 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
 |
|
To me, it's a non-issue anyways as I've always owned taildraggers. I
can see where I might be a little upset if I had one of these
nosedraggers. Back in 2005, Van's concluded that most accidents with
these were pilot error. Now they imply a design flaw by making it
"mandatory" to replace. As an experimental guy, I just hate the word
"mandatory". Reminds me too much of my certified airplane days...In
Van's letter from 2005, they indicated that no matter HOW they build ANY
part, someone will find a way to destroy it...so...will this mandatory
replacement end all noseovers? We'll see.
I didn't know airplanes with nose wheels even existed until the flurry
of emails on this topic 
do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Bob Collins wrote:
| Quote: |
[quote="Knicholas2(at)aol.com"]
>Van is basically voiding every RV nose dragger's
>insurance policy until this is fixed.
>
>
See what's new a
>[b]
>
>
You know, I realize this is probably not going to endear me to many folks, but after all these year's, hasn't Van's earned the benefit of the doubt that the reason they're doing this is because they want us to be aware of improvements in design so that we're all safer?
I mean, holy smokes, what has Richard VanGrunsven ever done to us that deserves such acrimony?
To rehash old stuff, maybe all the flipovers ARE the result of pilot error. And if I follow these threads, too bad for the guy who flips after making a mistake.
But maybe the design minimizes the effect of pilot error and, in the process, provides a margin of safety.
What's so bad about that?
do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146036#146036
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob Collins
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: What did Van's know and when did they know it? |
|
|
| acepilot(at)bloomer.net wrote: | Back in 2005, Van's concluded that most accidents with
these were pilot error. Now they imply a design flaw by making it
"mandatory" to replace. |
I don't believe they concluded that at all. What the letter said was:
"Van’s Aircraft’s own operational experience, over time, with 6 different tricycle gear RVs and a cumulative 7000+ hours, has been positive. However, as the number of flying kit built tricycle gear RVs has increased, so has the number of accidents involving damage to the nose gear. Because of the broad range of use and abuse to which the fleet is subjected, we find it difficult to categorize accidents and establish a precise cause and effect relationship. But with over 17 years and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of customer use, the nose gear has proven safe and practical for the vast majority of users.
That said, we recognized from the beginning that it would be impossible to make the tricycle gear configuration completely foolproof. In studying the NTSB accident reports it was obvious that pilot proficiency was the most significant factor that could be addressed. This awareness precipitated our push for transition training many years ago and is still a primary focus for Van’s in keeping all RV pilots safe. This training has clearly been successful in reducing accidents associated with all RV models and its importance cannot be overstressed."
In 2006, in an article I did on the subject for RV Builder's Hotline, (almost a year ago to the day http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html ) Tom Green said:
Bob, a few new nose forks have been in service now for a time... but our ability to track their "success" is not very good. We don't get hours of service reports from our builders. All we can do is to keep an eye on the NTSB accident reports... much like you should do. So far, to our knowledge no one has had any "reported" incident with one of the new forks."
"The best I can do is to 'mine' the NTSB incidents and so I have taken a baseline of the data for the last 5 years (just prior to my best guess as to the first 'usage' of a new leg/fork combination). My thoughts are that as each year passes we can look at the NTSB accidents using the same parameters and determine if there is a change or, if there is a change, is it due to something mechanical or is it due to better pilotage."
"I have attached the baseline Excel file that I produced on 7/13/2006. (see below) The study covers a 5 1/2 year period. I used the 'query' section and the keywords: "gear collapse", "inverted", and "fatal". I did this for a variety of aircraft models, both fixed gear and retractable, taildragger and trigear. I specifically did not include other homebuilts because homebuilts in general don't need to meet any standards of manufacture. In other words, I am holding Van's Aircraft kits to the standards of certified planes."
"My thoughts are that after one year, I will produce this search again and see if the numbers/percentages change. It is the only tool available to us that might be reliable and unbiased."
"As you can see if you look at the data, the RV ("A" models) have landing accident rates with "gear collapse" similar to the "retractable" models of many aircraft, but lower "inverted" rates and one of the lowest "fatal" rates."
" Bob, anyone can do this study but you have to also accept its weaknesses... the method of using the "keywords" will miss some accidents and add some in that it shouldn't but "on average" it is as close as I could get to a non-biased method. Please be aware of this weakness."
"My feeling is that It will take 3-5 years to see any differences that might be significant enough to draw conclusions. I doubt that reproducing the study in less than 1 year increments would be any value, so the next check will not occur until 7/13/2007."
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
|
|
Ok, maybe I made the jump to my original thought that Van's thought
pilot error was mostly the cause of nose overs in Van's trike planes
when they stated "
In studying the NTSB accident reports it was obvious that pilot proficiency was the most significant factor that could be addressed."
