Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion


Izzy
 

Related to the RAFE discussion regarding emerging un-insurability issues and accident analysis, there was a brief mention of accident data. 

On Friday, the NTSB made some changes to their website and made the accident data more accessable/searchable/usable. And for accident report junkies there's a report you can subscribe to. 

"Incidents" are mentioned as well, (example broken nosegear on runway) you can add them to your query by selecting "Incident, Accident, or both from the "Investigation Type" field.  

Additionally, it appears we can now gain access to accident data PRIOR to 1983 in the Historical Database. This is important for the Canard community since a lot of the development took place in the late 70's and early 80's. 

Take a look for yourself!


Note: Over the last 5 years I've written at least 10 letters to my congress people requesting NTSB funding for GA and experimental accidents be increased and that the searchability of the data be improved. I never received a single response from anyone other than an acknowledgement that the letter was received and was being routed to the appropriate authorities. I'm not sure my efforts and those of others I was in contact with had any impact on this but it looks like a step in the right direction. Hopefully we can use this information to increase our understanding of the frequency of certain types of events and maybe develop ways to mitigate them. 

Next year, I'd like to publish a report I've been developing for almost a decade now on side hinge canopy incidents. There's a lot of folks that have had unreported experiences and there are a number of incidents and accidents that were caused by side hinge canopies; in Cozy's in particular. To date I'm not aware of any such report inventories so any data from you early Canadians would be appreciated. I can use details from anecdotal reports to cross reference NTSB data.  

Yup, it's not perfect, but it's what we have to work with. So if you have a critique, feel free to send it on accompanied by your solution and I'll incorporate it into the analysis methodology.

Izzy
(603)410-7277


Mike Tooze
 


Hi Izzy,

Re your projected report.

I flew my Vari in November 1981. Since then I have witnessed (or more correctly been close-to or heard first hand), of many incidents and or accidents related to our canard types.
May I start be affirming that I believe that there is no more an intrinsically safe single-engined aeroplane than of our Rutan types.

My suggestion is that the background of the pilot/operator ‘Eze status’ should be reported too.
As an observer over this time-frame I see a distinction between:-
1) Those who built their Eze from the ground up.
2) Those who ‘finished’ a part build Eze
3) Those who restored a complete Eze.
4) Those who purchase their Eze.

As an Aerospace professional then in flight control I understood the basics of the canard configuration. Which may be why I was the first in the UK to purchase my V-E plans - but not the first to fly in the UK.
Therefore I suggest that those in Group 1 ought have a strong grip on not only the detailed structure of the aircraft but also a good knowledge and understanding of how the thing flies due to the time taken to build and hence time to arrive at Burt’s first flight procedures.

Group 2 in my limited experience, are prone to over confidence in that they really do think that ‘they’ve arrived’. ‘They built the plane!’
An example. Despite insisting that they had the W&B in the FF box, as I taxied-out to do their first test flight – the nose wheel was bouncing off the ground at the slightest bump! I immediately bunged-in 15lb of ballast. But the real point is that so arrogantly confident were they that I was regarded as 'just the guy to do their FF test'. And ignored anything else that I offered (including removing ‘my’ ballast as they understood the empty weight was all that mattered. (I found that this plane also has a serious fuel system fault)

In Group 3 the PFA/LAA magazine over here recently published a totally erroneous article about a ‘delam’ of a LE main spar! As it turned–out even before investigating much further this was actually a ‘disbond’ of the baggage floor in the main spar. :-) The fuss this cause resulted in one of the owners dropping out and the incident referred to ‘experts’ in the US - as if the UK has no one so qualified!
This showed that there was generally no ‘understanding’ of the basic structure of the LE and a general distrust of composite structures. I wrote to the editor attempting to rectify numerous errors in the article – but no reply. Hence canard ignorance is propagated.

