CofA aircraft owners - what would it take to move you to a non-CofA type?

In my opinion the certification system makes no sense at all unless we are talking about commercial personnel carrying aircraft.

But the problem is – where do you draw the line? A C172 can be – and many are – used for commercial ops, sightseeing, meat bombing, survey, etc, etc. People do sightseeing flights, or ‘experience flights’ in C152s. The line isn’t as clear as ‘C172 vs A380’. There are many, many shades of grey in between.

I am not defending the EASA (or more generally European) attitude to over-regulate everything. However, in aviation it’s a fine lead to tread.

I’m not so sure you can conclude this from the linked report.

Me neither. Anyway, these are all statistics derived from a very small number of samples which, mathematically speaking, are more or less meaningless. For me, all that counts is that every casualty is one casualty too much, especially if it could have been avoided by simple measures. My pet example for this has always been John Denver who was said to have been a real nice guy, a good pilot and a good singer/songwriter (I never met him, but can confirm the latter). He died a totally useless death, because the fuel selector in the hombuilt he had just bought pre-assembled could not be reached while the pilot was strapped in. A mindless blunder like that would never have passed the certification process of a certified type.

And regarding statistics in general: Yesterday, after three piston engine failures in the past I had the doubtful privilege of suffering my first turbine failure. With 1750 hrs turbine time that comes much to early, statistically. From a less than 4000hr engine, that had been maintained by the book, last hot section inspection 500hrs ago with another 1000+ hrs to the next scheduled overhaul. I can’t find MTBF figures for these engines, but they must be in the 10.000hr range. But believe me, the last thing that crosses your mind is statistics when it happens to you…

We had a busy time avoiding these:

Which from closer-up looked more like that (this CB cloud that was on the extended centreline when we landed later moved over our house south of the airport and produced some hail, my wife told me):

Already during cruise, we could feel a very slight vibration with a faint humming sound. We both did not think about the engine but rather about some aerodynamic issue, a loose inspection cover or something. All engine readings were perfectly normal and identical for both engines. Only when we reduced power we noticed a change in the humming sound and linked it to the powerplant. But again, rather one of the accessories (generator, air cycle machine, accessory gear drive) than the engine itself. I tried a few things (like increase and decrease bleed air and switch the generators off) but soon had to concentrate again on our approach between and beneath the thunderstorms.

After a perfectly normal landing, we taxied in and parked as usual, the engines spooled down normally. After the passengers were gone, I saw that we had trailed a lot of fuel along our taxi route:

When the engine had cooled down, the fan (N1 spool) was totally stuck and looking into the exhaust, droplets of molten metal and debris could be seen:

How close we were to a total engine failure in flight and an engine fire (with all that fuel leaking) I don’t know – but certainly not far away. They are right now borescoping the engine and looking for damage and a possible cause as well as a loaner replacement engine while this one is going for repair.

My conclusion right now: Will I ever place myself one metre behind the turbine of a homebuilt turbine powered aeroplane like the one that starts this thread? Not for all the riches of Araby…

Did a blade come out and cut a fuel pipe?

No, I just got a call from our maintenance, the failure is contained inside the engine. From what they can see, the first stage of the low pressure turbine (the one that drives the fan) is damaged. There seem to be some known cases of turbine blades shifting and coming into contact with the stators, maybe it’s something like that. But they can only tell when the engine is stripped apart.

How else could the fuel leak be related?

That is caused by the fuel control unit: Obviously, the temperatures and pressures inside the engine had moved outside the range “programmed” into the FCU (which is not electronic, but a wonderfully engineered hydromechanical device) so that it dumped excess fuel through the vents.

He died a totally useless death, because the fuel selector in the hombuilt he had just bought pre-assembled could not be reached while the pilot was strapped in. A mindless blunder like that would never have passed the certification process of a certified type.

Did you even read the report from the NTSB?

As the owner (and user in most cases) of an experimental aircraft, YOU are the sole responsible for the airworthiness of this aircraft. It doesn’t matter who has built it. The situation above is a bulls eye hit of one of the main problem described by the NTSB.

My conclusion right now: Will I ever place myself one metre behind the turbine of a homebuilt turbine powered aeroplane like the one that starts this thread? Not for all the riches of Araby…

There are many certified airplanes with a turbine in the nose.