If there is/was no design flaw, why redesign and make it mandatory to comply with it? To me, that would be like if I designed a plane and redesigned some part that would make it go 10 MPH faster and making that change mandatory (the original part works flawlessly as designed, but I want everyone to do it so they can go faster). I'd have no problem if inspection was "recommended" at some interval...
do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Bob Collins wrote:
| Quote: |
acepilot(at)bloomer.net wrote:
>Back in 2005, Van's concluded that most accidents with
>these were pilot error. Now they imply a design flaw by making it
>"mandatory" to replace.
>
>
I don't believe they concluded that at all. What the letter said was:
"Van’s Aircraft’s own operational experience, over time, with 6 different tricycle gear RVs and a cumulative 7000+ hours, has been positive. However, as the number of flying kit built tricycle gear RVs has increased, so has the number of accidents involving damage to the nose gear. Because of the broad range of use and abuse to which the fleet is subjected, we find it difficult to categorize accidents and establish a precise cause and effect relationship. But with over 17 years and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of customer use, the nose gear has proven safe and practical for the vast majority of users.
That said, we recognized from the beginning that it would be impossible to make the tricycle gear configuration completely foolproof. In studying the NTSB accident reports it was obvious that pilot proficiency was the most significant factor that could be addressed. This awareness precipitated our push for transition training many years ago and is still a primary focus for Van’s in keeping all RV pilots safe. This training has clearly been successful in reducing accidents associated with all RV models and its importance cannot be overstressed."
In 2006, in an article I did on the subject for RV Builder's Hotline, (almost a year ago to the day http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html (http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html)) Tom Green said:
Bob, a few new nose forks have been in service now for a time... but our ability to track their "success" is not very good. We don't get hours of service reports from our builders. All we can do is to keep an eye on the NTSB accident reports... much like you should do. So far, to our knowledge no one has had any "reported" incident with one of the new forks."
"The best I can do is to 'mine' the NTSB incidents and so I have taken a baseline of the data for the last 5 years (just prior to my best guess as to the first 'usage' of a new leg/fork combination). My thoughts are that as each year passes we can look at the NTSB accidents using the same parameters and determine if there is a change or, if there is a change, is it due to something mechanical or is it due to better pilotage."
"I have attached the baseline Excel file that I produced on 7/13/2006. (see below) The study covers a 5 1/2 year period. I used the 'query' section and the keywords: "gear collapse", "inverted", and "fatal". I did this for a variety of aircraft models, both fixed gear and retractable, taildragger and trigear. I specifically did not include other homebuilts because homebuilts in general don't need to meet any standards of manufacture. In other words, I am holding Van's Aircraft kits to the standards of certified planes."
"My thoughts are that after one year, I will produce this search again and see if the numbers/percentages change. It is the only tool available to us that might be reliable and unbiased."
"As you can see if you look at the data, the RV ("A" models) have landing accident rates with "gear collapse" similar to the "retractable" models of many aircraft, but lower "inverted" rates and one of the lowest "fatal" rates."
" Bob, anyone can do this study but you have to also accept its weaknesses... the method of using the "keywords" will miss some accidents and add some in that it shouldn't but "on average" it is as close as I could get to a non-biased method. Please be aware of this weakness."
"My feeling is that It will take 3-5 years to see any differences that might be significant enough to draw conclusions. I doubt that reproducing the study in less than 1 year increments would be any value, so the next check will not occur until 7/13/2007."
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146326#146326
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Collins
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not rep |
|
|
| acepilot(at)bloomer.net wrote: | If there is/was no design flaw, why redesign and make it mandatory to comply with it?
|
Well the "is" and the "was" are two different things, part of which Tom Green explains.
The "make it mandatory" part, I think, has pretty well been discounted so far. They certainly put "mandatory" on the SB and if that got people's attention, I guess that's all to the good. But the insurance folks have said it doesn't affect insurance rates, and the homebuilt registration folks have already said there's no mandatory about it. (If folks have a different interpretation from EAA, I'd love to hear it).
Most of the data that Tom Green has been able to acquire, as near as I can tell, has shown that while proper piloting technique can certainly eliminate some of the noseovers, it can't eliminate all. And so they've come up with an improvement that takes some of the possibility of an incident further away.
Now they could probably do more. They could probably design an oleo strut or something that'll add a glob of weight and in the process, slow the RV down by another 30-40 knots. But does that mean the original design was flawed? Obviously I don't think so.
Given that these are our own experimental planes, I think folks are pretty well free to do what they want. They can make the change. They can not make the change.
It's the suggestion that there's some sort of evil conspiracy at Van's afoot.
Maybe people want Van's to provide the replacement free, in which case the cost will, no doubt, be spread across all the of the models on January 1.
I don't know. But put me down as a vote for believing that Van's has the best interests of the flying RV community at heart.
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dale Ensing
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 571
Location: Aero Plantation Weddington NC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