Group 4 A guy who purchased and successfully operated his Eze for some years developed his own ideas away from the original limitations and warnings. He used auto fuel in his composite tanks and switched between ‘auto’ to 100LL for landing and take-off. He apparently had no idea about ‘un-porting’ at low fuel levels. Unfortunately he suffered fuel starvation at circuit height and was seriously injured.

Izzy, these are just some of the incidents and accidents that I have come-across since I first flew my V-E. What I believe is that the background of the builder/restorer/purchaser can be a factor in some or many, of these events and should, if available, be included in your analyse.
The correlation of these groups to events would be most interesting

Best regards as ever,

Mike T

PS The characteristics described above are of individual examples. They do not necessarily relate to anyone who may feel ascribed to the above groups.




------ Original Message ------
From: "Izzy via groups.io" <inbriggs@...>
To: "Canard Aviators" <canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, 27 Sep, 21 At 14:44
Subject: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

Related to the RAFE discussion regarding emerging un-insurability issues and accident analysis, there was a brief mention of accident data.

On Friday, the NTSB made some changes to their website and made the accident data more accessable/searchable/usable. And for accident report junkies there's a report you can subscribe to.

"Incidents" are mentioned as well, (example broken nosegear on runway) you can add them to your query by selecting "Incident, Accident, or both from the "Investigation Type" field.

Additionally, it appears we can now gain access to accident data PRIOR to 1983 in the Historical Database. This is important for the Canard community since a lot of the development took place in the late 70's and early 80's.

Take a look for yourself!


Note: Over the last 5 years I've written at least 10 letters to my congress people requesting NTSB funding for GA and experimental accidents be increased and that the searchability of the data be improved. I never received a single response from anyone other than an acknowledgement that the letter was received and was being routed to the appropriate authorities. I'm not sure my efforts and those of others I was in contact with had any impact on this but it looks like a step in the right direction. Hopefully we can use this information to increase our understanding of the frequency of certain types of events and maybe develop ways to mitigate them.

Next year, I'd like to publish a report I've been developing for almost a decade now on side hinge canopy incidents. There's a lot of folks that have had unreported experiences and there are a number of incidents and accidents that were caused by side hinge canopies; in Cozy's in particular. To date I'm not aware of any such report inventories so any data from you early Canadians would be appreciated. I can use details from anecdotal reports to cross reference NTSB data.

Yup, it's not perfect, but it's what we have to work with. So if you have a critique, feel free to send it on accompanied by your solution and I'll incorporate it into the analysis methodology.

Izzy
(603)410-7277


Andrew Anunson
 

Izzy,
Take a look at the attached spreadsheet..... I found a bunch of open door/canopy accidents and incidents (Cozy's are included in Rutan derivatives).

96 General Aviation fatalities 1982 - 2017

13 Rutan Accidents 1982 - 2017
24 Beechcraft Accidents
9 RV Accidents

I summarized this for my EAA Founders Innovation Prize entry (Holdfast System).
We could add to this data with the newly available data.

Andrew Anunson


Izzy
 

Good data! 

I know of one nonfatal accident in 2019 where the canopy popped open and the plane went off the runway. The pilot was un-injured but the plane was seriously damaged. 

Your report only goes to 2016 so it might be time to update with the last 5 years. 

FHC’s are wicked time consuming but it is possible to make one. Here is mine.




Izzy
(603)410-7277

On Sep 27, 2021, at 16:48, Andrew Anunson via groups.io <macleodm3@...> wrote:


Izzy,
Take a look at the attached spreadsheet..... I found a bunch of open door/canopy accidents and incidents (Cozy's are included in Rutan derivatives).

96 General Aviation fatalities 1982 - 2017

13 Rutan Accidents 1982 - 2017
24 Beechcraft Accidents
9 RV Accidents

I summarized this for my EAA Founders Innovation Prize entry (Holdfast System).
We could add to this data with the newly available data.

