Reducing the Accident Rate

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

new that progress has ground to a halt. In fact, I would have to say
that the biggest factor in our high accident rate is the FAA. If we
ever get airplanes that are as up to date as a 1995 Honda Civic, the
situation will improve.

Homebuilts do not have a better safety record.

If you think a safer plane can be developed without FAA regulation, why
don't you buy or build an experimental airplane and install the appropriate
safety equipment so it is safer than your Twin Comanche?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
What piston engine design would be more reliable? (Economics make turbine
engine comparisons unfair, even if turbines are more reliable -- and I am
not certain that they are.)

First off, turbine engines are not out of the questions at all. The
reason they are so incredibly expensive has a lot to do with the FAA
and milspecs. Second, turbine engines are inherently more reliable -
there are far fewer moving parts, and no reversals of direction. In
addition, they separate the combustion stages (suck, squeeze, bang,
blow) in space rather than in time - and that means only a relatively
small part of the engine has to be tough enough to accomodate the most
difficult portion of the cycle. In other words, pound for pound the
turbine will always be more reliable.

Second, we've learned a lot about piston engine reliability in the
past half century. Little of that has made it into aircraft engine
designs. For example, separate cylinders are disasters. There's not
sufficient mechanical stability, so everything moves too much. Note
that the two modern aviation piston engines - the Thielert and Orenda
- have abandoned that nonsense.

That's just one example. There are countless others in the ignition,
fuel, and other systems.

I have experienced a lot more engine problems driving cars than flying
airplanes for sure.

Driving cars made in the last 20 years? I find that amazing.

Experimental airplanes do not seem to have any lower incidence of engine
failures anecdotally, nor do I recall reading any data to suggest there
exists a more reliable experimental piston engine design.

Experimentals are amateur-designed. The engine installations are
amateur-designed too. The very fact that after the first 50 hours are
flown off the accident rate appears to even out with the certified
airplanes should suggest to you what a disaster the FAA-mandated
professional engineering is. Amateurs can do almost as well working
in their garages.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Yes it would. The very fact that the manufacturers COULD do it if
they chose, and choose not to, indicates that they don't want the
facts known.

What makes you think the manufacturers could do that? Many, if not most engine
repairs and overhauls are not performed by the manufacturer, so they have no little
data. You're expecting a manufacturer to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to
research a report which provides no benefit to the manufacturer. The fact that they
"choose not to" merely indicates that they don't want to waste their money.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Michael wrote:

I would argue that accuracy is not only important but essential, and
an inacurate report is worse than useless - it is actively dangerous.
I would further argue that distorting the facts of an accident to
advance an agenda is never justified. However, I know it happens -
and therefore I distrust the reports. Given my experience and that of
others, I consider the distrust justified.

Fair enough on all counts.

You'd call the talk given by that guy "encouraging dangerous behavior"?
I'd agree that that would not be a "safety seminar".

Well, isn't flying a light plane on a long overwater leg dangerous
behavior? Or are you suggesting it's safe? See the problem here?

I see a linguistic trap. Nothing is safe but death (and I'm not even sure
of that {8^). The question is whether the decrease in safety of a given
act is balanced by whatever benefit is accrued. Put another way, is it
(whatever "it" is) "safe enough".

I know that you know this given what I've read from you. But perhaps making
this more explicit would help explain my own perspective on the matter of
"safety" and the question "is it safe".

[...]

Then by that definition, any skill/knowledge training is safety
training.

Yes. Failing an example which disproves this, that is my opinion.

- Andrew

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
You're expecting a manufacturer to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to
research a report which provides no benefit to the manufacturer.

A report that showed that the engine was extremely reliable when
maintained and overhauled in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations (that's all SB's/TBO's are to Part 91 operators) would
have great benefit to the manufacturer.

Of course I don't believe that's what the report will show.

Michael

Andrew Gideon wrote
Well, isn't flying a light plane on a long overwater leg dangerous
behavior? Or are you suggesting it's safe? See the problem here?

I see a linguistic trap. Nothing is safe but death (and I'm not even sure
of that {8^).

Right. That's why I don't believe that there is any such thing as a
safety seminar. The only really valid safety advice it could give is
to hide under the bed. It would be different if we HAD to fly.
Professional pilots, who MUST fly, can speak of safety and safety
seminars. For us, they basically have no meaning.

The question is whether the decrease in safety of a given
act is balanced by whatever benefit is accrued. Put another way, is it
(whatever "it" is) "safe enough".

Right again. But if what you're doing is primarily recreational,
which is true of most flying most of us do, safe enough really means
that the fun is worth the risk.

I know that you know this given what I've read from you. But perhaps making
this more explicit would help explain my own perspective on the matter of
"safety" and the question "is it safe".

And the point I'm trying to get across is that there is no such thing
as safe. When you're flying for fun, you're taking unnecessary risks.
I don't have a problem with that, obviously, but I think you should
be honest about it.

Then by that definition, any skill/knowledge training is safety
training.

Yes. Failing an example which disproves this, that is my opinion.

There won't be an example to disprove it. There can't be. Whatever
kind of flying you do, you're going to be safer if you get training
than if you don't. It's not a crap shoot, after all. But the reality
is that some kinds of flying present more risk than others.

Michael

For example, separate cylinders are disasters.

What are "separate cylinders" and what's the alternative? (unless you mean the
wankel)

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

First off, turbine engines are not out of the questions at all. The
reason they are so incredibly expensive has a lot to do with the FAA
and milspecs. Second, turbine engines are inherently more reliable -

So why hasn't someone developed an inexpensive, reliable turbine engine for
experiental airplanes?


sufficient mechanical stability, so everything moves too much. Note
that the two modern aviation piston engines - the Thielert and Orenda
- have abandoned that nonsense.

What planes are these used in? Do you have any references about these?

Driving cars made in the last 20 years? I find that amazing.

Well as one example I experienced a sudden catastrophic engine failure this
year in my 1999 Toyota minivan. An engine cooling fan circuit malfunctioned
and the engine overheated while driving in a snowstorm. I pulled over right
away but nonetheless the engine block had melted and I needed a new block
and new cylinders... $8000 in warranty work repairing the engine due to
failure of a $125 part.

Experimentals are amateur-designed. The engine installations are
amateur-designed too. The very fact that after the first 50 hours are
flown off the accident rate appears to even out with the certified
airplanes should suggest to you what a disaster the FAA-mandated
professional engineering is. Amateurs can do almost as well working
in their garages.

Well can anyone do BETTER than FAA certified airplanes? Who in your mind
can produce an airplane with a more reliable engine than an FAA certified
engine?



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
I have experienced a lot more engine problems driving
cars than flying airplanes for sure.

Another Jaguar driver!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Teacherjh wrote:

For example, separate cylinders are disasters.

What are "separate cylinders" and what's the alternative? (unless you mean the
wankel)

Each cylinder on a typical Lycoming or Continental engine can be removed
independently. All of the cylinders in a typical automobile engine are cast in a
single unit (known as the block). This is also true of many water-cooled aircraft
engines and many motorcycle engines.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.