GA Experimental flying
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to be at least two quite distinct cases in the amateur(ish)/GA sphere being discussed here, and arguments against one seem to be used to decry the other. I think that is false logic, verging on sophistry.
One case, which I supported in an earlier posting, is an engineered, tested, monitored, development in one country (e.g. Sweden for the Volvo-re-engined Pawnee with large, low-geared prop), acceptable to the regulatory authorities of that country which is not a third-world certificate-of-convenience situation. Other European (and wider) countries CAA's, e.g. UK CAA, should make it easier to duplicate that work instead of applying the full rigour of an all-new certification regime - they know the latter is unaffordable, they know the other country (Sweden) is a reputable authority, and they are being awkward for the sake of it. "Jobsworth" mentality. If Genghis and others really cannot see any case for this, then OK we just have a plain disagreement and that's that. The CAA happens to agree with Genghis. Hard luck on those like me who want to save cost and improve the environment, with no more risk than launching a Comet or a Concorde on the world. Which has killed most, by the way, the careful amateurs with regulatory monitoring, or the fully certificated commercial jobs which happened to have fatal flaws?
A quite separate case is the "right" claimed by some individuals to try whatever they like as long as it is "only them that is at risk". Arguments for and against this should not cloud the issue of the first case. Personally I find it fairly evenly balanced. I suppose I wish there were a "safe for third parties" route whereby these candidates for the Darwin Club could have a go. Occasionally another Wright, Whittle, Cockcroft etc. would emerge - Oh, they did in fact! - and the rest would lie between the extremes of the birdmen-off-the-pier embarrassment and the fatality of the guy who embedded himself and his rocket-powered Chevrolet(?) in the cliff-face.
By the way, the latter fruitcases do it anyway, rules or no rules, so why the argument?
One case, which I supported in an earlier posting, is an engineered, tested, monitored, development in one country (e.g. Sweden for the Volvo-re-engined Pawnee with large, low-geared prop), acceptable to the regulatory authorities of that country which is not a third-world certificate-of-convenience situation. Other European (and wider) countries CAA's, e.g. UK CAA, should make it easier to duplicate that work instead of applying the full rigour of an all-new certification regime - they know the latter is unaffordable, they know the other country (Sweden) is a reputable authority, and they are being awkward for the sake of it. "Jobsworth" mentality. If Genghis and others really cannot see any case for this, then OK we just have a plain disagreement and that's that. The CAA happens to agree with Genghis. Hard luck on those like me who want to save cost and improve the environment, with no more risk than launching a Comet or a Concorde on the world. Which has killed most, by the way, the careful amateurs with regulatory monitoring, or the fully certificated commercial jobs which happened to have fatal flaws?
A quite separate case is the "right" claimed by some individuals to try whatever they like as long as it is "only them that is at risk". Arguments for and against this should not cloud the issue of the first case. Personally I find it fairly evenly balanced. I suppose I wish there were a "safe for third parties" route whereby these candidates for the Darwin Club could have a go. Occasionally another Wright, Whittle, Cockcroft etc. would emerge - Oh, they did in fact! - and the rest would lie between the extremes of the birdmen-off-the-pier embarrassment and the fatality of the guy who embedded himself and his rocket-powered Chevrolet(?) in the cliff-face.
By the way, the latter fruitcases do it anyway, rules or no rules, so why the argument?
Moderator
Thread Starter
Well said Chris, although I don't entirely agree with your representation of my own position.
I believe in regulatory monitoring, as hands-off as possible, but with enough teeth to stop something flying if it's plainly dangerous. For this happens two things are needed - firstly the regulator (who so far as possibly I think in GA should be an association, not the national authority) must have a mechanism in place allowing them to know what's going on, secondly the regulator (ditto) must pull it's finger out and work at making any regulatory oversight as easy to live with as possible. I understand the American approach of "let me do what I want and don't interfere" if the alternative is constant mucking about with the FAA, but in my opinion this is still the wrong answer; the right answer would be the FAA getting it's act into gear and being as easy to live with as possible.
The other point that's been made is about CAA (or no doubt other authorities) making it difficult to approve foreign mods. Well if it's true, it's unacceptable and the fault lies with the authority. However, whilst I don't work for the CAA, I have had sight of one or two of these. There was a well known case of a motorglider silencer that CAA blocked approval of despite approval in German (who know far more about motorgliders than the brits ever will). From a private conversation with the chap at the CAA involved I understand that what happened was that CAA said it would be glad to approve it but would just like drawings and a manual so that they knew what they were dealing with. No manual appear, neither did CAA approval. Who is really at fault here?