Andrew Anunson

<Open Door incidents 2017.xlsx>


David A Froble
 

On 9/27/2021 5:08 PM, Izzy via groups.io wrote:

FHC’s are wicked time consuming but it is possible to make one. Here is
mine.
One very serious question. What happens if you need to get out of the aircraft, and air pressure is holding the canopy closed?

Is there any info on unlatched canopy for Berkut style canopies?

Regardless, the most important thing is, whatever happens, continue to fly the aircraft.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


Izzy
 

Seriously, I would land and get out :)

Izzy
(603)410-7277

On Sep 27, 2021, at 18:58, David A Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:


On 9/27/2021 5:08 PM, Izzy via groups.io wrote:

FHC’s are wicked time consuming but it is possible to make one. Here is
mine.
One very serious question. What happens if you need to get out of the aircraft, and air pressure is holding the canopy closed?

Is there any info on unlatched canopy for Berkut style canopies?

Regardless, the most important thing is, whatever happens, continue to fly the aircraft.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486





Bob Holliston
 

People who have had them open up say they open all the way and stay there. I heard of one incident with a Berkut when both canopies opened up then..... went through the prop. The (Klaus) prop had enough structural integrity left to get him around the pattern to a safe landing. Also A Klaus prop ate an upper cowling on a LongEZ without a lot of damage. Cut it into 4" strips. Too bad Klaus doesn't make props (for sale) anymore. 


On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:58 PM David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:

On 9/27/2021 5:08 PM, Izzy via groups.io wrote:

> FHC’s are wicked time consuming but it is possible to make one. Here is
> mine.

One very serious question.  What happens if you need to get out of the
aircraft, and air pressure is holding the canopy closed?

Is there any info on unlatched canopy for Berkut style canopies?

Regardless, the most important thing is, whatever happens, continue to
fly the aircraft.

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486







--


 

On a related question, Ryzard put together a discussion at Oshkosh this year on insurance issues.  Does anyone have a recording of that discussion?

Jeff

 


berkut13
 

Correction:  Only the aft canopy impacted the prop in that incident across the plexiglass.  The forward canopy (and usually the aft) will fling itself upward enough to clear the prop arc.  In all known occurrences, the builder omitted a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.

 

-James Redmon

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bob Holliston
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 6:53 PM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

I heard of one incident with a Berkut when both canopies opened up then..... went through the prop. The (Klaus) prop had enough structural integrity left to get him around the pattern to a safe landing.


Bob Holliston
 

I stand corrected. I heard the story about 20 years ago. 


On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:51 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

Correction:  Only the aft canopy impacted the prop in that incident across the plexiglass.  The forward canopy (and usually the aft) will fling itself upward enough to clear the prop arc.  In all known occurrences, the builder omitted a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.

 

-James Redmon

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bob Holliston
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 6:53 PM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

I heard of one incident with a Berkut when both canopies opened up then..... went through the prop. The (Klaus) prop had enough structural integrity left to get him around the pattern to a safe landing.



--


Ryszard Zadow
 

Excellent discussion. 

I’m working on getting the video of the OSH forum out in-line. 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>

Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 
From my experiences with training Canard Pilots this is severely lacking, in all groups. 

37 years flying a varieze with no canopy or gear warning system, but has checklists placards on the instrument panel and I USE them! The Soeed Canard we train in is configured the same way. No one has yet to forget to verify the canopy is properly latched, while at the same time several have attempted to land gear up! Humans, go figure! That got fixed before they were signed off. 

 

Ryszard 


On Sep 28, 2021, at 00:51, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:



Correction:  Only the aft canopy impacted the prop in that incident across the plexiglass.  The forward canopy (and usually the aft) will fling itself upward enough to clear the prop arc.  In all known occurrences, the builder omitted a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.

 

-James Redmon

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bob Holliston
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 6:53 PM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

I heard of one incident with a Berkut when both canopies opened up then..... went through the prop. The (Klaus) prop had enough structural integrity left to get him around the pattern to a safe landing.


