisure. I wonder what Orville and Wilbur would think of this idea?

Do you really want an airplane to be assembled by some unsupervised goober with little,if any,aircraft experience? Do you really want an airplane flying over your house with an engine from a YUGO powering it?

Yes I really do, I wouldn't care if it was powered by a rubber-band.

Experimental category ought to be just that:EXPERIMENTAL!
No flying with passengers and no flying over heavily populated areas which the FAA for some reason refuses to enforce.

When the numder of design failures exceeds that of certified aircraft I just might agree with you.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

I have seen the "so called" inspection process of the homebuilt industry in action. Basically you show an FAA inspector a bunch of photographs of the airplane being built when the inspector shows up to do a final lookover on the aircraft. I have personally watched five of these so called final inspections. The FAA person basically walked around the airplane and made sure it had an engine attached and then signed the certificate. Taking all but 15 minutes. There was no way those FAA inspectors could have made sure the build quality was airworthy or there wasn't something assembled improperly.

Whether you like it or not,PTO, the kit maker IS an aircraft manufacturer and should be treated as such. As far as someone designing and building their own airplane,that's fine as long as the design is proven(by flight testing) to meet FAA regs for airworthiness by the builder. Do you really want a copy of the Christmas "bullet" flying over your home or is that Hotel.

As far people not being able to afford an airplane, look at yourself PTO. Your scabbing at NWA to lower the wages of AMT's everywhere. Maybe one of these days you will be able to connect the dots.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Dearest Princess, The average FAA inspector only knows what an aircraft looks like. Most do not have a clue as to what goes on inside an aircraft that makes it fly. You can dispatch an aircraft without wings if you know how to do the paper work. The fact that it will not fly makes no difference as long as the paper work is straight. Even with the limited control the FAA has over EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft the cost of owning one is still high and now you wish to put it into a certified category? The rules and regulations governing the kit industry is just fine, leave it alone. You are taking one accident that was more than likely pilot error and blowing it out of proportion.

 

[SteveR]

Call Burt Rutan? Let's see here, an aircraft designer who's designs have never been certified by the FAA, except for one:the Beech Starship. The Beech Starship is considered the biggest failure and/or blunder in Aviation history. It's so bad Beech is buying back all 70 or so produced so they can be scrapped. Ask John Denver about the airworthiness of Burt Rutan's designs.

Wow, you are WAY off here. Knocking Burt Rutan? Wow, why don't you just call Orville & Wilbur a couple of kooks as well. Rutan ranks right up there with them, if not above them, as far as designers go. Lets see, how many designs is he responsible for? Somewhere around 30? Including the first civilian space ship, first solo nonstop ship around the world, and on and on. Did you know that no one has ever died testing one of his aircraft? Yeah, he doesn't know what he's doing. This guy is a genius, the type that comes around every century or so. Who exactly would you say is a more brilliant designer than Rutan?

The Starship may have been a failure, but that has nothing to do with Rutan's design. Maybe Beech didn't do the proper market research, maybe the market just wouldn't accept the radical design, but safety was not a problem with the Starship.

As for John Denver, the Long EZ has been proven extremely airworthy. John Denver took off using a tank that only had two gallons of fuel in it. He ran the tank dry, then crashed trying to switch the fuel selector. Yeah, that is an airworthiness issue. <_< So will the Cessnas you fly keep running when you empty the tanks?

A legitmate kit maker would/should have no problems complying with some basic standards for air worthiness. In fact,they should welcome it.

For most of them, their problem is that certification/compliance comes with a huge, huge sticker price. Enough to eliminate any possibility of success. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

As for the argument that GA is still going strong huh :blink: ? How do you figure? Dollars are meaningless. We are making ten percent as many planes today as we were making in the late seventies. Yeah, thats progress alright. Much more progress like that and there won't be any planes at all.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

When Burt Rutan or Jim Bede(Rutan's Mentor) produce a certified aircraft that is better in performance than what is being produced today or yesterday, they will be considered great designers. Until they do, they are in the same category as Dr. Christmas. The Starship with all it's technology couldn't outrun a Beech Kingair. The Kingair can carry more people,cargo on less fuel than the Starship. Not bad for a 50+ year old airframe design.

As far as flying around the world with one or two people on board unrefueled, Who cares! An airliner or freighter that can fly halfway around the world loaded with people and cargo, now that's something!

As far as Rutan's so called spaceship, I haven't seen them fly any passengers on it yet.

 

[SteveR]

When Burt Rutan or Jim Bede(Rutan's Mentor) produce a certified aircraft that is better in performance than what is being produced today or yesterday, they will be considered great designers. Until they do, they are in the same category as Dr. Christmas.

Right, because no one respects Burt Rutan. Rutan isn't in the certified aircraft business.

As far as Rutan's so called spaceship, I haven't seen them fly any passengers on it yet.

And that would prove what? That it will carry one pound of passenger in place of one pound of ballast?

Are you even a pilot, or did you just pick up a copy of "Flying" magazine in the barber shop one day?