G
I believe in regulatory monitoring, as hands-off as possible, but with enough teeth to stop something flying if it's plainly dangerous. For this happens two things are needed - firstly the regulator (who so far as possibly I think in GA should be an association, not the national authority) must have a mechanism in place allowing them to know what's going on, secondly the regulator (ditto) must pull it's finger out and work at making any regulatory oversight as easy to live with as possible. I understand the American approach of "let me do what I want and don't interfere" if the alternative is constant mucking about with the FAA, but in my opinion this is still the wrong answer; the right answer would be the FAA getting it's act into gear and being as easy to live with as possible.
The other point that's been made is about CAA (or no doubt other authorities) making it difficult to approve foreign mods. Well if it's true, it's unacceptable and the fault lies with the authority. However, whilst I don't work for the CAA, I have had sight of one or two of these. There was a well known case of a motorglider silencer that CAA blocked approval of despite approval in German (who know far more about motorgliders than the brits ever will). From a private conversation with the chap at the CAA involved I understand that what happened was that CAA said it would be glad to approve it but would just like drawings and a manual so that they knew what they were dealing with. No manual appear, neither did CAA approval. Who is really at fault here?
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think amateurbuilt hit upon a distinction that helps this thread a bunch.
When I think "experimental" I think of Jim Bede or Burt Rutan and the like, who produce real innovation in small scale. This innovation cannot be squelched by regulation without choking off progress. I would not look to Cessna or Piper to innovate light plane engineering, and shudder to think what would happen if a board of experts made the real innovators dance the right dance prior to flight testing.
The fact the we also call kit built more or less standard aircraft as "experimental" is perhaps where Ghengis and I do agree. Here, the well intentioned amateur can get in lots of trouble, while not adding to our collective knowledge in any real way (except create more Darwin chuckles).
When I think "experimental" I think of Jim Bede or Burt Rutan and the like, who produce real innovation in small scale. This innovation cannot be squelched by regulation without choking off progress. I would not look to Cessna or Piper to innovate light plane engineering, and shudder to think what would happen if a board of experts made the real innovators dance the right dance prior to flight testing.
The fact the we also call kit built more or less standard aircraft as "experimental" is perhaps where Ghengis and I do agree. Here, the well intentioned amateur can get in lots of trouble, while not adding to our collective knowledge in any real way (except create more Darwin chuckles).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
If I can add my two cents worth to this very interesting discussion...
The burden should be on the individual, as Nick states so well, until it is proposed to be used for transporting the public or their cargo, or operating it where it can endanger folks on the ground. The FAA system seems to work quite well in this regard- I can point to Burt Rutan's Voyageur program where he thanked the President for only requiring one piece of government paper for him to fly the aircraft. More recently, the Groen Brothers gyrocopter seems to have progressed quite well without a mountain of paperwork or requirements to get it to the point where it is nearly ready to be looked at in detail for certification.
So, the system works reasonably well in the USA as far as getting something new or unusual developed. The problem then becomes getting it certified. But that's another story.
Shawn
The burden should be on the individual, as Nick states so well, until it is proposed to be used for transporting the public or their cargo, or operating it where it can endanger folks on the ground. The FAA system seems to work quite well in this regard- I can point to Burt Rutan's Voyageur program where he thanked the President for only requiring one piece of government paper for him to fly the aircraft. More recently, the Groen Brothers gyrocopter seems to have progressed quite well without a mountain of paperwork or requirements to get it to the point where it is nearly ready to be looked at in detail for certification.
So, the system works reasonably well in the USA as far as getting something new or unusual developed. The problem then becomes getting it certified. But that's another story.
Shawn
Moderator
Thread Starter
Perhaps the question is what is the real objective. Is it...
(1) To produce a safe final product.
(2) To allow development by competent companies (such as Rutan) of innovative products.
(3) To simply allow hobbyists to experiment at their own risk.
And the right answer is probably different in each case.
G
(1) To produce a safe final product.
(2) To allow development by competent companies (such as Rutan) of innovative products.
(3) To simply allow hobbyists to experiment at their own risk.
And the right answer is probably different in each case.
G
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Denver, Co. usa
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn........... Completely off the thread but I suspect this group might like to hear what the test pilot school is all about. Also did you see Rutan's flight of the rocket powered aircraft yesterday?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear flt test professionals,
I must admit to being slightly overawed by this whole thread. To those that wish to dabble in flt testing , well crack on. So long as your acivities can harm no-one but yourselves I wish you good fortune. It doesnt come down to legislation vs authorities/governments or associations, its a case of common sense.
Bon chance my friends.
I must admit to being slightly overawed by this whole thread. To those that wish to dabble in flt testing , well crack on. So long as your acivities can harm no-one but yourselves I wish you good fortune. It doesnt come down to legislation vs authorities/governments or associations, its a case of common sense.
Bon chance my friends.
