New FAA Changes to E-AB Transition Training Possible

[Bryan Cotton]

One thing to consider for training - get an add on glider rating. For one reason, it is super fun. More in tune with the thread, though, is the fact that you will be more relaxed in an engine out landing scenario, especially if you have altitude and time. It may not save your bacon with an engine failure at low altitude with no options, but the glider mindset of no second chance can be helpful of minimizing panic.

[hickej]

I agree that adding on a glider rating is an excellent idea. I learned to fly in sailplanes and hang gliders before I got my single engine land rating. I had a hell of a time landing the 172 on my first lessons. Then one day the instructor pulled the power on downwind and I knew exactly what to do and made my best 172 landing ever.

Not everyone is going to get a glider rating, so what else can we do?

I work in the aeronautical industry and redundant systems are what we build. Q: How do you make a single engine aircraft redundant? A: You train the pilots to handle engine out landings and you add seat belts and make the passenger area of the fuselage survivable in a rough field landing.

When I fly single engine aircraft, I always assume that the engine could quit at any time. I am the redundancy in the system. My sailplane instructor drilled it into my head to always have a landing field in sight. It's obvious in a sailplane, but I need to do the same thing in my Waiex since I am the redundancy for the single point of failure in the engine. When I fly my mental loop is "where would I land now if the engine failed"? I do this in every single engine aircraft I fly. I took the Waiex up high and turned off the engine to calculate my glide ratio based on my flying style and aircraft. I use that as my range for landing fields. Very often the closest airport is not in range. I am constantly scanning for landable fields and clearings. I will have precious few minutes to find a field when the engine quits. Having one chosen before hand will greatly increase my chances.

Jim
W0162 3300 TD 243hrs

[Bryan Cotton]

I learned the trick of knowing where you were going to land in case of engine failure in helicopters. You have a lot more options but a lot less time.

[Sonex1517]

I think it is important we continue this thread.

While our make and models have an overall excellent safety record, recent events show us that the past year has been shocking. For some of us, the accidents have hit very, very close to home. While I want to tread lightly, we do no favors by avoiding the facts.

On a business trip this week I read the entire NTSB report on EAB safety. It is a long report, very detailed, and has some very valid points. The document is NTSB/SS-12/01 PB2012-917001 Notation 8413A Adopted May 22, 2012

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/SS1201.pdf

Their recommendations to the FAA and EAA are some things we may not like if they were put in place. The issues are real, and the data is clear - collectively we have a problem and we need to address it.

The conversation is an important one and again, I hope we all participate. I know there are many people who visit and read the forum and choose not to post. This is one subject I hope they join in on.

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

[SonexN76ET]

Here is a list of things that we need to promise ourselves and our loved ones before each flight:

1-Aircraft is in top working order without any safety of flight discrepancies.
2-The aircraft has been thoroughly inspected with a safety checklist.
3-I will only fly my Sonex in good weather. I will not continue VFR into IMC conditions. I will land on a road or a field before I get into weather that I can not get out of.
4-I have installed racing style seat belt pads on all four points of my seatbelt. My seat has high density, energy absorbing foam for safety.
5- I will never operate my aircraft with less than one hours worth of fuel.
6- I will be prepared at all times for my engine to stop running and have a plan on where to land safely, even if it is in the treetops (as have several people who have walked away uninjured).
7- If my engine fails on takeoff or at low altitude I will establish best glide speed and land straight ahead making a normal landing.
8- I will know how to properly tune my engine (and injection system) or have someone competent tune it and I will ensure that it is in proper tune before each flight.
9 - If my engine starts to run poorly, I will land on a field or a road as a precaution rather than try to make a far away airport.
10. When I fly a cross country I will use Victor Airways and fly from airport to airport so I am always within 50 miles of an airport.
11. I will never fly when impaired by alcohol, drugs, medications, fatigue, or illness.
12. If I feel compelled to perform aerobatics or buzz something, I will ensure that I am properly trained to conduct those activities and do so with plenty of margin of safety.
13. Safety will always be my first consideration when conducting a flight.

Please provide your thoughts on what can be added to this list!

[MichaelFarley56]

I want to take a moment and thank everyone who has posted on this thread. Like all of you, I agree that a safety-oriented attitude is vital for all of us to adopt if we want to enjoy the continued freedom the FAA currently grants us. Like Robbie has said, if the Experimental Aircraft safety record becomes a problem, they WILL make changes that limit to eliminate the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Let's face it; this year's safety record for fatal Sonex accidents has been the worst in the airplanes history. As a community we've endured five fatal accidents and I for one will say, that's five too many!

