SonexBuilders.net

Great discussion.

I am going to add to Chris's statement and state we have zero intention of removing the accident data from sonexfoundation.com - in fact, we hope to continue adding to the dataset to improve the knowledge base and hopefully raise awareness of the root cause of the issues. Sadly, the root cause is often us.

To their credit, Sonex Aircraft LLC has never raised the publication of this as an issue. One vocal former foundation member did. One. I am hoping this person reads this thread.

There is always a fine line between supporting the Sonex factory and open honest conversations. It is in all of our interests to do both, but to do so responsibly. I think that is the hardest part of it all.


Robbie Culver
Sonex 1517
Chicagoland
Tails and Wings complete - finishing fuselage.
N1517S reserved

Is the primary goal of this forum to be a place where (potential) Sonex builders and pilots can get advise, discuss great or not so great experiences, issues, concerns, safety, etc?
Or,
Is it more to promote Sonex LLC and the Sonex line of aircraft?

To be honest it is more of the latter than the first, something this very discussion proofs. It's the main reason I don't trust anything here other than the obvious straight answers about pragmatic stuff. There is only one kind of discussion, the healthy one where people are honest and disagree. If it's not, it's not a discussion, and not useful for anything.

It would be nice if the moderators had more integrity.

SvingenB wrote:It would be nice if the moderators had more integrity.

I would like to remind you to read the posting guidelines.

That is confrontational, not respectful, and a personal attack on the moderators.

To me the moderators have shown a very high level of integrity and sound judgement. For example when a poster makes a claim that something sold was "junk" simply because that item did not include a materials traceability document showing the manufacturer of the part the moderators let it continued. If it were up to ME I would have made the poster edit the post and required that the statement say what the part was, why you were dissatisfied with the part and give a positive recommendation on what Sonex could do to improve the part. Just saying something is junk is throwing mud. Another example is the endless postings on fuel tank fittings. A couple of people have over torqued their fittings or not protected the lines from vibration or loads and developed leaks. Reading their posts you would think all tanks were leaking. I know many long time owners of Sonex aircraft who have never had a leak. The moderators let this thread and others like it continue.

My bottom line with this post is that the moderators are more than fair and have a high level of integrity. This forum should be positive. Even when we don't like something we should state exactly what we don't like and offer positive suggestions for improvement.

As far as accidents go, with experimental aircraft (because of build differences) you need to look for accident trends and identify problem areas so those problems can be addressed. Learning from others is a sure way to ensure you don't suffer the same fate.

Enjoy building and flying your Sonex! I sure am!

Jake

SvingenB wrote:

Or,
Is it more to promote Sonex LLC and the Sonex line of aircraft?

To be honest it is more of the latter than the first...

This may seem true but everyone who owns, builds, or operates one of these aircraft has a vested interest in promoting the Sonex line of aircraft so I don't think it's a corporate conspiracy. It's simply human nature. We all want to have the most awesome plane ever designed so healthy positive discussion comes naturally but criticism is met with more resistance. You certainly need to be more careful on a message board when you want to post potentially negative things because neither the community or the mods will take it for long. Everyone here needs to remember these planes are like children to the owners/builders and you can't insult another persons child (true or not) and expect them to just stand there and take it. Negative opinions and speculation will get you nowhere fast.

It's a sad fact but forums always have to have moderators or they don't last long. The goal is to protect the forum from devolving into a complete mud throwing contest which can happen extremely fast when people are able to hide behind a keyboard and have no accountability for their actions. Mods keep that from getting out of control. The problem is a violation of posting rules can be subjective. There's no way around this so all posters need to have some thick skin sometimes.

Plus there is also the problem with written communication. The omission of punctuation can completely change how a line of text is understood. Sarcasm is completely lost. Nonverbal cues are not present. This can also lead to completely different interpretations of the same text.

Because of all these things, accidents need to be discussed with tact and only the facts. It's a good discussion to have because we can certainly learn from it and simply having a reasonable discussion could easily save a life or multiple lives.

If it were up to ME I would have made the poster edit the post and required that the statement say what the part was, why you were dissatisfied with the part and give a positive recommendation on what Sonex could do to improve the part.

And why do you assume I haven't already been in contact with Sonex about these things long before? I have since long moved on and got new parts from other sources, as I am sure most do. Just because I have different standards about specific things compared with what Sonex apparently have, does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. Still, it is my aircraft, and I want to trust every part on it.

everyone who owns, builds, or operates one of these aircraft has a vested interest in promoting the Sonex line of aircraft

That makes no sense unless you for some reason are uncertain of your "investment", but it's probably true nonetheless. But that is no reason to prevent honest discussions. Quite the opposite in fact. We all want to get the most out of our investments, no matter if we perceive them as good or bad or simply are uncertain. The end product will talk for itself (good or bad) no matter what is said on this board. The thing is, if we all were honest, the end product would only end up better. You have to take possession of your investment. You have to be in charge of your investment, not the other way around. That is the only way to protect your investment. We are the ones spending money on this, not Sonex.

Besides, people do communicate also outside this board.

Just for the record. I have no problems recommending the Onex to everybody. Well, everybody who wants a single seater kit. I have no problems recommending the Aerovee either, but with certain strings attached.

Sonex Accident Report Update

ScottM-Sonex1629 wrote:Robbie,

I agree we should keep it on the foundation web-site. Links to the site from this forum are enough, probably no need for double posting as that can lead to mistake when transcribing (factual) data.

I know the board of directors are discussing ways to step up this data search and reporting (to keep it up to date) and if any of the forum members have ideas for ways to better retrieve the data and post/upload to the foundation web-site please share your thoughts.

If you reread my original post. I started this post because the information on the foundation web site was not up to date or complete. Maybe that will change, if so the information I am providing will be unnecessary

We have been working to update the page. Dana Baker has done an excellent job of finding the correct links for those accidents we are able to find in the database.

http://sonexfoundation.com/Accident_Information.html

I am the original poster and I see no improvements in the accident information provided in the Sonex Builders and Pilots foundation. If you look at the following you will see there have been a bunch of accidents not reported. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/db ... cType=SONX