Prang Rate?

With the winter doldrums well set in, this spamcan pilot has gotten to
thinking again about trying something different in aviation- specifically
the homebuilt/LSA area. Something not too expensive to operate, on floats
(or a boat-hull) sounds like a lot of fun and might get me up in the air
more often.

I've been following some forums for planes I've been interested in, like the
Challenger, Searey, and Zenith series, and something that's been a bit
disconcerting is that it seems like every time I turn around I'm reading
about somebody trashing their bird in one way or another. It seems like I
hear about this a lot more often than with certified planes, but I studied
enough statistics to know that's not valid methodology.

My question to those of you in the know, is how do you feel about the safety
of designs like I mentioned above, that have been around a while and built
in large numbers, built the way the factory says, maintained to a proper
standard, and flown by a pilot who understands his toy is an airplane and
not a snowmobile or jet ski?

Best,
-cwk.

Since you are a spamcan pilot, the problem probably does not apply to you.

However, I just received an e-mail from EAA, explaining the present meaning
of the term "repositionable gear" in the LSA rule. (Due to some really
unfair
competition from a well known retailer earlier today, I can not quite decide
whether this is the most stupid thing that I have heard or read today.) So,
sit
down and hang on... "Repositionable gear" apparently means that the craft
may be converted between land and sea operation while on the ground or on
the water, but not while in the air!

Supposedly, the hypothesis is that inadvertant gear-up landings on land and
inadvertant gear-down landings on water will be prevented if all flights
must
begin and end on the same medium. To the extent that deliberate landings
with the gear in the "wrong" position are questionable, this would seem to
prevent any LSA craft from being amphibious.

Let's all wish the EAA the greatest success in counteracting this lunacy!


"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...
With the winter doldrums well set in, this spamcan pilot has gotten to
thinking again about trying something different in aviation- specifically
the homebuilt/LSA area. Something not too expensive to operate, on floats
(or a boat-hull) sounds like a lot of fun and might get me up in the air
more often.

I've been following some forums for planes I've been interested in, like
the
Challenger, Searey, and Zenith series, and something that's been a bit
disconcerting is that it seems like every time I turn around I'm reading
about somebody trashing their bird in one way or another. It seems like I
hear about this a lot more often than with certified planes, but I studied
enough statistics to know that's not valid methodology.

My question to those of you in the know, is how do you feel about the
safety
of designs like I mentioned above, that have been around a while and built
in large numbers, built the way the factory says, maintained to a proper
standard, and flown by a pilot who understands his toy is an airplane and
not a snowmobile or jet ski?

Best,
-cwk.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:36:05 -0500, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

However, I just received an e-mail from EAA, explaining the present meaning
of the term "repositionable gear" in the LSA rule. (Due to some really
unfair
competition from a well known retailer earlier today, I can not quite decide
whether this is the most stupid thing that I have heard or read today.) So,
sit
down and hang on... "Repositionable gear" apparently means that the craft
may be converted between land and sea operation while on the ground or on
the water, but not while in the air!

That's certainly the way the rule was written. However, I was told that the FAA
announced at Oshkosh that the gear rule was being interpreted to allow amphibs
to retract and lower the gear for each type of landing. Apparently that wasn't
the case....

Ron Wanttaja

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
Since you are a spamcan pilot, the problem probably does not apply to you.

Well, sort of. I am rated for ASEL/S-IR, but if I am exercising sport pilot
privileges, i.e., flying with a driver's license medical, it's my
understanding that I could only fly true LSA-legal planes. Hopefully not an
issue I'll be confronting for a couple decades but it's always nice to have
the option. Enforcement of course is another question...

FWIW, I sympathize with the original logic ("no retractable gear
airplanes"), but this specific application is a bridge too far. How many
gear-down water landings are there in a year? You're effecting a huge
reduction in utility for a pretty marginal reduction in accidents. Sounds
like an issue someone got a bug up their ass about and wrote into the regs.

-cwk.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:34:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

FWIW, I sympathize with the original logic ("no retractable gear
airplanes"), but this specific application is a bridge too far. How many
gear-down water landings are there in a year? You're effecting a huge
reduction in utility for a pretty marginal reduction in accidents. Sounds
like an issue someone got a bug up their ass about and wrote into the regs.

Especially when you consider that retractable gear is allowed on LSA gliders.
However, the severity of a gear-up accident on land is usually a lot less than
that of a gear-down landing in the water. There was one of those (in a
homebuilt, yet) just last September.

"When the pilot expected to hear the hissing of the water on the hull at the
step, the pilot, instead, saw two columns of water on both sides of the cockpit
shooting straight up. The airplane then violently nosed down into the water and
came to rest inverted and submerged in the lake."

They should have written the rules to allow retracts on amphibs as long as the
aircraft's max speed stays within the bounds.

Ron Wanttaja

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:12:20 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

They should have written the rules to allow retracts on amphibs as long as the
aircraft's max speed stays within the bounds.

For that matter, they should have included a rule to prevent people on the
ground from retracting the runway! :-)

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/188978-1.html

Ron Wanttaja

From: Ron Wanttaja
Date: 1/14/2005 09:22 Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:12:20 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

They should have written the rules to allow retracts on amphibs as long as
the
aircraft's max speed stays within the bounds.

For that matter, they should have included a rule to prevent people on the
ground from retracting the runway! :-)

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/188978-1.html

Ron Wanttaja

Retractible runways are classified. You shouldn't have published the link. Now
the Ruskis will want to start making them. We must not allow a retractible
runway gap.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If you land a fixed-gear airplane on a retractable runway, do you need a
complex endorsement?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Ron Wanttaja
Date: 1/14/2005 09:22 Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:12:20 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

They should have written the rules to allow retracts on amphibs as long
as
the
aircraft's max speed stays within the bounds.

For that matter, they should have included a rule to prevent people on
the
ground from retracting the runway! :-)

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/188978-1.html

Ron Wanttaja

Retractible runways are classified. You shouldn't have published the link.
Now
the Ruskis will want to start making them. We must not allow a retractible
runway gap.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:25:49 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:
From: Ron Wanttaja
For that matter, they should have included a rule to prevent people on
the ground from retracting the runway! :-)

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/188978-1.html

If you land a fixed-gear airplane on a retractable runway, do you need a
complex endorsement?

I just know if a runway retracted under ME, I'd develop a complex real
fast.... :-)

Ron "Let's look at the blueprints. Let's look at the blueprints. Let's
look...." Wanttaja