With this in mind, I'd like to ask all of you a question: Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations for changes we could implement to either the Sonex Foundation or on these forum boards in the interest of aircraft building or flying safety? There's been some talk about adding a subsection to these boards that would be specific to 'Aircraft Safety' but I'd be interested in hearing what you all have to say. I love Jake's list here and wonder how we as a community can help each other by doing the same sort of thing on a regular basis.

Thank you everyone for participating!

[daleandee]

Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations for changes we could implement to either the Sonex Foundation or on these forum boards in the interest of aircraft building or flying safety?

My first recommendation would be for everyone to read the NTSB safety report that Robbie referenced. There's a bit of what you might expect but some eye opening stuff also. Here is a snippet of what is there (it is really long to read but worth it):

The pattern of study results identifies several safety-critical issues that, if addressed,
could improve the E-AB aircraft accident record and better prepare pilots to operate E-AB
aircraft. Study results indicate:

1 )The largest proportion of E-AB aircraft accidents involved loss of control in flight
and power plant failures, and loss of control in flight has been the greatest contributor
to fatal E-AB aircraft accidents.

2) More than one-half of the E-AB aircraft accidents investigated in 2011 were aircraft
that had been purchased used, rather than built by the current owner.

3) A large proportion of accidents occurs early in the operating life of a new E-AB
aircraft, or shortly after being purchased by a new owner.

4) During 2011, more E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during the first flight by a new
owner of a used E-AB aircraft than during the first flight of a newly-built aircraft.

5) The most common accident occurrence for first flights of both newly-built and newly
purchased aircraft was loss of control in flight.

Did you catch that? Loss of control is the number one factor. Hats off to Sonex for providing transition training. If you are building please don't be so stubborn about doing the first flight. If you want to do it then get prepared to do it. First flights can be very benign but you must be prepared for when they are not. If you buy a Sonex, or any aircraft that you are not qualified to operate, get some training! Please!

Secondly is power plant failure. This covers a lot of ground. I read a lot from the blog of William Wynne (the Corvair guy) and lately he has been showing a bit of frustration at the ignorance of pilots that do things that they were clearly told would get them hurt. Here's a current article:

http://flycorvair.net/2014/11/02/understanding-flying-corvairs-pt-6-98-dna-not-enough/

This has nothing to do with Corvair power and everything to do with stubborn builders and owners not taking safety very serious. Last April we had a Corvair powered Zenith crash land short of his intended airport near to me. I fly Corvair power so this was of great concern to me. The pilot survived in the upside down wreckage for several hours before being found. What wa the reason that he was almost killed, destroyed a beautiful airplane, and put a large black mark on our ability to build and fly airplanes? Too much air in the fuel tanks!

http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/13/3562688_sumter-pilot-undeterred-after.html?rh=1

I don't know whether I'm more hurt or angry today. The loss of Tom Huebbe is difficult to take. He was a kind gentleman, good pilot, and an excellent builder so I can't imagine what could have caused this accident. He gave me some excellent piloting advice on tail wheel Sonex aircraft. He was very helpful to anyone that needed a favor. He was humorous, from all I seen a great father, and will be very much missed. Forgive me if I make little sense ...

Dale
N319WF

[andrewp]

Excellent post.

AP
#618

[ihab]

Hi everyone,

With all due respect, I have made a quick spreadsheet of all the fatal "Sonex" accidents in the NTSB database. The link is here; anyone with the link can view or edit the spreadsheet --

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I would like to advance and/or discuss a number of hypotheses:

1. Fatal accidents usually involve loss of power

5 out of 8 of the accidents involve loss of power; 2 out of 8 are unknown; and 1 out of 8 is known to have occurred with power available. I would consider this hypothesis well supported.

This does not imply that power failures in the Sonex are not survivable -- proving that would require an analysis of more data, including incidents not reported to the NTSB or the FAA. However, it is clear that, when accidents are unsurvivable, they are likely caused by loss of power.

I honestly have no idea what the prevalence of fatal power-loss accidents says about the reliability of the engines or carbs commonly used on Sonex aircraft. I leave it to those with expertise in the matter to study the issue.

2. Fatal accidents involve stall, potentially with dropped wing

All accidents about which we know some details involve a nose-down attitude on impact. Many include witness accounts of a sharp bank then a dive. I would also consider this hypothesis well supported.