KEN4ZZ
 

One of the major topics at the presentation discussed how insurance companies eventually deny to renew policies for pilots once they pass some arbitrary company selected age.  With that thought in mind, I stopped by the booth for the folks who have been my insurer for decades, Avemco.  Their rep stated that they never deny to renew based on age.  With luck, that will be a press to test for all of us one of these days.

Ken


On 9/28/2021 9:11 AM, Ryszard Zadow wrote:
Excellent discussion. 

I’m working on getting the video of the OSH forum out in-line. 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>

Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 
From my experiences with training Canard Pilots this is severely lacking, in all groups. 

37 years flying a varieze with no canopy or gear warning system, but has checklists placards on the instrument panel and I USE them! The Soeed Canard we train in is configured the same way. No one has yet to forget to verify the canopy is properly latched, while at the same time several have attempted to land gear up! Humans, go figure! That got fixed before they were signed off. 

 

Ryszard 


On Sep 28, 2021, at 00:51, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:



Correction:  Only the aft canopy impacted the prop in that incident across the plexiglass.  The forward canopy (and usually the aft) will fling itself upward enough to clear the prop arc.  In all known occurrences, the builder omitted a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.

 

-James Redmon

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bob Holliston
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 6:53 PM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

I heard of one incident with a Berkut when both canopies opened up then.... went through the prop. The (Klaus) prop had enough structural integrity left to get him around the pattern to a safe landing.


Jim Evans
 

Ken:  I made the same query of Avemco and received the same response.  I guess we are getting close to finding out.  My state requires liability insurance, so I guess we could register in another state that doesn't require it.

Jim

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:33 AM KEN4ZZ via groups.io <ken4zz=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

One of the major topics at the presentation discussed how insurance companies eventually deny to renew policies for pilots once they pass some arbitrary company selected age.  With that thought in mind, I stopped by the booth for the folks who have been my insurer for decades, Avemco.  Their rep stated that they never deny to renew based on age.  With luck, that will be a press to test for all of us one of these days.

Ken


On 9/28/2021 9:11 AM, Ryszard Zadow wrote:
Excellent discussion. 

I’m working on getting the video of the OSH forum out in-line. 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>

Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 
From my experiences with training Canard Pilots this is severely lacking, in all groups. 

37 years flying a varieze with no canopy or gear warning system, but has checklists placards on the instrument panel and I USE them! The Soeed Canard we train in is configured the same way. No one has yet to forget to verify the canopy is properly latched, while at the same time several have attempted to land gear up! Humans, go figure! That got fixed before they were signed off. 

 

Ryszard 


On Sep 28, 2021, at 00:51, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:



Correction:  Only the aft canopy impacted the prop in that incident across the plexiglass.  The forward canopy (and usually the aft) will fling itself upward enough to clear the prop arc.  In all known occurrences, the builder omitted a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.

 

-James Redmon

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bob Holliston
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 6:53 PM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

I heard of one incident with a Berkut when both canopies opened up then.... went through the prop. The (Klaus) prop had enough structural integrity left to get him around the pattern to a safe landing.



--
James W. Evans Jr.
Airport Manager
Tappahannock - Essex County Airport
1450 Aviation Rd.
Tappahannock, VA
22560
KXSA
Airport: 804-443-5885
Fax:     804-443-6891
kxsa.airportinfo@...
http://www.tappahannockessexairport.com/


berkut13
 

Not “incorrect” at all.   I did NOT say or imply “in-lieu of training/discipline” anywhere in my statement.

 

Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety, not a substitute training and checklist protocols.  That last part, we agree on.  They are complimentary, not exclusive.

 

Beat your chest & fly without simple safety systems all you want….it’s still foolish.   There is little to no logical reason to do so purposely.

 

-James Redmon, CFI/II

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:12 AM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>



Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 


Izzy
 

What I love most about the FHC it it's passive safety mechanism is the wind. Weighs exactly zero pounds, never breaks and is 100% reliable. FHC's never open in flight!