[edited to remove offensive comment]

The level of willful ignorance in this thread is beyond belief Did you even read the report from the NTSB?

Of course I did and I don’t care the least if you call me ignorant. I can even quote from that report:

“

According to other pilots who were familiar with the airplane and/or had flown it, to change the fuel selector a pilot had to: 

1) Remove his hand from the right side control stick if he was handflying the aircraft; 

2) Release the shoulder harness; 

3) Turn his upper body 90 degrees to the left to reach the handle; and 

4) Turn the handle to another position. Two pilots shared their experiences of having inadvertently run a fuel tank dry with nearly catastrophic consequences because of the selector and sight gauge locations.

Designing and/or building an aeroplane like that is what I call “mindless blunder” (he even required a mirror to see the fuel content) as I wrote before. Not even the CAA of most corrupt country in the world would have issued a CofA to such an aeroplane. Of course John Denver made a few mistakes, but he would have survived those mistakes in every certified aeroplane ever built by switching a fuel selector within his easy reach.

My point of view on non-certified aircraft is that in choosing to fly in an Expetimental Category aircraft, I am choosing to step outside the certified regime and manage my own safety. I am capable of doing that to a degree that satisfies me, and that’s why I do it. So in that situation I don’t want anybody in authority looking out for me, in fact I find the idea distasteful. Experimental aircraft are and should be just that… experimental.

Re turbine powered homebuilts: I know a guy with a long history of warbird ownership, P-51s and T-28s latterly. About ten years ago he got tired of the work involved with maintaining complex old recip powered military aircraft, and decided to build a turbine Legend, Link with some help. The resulting plane cost $1M according to him, and is totally gorgeous. The problem is that development work, working out the bugs, has been far more work than he had before with his ex-military machines. The turbine Legend is a complicated and essentially one-off plane, even if it is simpler than a T-28, and one guy and a helper are not enough to work out the bugs of a new plane on a reasonable time scale. Last time I spoke with him, a while ago now, they were pulling everything firewall forward apart to remove the engine mount and fix a little crack, but that was just one of a series of similar issues that kept the plane on the ground a lot. Simple is good in my experience, and I think planes like this tend to go through a string of frustrated owners before they can do what they were intended to do by the first guy.

Designing and/or building an aeroplane like that is what I call “mindless blunder”

Of course it is, but that is not the point. The point is that Denver was the owner and the pilot and the only one responsible. There is no difference between the stupidity of flying that aircraft and the stupidity of for instance skiing in an area marked as highest danger on the avalanche danger scale. Denver could have done a lot of things. He could have purchased a safe and trusted certified aircraft, he could have fixed his aircraft, re-done every switch and knob to FAR-23 standard (or higher), or let someone else do it. If he had done what the majority of homebuilders actually do, he would be alive. But he didn’t, he willfully chose to ride the avalanche.

I am sorry to offend anyone. That was not my intention. I meant Willful ignorance as in “tactical stupidity”. I mean, to chose to ignore the analysis done by the NTSB for all accidents during a period of 10 years, based on ones “feelings” towards some mythical this or that, is a text book example of this. The USA is where 95% of all homebuilts are. There are 10 times as many airplanes there as in Europe, maybe 100? times as many hombuilts.

The point is that Denver was the owner and the pilot and the only one responsible.

I still don’t see it that way. Only if he would have the builder and the pilot, then he would be 100 percent responsible.

… the analysis done by the NTSB for all accidents during a period of 10 years,

But in order for this analysis to make sense in our context here, one should not compare the number of accidents of certified aircraft vs. non-certified aircraft. Homebuilders and pilots of non CofA aircraft (not talking about gliders and microlights here!) are usually very technically minded persons with much above average knowledge of aircraft systems, aerodynamics and powerplants (John Denver apart).

A meaningful comparison would therefore be: How many members of this group (homebuilders and aircraft experts in general) have accidents in certified aircraft and non-certified aircraft. I cannot imagine that anyone in this group has ever had the common stall-spin accident when turning from base to final which accounts for many light-type casualties. Also I cannot imagine that the builder of an aircraft will operate it 25 percent above max. gross weight, as seems to be common practice among a lot of “spam can drivers”…