(Note in the data that the probable cause for N75654 says, "It is likely that the pilot, distracted by the loss of engine power, allowed the airplane to enter an unusual attitude, and the tail separated during the pilot’s attempted recovery from the unusual attitude.")

3. Fatal accidents involve low time in type or insufficient training

This is something that I actually cannot support or refute with the data I have. I would hope that someone has more data about this.

At issue here, of course, is whether transition training, or some training program, is likely to bump the numbers.

One of the things I do worry about is the "train the other pilot" suggestion. We all think we are perfectly well trained and ready; it's the other guy/gal who needs to undergo rigorous remedial education, training, and for good measure, should be made to eat spinach every day! :) Yet somebody is crashing these airplanes.... It is for this reason that I would counsel training as only part of a solution.

4. Sonex aircraft are touchy during stall

The video posted by fastj22 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP4EAMk-ZAU seems to indicate that the Sonex tends to drop a wing sharply in a stall. Am I correct? If one were to hire an experienced CFI to fly a Sonex as an average pilot would, slightly carelessly, what would they conclude? How would it be different from a C152, say? This would not mean there is anything "wrong" with the Sonex design. It is what it is. But different designs are suited to different use cases.

I do not have experience to evaluate this hypothesis, but I suspect it may be true.

I strongly counsel some such honest, independent evaluation, and would contribute money towards it if it were done.

5. Average non-aerobatic pilots are purchasing and/or building Sonex aircraft

Sonex marketing emphasizes the low cost and accessibility of their aircraft. They do not market it as an aerobatic aircraft requiring lots of dual training in type. Is the success of the Sonex, in being an easy-to-build, strong LSA that anyone can afford, causing its audience to grow to the point where it is being purchased and/or built by average pilots who expect performance more similar to a Cessna 152/172 or Piper Cherokee?

Clearly we cannot determine how correct this is without a survey of the pilot and builder population.

6. The fatal accident rate can be reduced by controllability improvements

Regardless of engine issues, I claim someone should take whatever would be learned from #4 above and determine if the stall behavior, for average pilots, can be improved. This might involve test flying with various modifications, including:

Stall warning devices. A suction-type stall horn can easily be retrofitted and plumbed. If someone were to determine the appropriate location, draw up some plans, and compile a list of the parts, it could be an afternoon's job for a builder or mechanic to install the device.

Stabilizing devices. Some devices like stall strips or outboard vortex generators can easily be added in an hour or so by anyone who can operate a measuring tape. Vortex generator kits exist, made of clear plastic that would not ruin the esthetics of a nice aircraft. Someone could perform testing with, say, VGs like http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... texgen.php, and determine the locations that would help keep the wings level during a stall.

In the end, the only way to "prove" this hypothesis would be to come up with some solutions, throw them out there, and see what happens to the fatal accident rate.

I would strongly counsel trying some solutions based on the known likely causes rather than waiting. It should not be necessary for more people to die.

-----

Personal notes

I was part of the team that analyzed the Zenith 601XL failures a few years back, called the Zenith Builders' Analysis Group (ZBAG).

People got really, really defensive. Nothing was done and lots of pilots died.

In the case of the 601XL, it did actually have some serious problems. The Sonex, luckily, is a well-designed and well-built aircraft. But that doesn't mean that something cannot be done to improve safety.

Ihab

[SonexN76ET]

Most of the fatal Sonex crashes were by pilots who had recently purchased their planes second hand and had a power failure for whatever reason. A number of them tried to make a miraculous turn back to the airport and had a stall spin. Trying to make a miraculous turn back to the airport will kill you in ANY aircraft.

The Sonex has very gentle stall characteristics. I did many many stalls at the Sonex transition training and recently did about a dozen stall tests in my aircraft. My stall speed was somewhere around 35 mph. The aircraft stalls straight ahead, like a 152 unless you are in uncoordinated flight. Then, like a 152 it will drop a wing. I think new pilots think they can fly the plane at 40 mph and try to do so after a power failure. You can not. The plane is light and will decelerate rapidly unless you push the nose down immediately and aggressively. You have to maintain 75 mph until you are on short final and landing is assured and then you can slow down to 60 and then enter your flare for landing. I think knowing this and practicing emergency landings is what will save lives.

I will post some stall videos to show you how benign the stalls are.

But please insist all pilots take formal transition training. Also fly all aircraft knowing that power loss may happen and be ready for it to happen. The loss of power is survivable, loss of control, aka a low altitude stall spin is not.