It does kinda suck trying to install the hinges, but with new narrow avionics the space behind the panel has opened WAY up so slipping some hinges in there has become a lot easier. 

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 08:06:35 PM EDT, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:


Not “incorrect” at all.   I did NOT say or imply “in-lieu of training/discipline” anywhere in my statement.

 

Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety, not a substitute training and checklist protocols.  That last part, we agree on.  They are complimentary, not exclusive.

 

Beat your chest & fly without simple safety systems all you want….it’s still foolish.   There is little to no logical reason to do so purposely.

 

-James Redmon, CFI/II

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:12 AM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>



Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 


Bulent Aliev
 

I have taken off with my FHC unlocked. What alerted me was the high engine/wind noise. Just locked the latches while climbing. It was a non event. 
Was a passenger in a top loader Velocity. The canopy popped open after rotation. I had to bring the unfamiliar plane back, while the owner was hanging for dear life on the canopy. We were very lucky to get back in one piece. 
FHC could be a life saver. 

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 9:05 PM Izzy via groups.io <inbriggs=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
What I love most about the FHC it it's passive safety mechanism is the wind. Weighs exactly zero pounds, never breaks and is 100% reliable. FHC's never open in flight!

It does kinda suck trying to install the hinges, but with new narrow avionics the space behind the panel has opened WAY up so slipping some hinges in there has become a lot easier. 

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 08:06:35 PM EDT, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:


Not “incorrect” at all.   I did NOT say or imply “in-lieu of training/discipline” anywhere in my statement.

 

Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety, not a substitute training and checklist protocols.  That last part, we agree on.  They are complimentary, not exclusive.

 

Beat your chest & fly without simple safety systems all you want….it’s still foolish.   There is little to no logical reason to do so purposely.

 

-James Redmon, CFI/II

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:12 AM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>



Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 

--
Bulent Aliev
Enginegear
ph +1 954.557.1019
fax +1 386.957.4473
Bulent@...
www.enginegearonline.com


Ryszard Zadow
 


Bet my chest? Really? I was pointing out that you can fly safely without depending on warning systems when operating from a background of sound training.  

<Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety>

Once more, you are incorrect. They are not.. A simple Google search on what has made the most impact on aviation safety could help you understand why your statement is wrong. I doubt your interested because you obviously are the expert but just in case here's an example: 


How many times have we seen gear waring horns blaring while Pilots are oblivious to them and continue to land gear up? As the article above points out, human factor is one of the top three improvements in aviation safety. Human factors means TRAINING! 

Even though I've been CFI'ing with canard pilots for over 3 decades, since the advent of the Canard Flight Academy I think I can safely assume I probably am doing more canard specific flight training than anyone. From that, I can make observations probably no one else can and one of the biggest problems I see in the canard community is the lack of training. The nature of our aircraft are not conducive to it. There's a lot of pilots out there that have been flying their canards for a long time and never get anything more than a flight review from one of their buddies, and it shows. 

You comment about beating my chest was not appreciated, 

RyZ 



On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 07:06:37 PM CDT, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:


Not “incorrect” at all.   I did NOT say or imply “in-lieu of training/discipline” anywhere in my statement.

 

Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety, not a substitute training and checklist protocols.  That last part, we agree on.  They are complimentary, not exclusive.

 

Beat your chest & fly without simple safety systems all you want….it’s still foolish.   There is little to no logical reason to do so purposely.

 

-James Redmon, CFI/II

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:12 AM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>



Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 


Ron Springer
 


My VariEze doesn’t have a canopy warning system, but I adopted a procedure that I follow 100% of the time. I only allow my canopy to be in one of two positions, fully open or fully closed and locked. I never allow it to be cracked open or anything else in between open and closed.

In the summer I taxi with it wide open and close it before taking the runway. In the winter I close and lock it before I taxi.

Ron


Jenatepilot
 

As many of you know, I built my long ez with an F16 style canopy. There are 4 separate latches to close. I sold my ez last year and the buyer went to take off without a checklist and without locking any of them. At 60kts IAS he rotated and the canopy lifted up, tore off of the hard points, went up and over the cowl and prop and crashed down on the runway. The frame was ok but the plexiglass was destroyed. The 14,000hr pilot was able to cut power and stop the aircraft before the end of the runway and was just fine. I personally put over 350hrs and more than 1000 landings on that ez with no issues. I purposely did NOT include a canopy warning system because those fail too. Instead it’s a checklist and memorized repetitive process so when I forget anything, my gut and checklist tells me. My very “personal” opinion is to rely on a laminated checklist rather than a $2 micro switch that I consider a crutch and eventual point of failure. My opinion only. 

Nate Mullins 
N316NM

On Sep 29, 2021, at 9:24 PM, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:



Bet my chest? Really? I was pointing out that you can fly safely without depending on warning systems when operating from a background of sound training.  

<Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety>

Once more, you are incorrect. They are not.. A simple Google search on what has made the most impact on aviation safety could help you understand why your statement is wrong. I doubt your interested because you obviously are the expert but just in case here's an example: 


How many times have we seen gear waring horns blaring while Pilots are oblivious to them and continue to land gear up? As the article above points out, human factor is one of the top three improvements in aviation safety. Human factors means TRAINING! 

Even though I've been CFI'ing with canard pilots for over 3 decades, since the advent of the Canard Flight Academy I think I can safely assume I probably am doing more canard specific flight training than anyone. From that, I can make observations probably no one else can and one of the biggest problems I see in the canard community is the lack of training. The nature of our aircraft are not conducive to it. There's a lot of pilots out there that have been flying their canards for a long time and never get anything more than a flight review from one of their buddies, and it shows. 

You comment about beating my chest was not appreciated, 

RyZ 



On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 07:06:37 PM CDT, berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:


Not “incorrect” at all.   I did NOT say or imply “in-lieu of training/discipline” anywhere in my statement.

 

Warning or condition indication systems are the foundation to safety, not a substitute training and checklist protocols.  That last part, we agree on.  They are complimentary, not exclusive.

 

Beat your chest & fly without simple safety systems all you want….it’s still foolish.   There is little to no logical reason to do so purposely.

 

-James Redmon, CFI/II

Berkut/Race 13

 

 

 

From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:12 AM
To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [c-a] Rough River Update - Ryzard's Insurance Discussion

 

Would like to add: < …a proper canopy warning system…a foolish thing to do.>



Incorrect. It’s been proven time and again that warning systems are not the final solution to preventing errors like forgetting to put the gear down, close canopy ect. Good cockpit disciple, proper use of checklists and sound habit patterns do amd the only source for those are TRAINING! 


Don B
 

I flew my Longez for over a year without a gear warning system with no problems.  I was convinced I needed a warning system.  I installed a light and buzzer.  I became dependent on the safety system!  On a Saturday morning breakfast flight coming into the airport area I put the gear switch down and then turned my attention to watching for several aircraft that were approaching at the same time.  I had no warning horn or light, because of a failed limit switch.  I landed gear up!  It’s a Wright lift unit with the PC control board.  The limit switch fail told the PC board the gear was down, thus no warning.  I failed to look at the gear window.  Don’t become to dependent and complacent with warning systems!


On Sep 29, 2021, at 7:37 PM, Ron Springer <ron228rj@...> wrote:


My VariEze doesn’t have a canopy warning system, but I adopted a procedure that I follow 100% of the time. I only allow my canopy to be in one of two positions, fully open or fully closed and locked. I never allow it to be cracked open or anything else in between open and closed.

In the summer I taxi with it wide open and close it before taking the runway. In the winter I close and lock it before I taxi.

Ron