User Profile Header
David M. Phillips
,
NV
Comments
Displaying 1-2 of 2
Light Sport Aircraft: A Segment in Critical Condition
from David M. Phillips
wrote 15 weeks 6 days ago
I am Dave of Henderson, NV with my 2009 Remos GX, parked Shade T Hangar at KVGT, North Las Vegas Apt. Nice airport, well operated.
My Remos was purchased with nearly all the extra avionics and it works well.
I love flying it and can with my 5'10", 155 lbs. frame, fit well in the small confines of the cockpit. Like anything, with a little time and will, accommodation is possible and in the end, the cockpit works. Remember how much room the space astronauts had in their very small capsules. They used all the space efficiently. Same here with the Remos, Light Sport.
The plane was produced so poorly that following three annual's and 1,100 hours of my flying it, the plane has finally been brought to standard of safety and reliability. I engaged professional avionics shops and maintenance facilities to do the work of research, chasing down parts, figuring out "what in the world is this" all the time, to be now at a point of the ship running well, reliable and a good navigation training tool.
Without the flying school package of tires and brakes replacing the standard, less capacity factory set up, the plane is definitely not a plane for flight schools. The wheels and brakes will always be an issue, replace and repair, tires spun on the rims... all sorts of problems.
With factory installed wheels, brakes and wheel pants, stopping is acceptable and assured so long as the pilot knows the limits of the systems.
The navigation set up with optional auto pilot - two servo - and the Mode C, Mode S transponder interfaced with the Garmin 496, works well. Good unit, screen too small, but again, one gets used to it as needed and navigates with efficiency.
The construction of the plane, all the little things of hinges and wire joining, fittings and just about everything had to in the three years of annuals and intermediate inspections and maintenance as needed, be worked. The plane was a mess. Unreliable and a disgrace. Typical when the government agency overseeing allows the industry to self regulate production. Greed and short cutting takes place like the sun coming up in the morning. So it is. I have complete documentation of all statements and assumptions forthwith stated. I am very willing to share my issues.... and I tell you fellow aviators, it cost many extra thousands and thousands of dollars to bring up my plane to acceptable standard.
The Remos company is a complete disgrace. Service calls require a lot of time to find anyone to answer, to then find someone that can assist, parts in Europe as the plane is from Germany. A real mess. My mechanics and avionics technicians were the people interfacing with Remos, trying to, technicians that know how to fix problems, professionals with the talents and skills one would expect, and yet, Remos was terrible putting out or making amends for certified production anomalies.
The LSA Category is a good and worth category for the very least of aviation experienced pilots to get into the game. Plane price is way too high. Medical-less pilots... Huh? Where did that come from save for money, money, money driven production and their influence on the FAA regulatory bureaucracy. An LSA dropping onto a person on the ground because a heart attack afflicted or otherwise not certifiable airmen in the cockpit, still produces mayhem, damage, injury and death.
The planes are tricky. From what I have witnessed on windy days and via my own experience flying my plane extensively, the light gross weights make it quite a handful in gusting wind.
But, knowing and working with the aerodynamics, practicing many cross wind operations, perfection and confidence are possible. Like anything else, any other airplane, each has a particular personality , footprint of aerodynamics.
The Remos GX is safe, only if the pilot is safe. Simple as that.
While demonstrated Cross wind landings are listed in the POH as 15 kts, well beyond demonstrated is safely available to the skilled pilot. Being a high wing design allows considerable amount of wing down input combined with opposite rudder very effective, no flap allowing increased speeds and aerodynamic control. Practice and practice and the Light Sport in all its feather-like performance can be mastered.
I took my plane on a 4K mile trip first week of Oct. last year. Las Vegas east to San Antonio, TX and north to Chicago Midway Apt. to Kansas City, Dalhart, TX, and home. A lot of wind and foul weather was considered in the journey filled with diversions, fuel stops non scheduled, days of flying three landings and eight hours of flying low ceilings and storm in the area. The trip was fun, challenging and with the great avionics set up, safe and well organized on a moment by moment basis. I stay mostly away from night flying only because of engine failure might make it deadly coming toward the earth where otherwise in the daytime, seeing all I need makes safety more certain.
Flying all the varied weather and winds of Kansas and the mid west of our nation, having all the skills of flying the small, light and wispy plane with three hour range and a 45 minute reserve assumed, the small nature of the cockpit and seat not too comfortable, was safe and certain. Being a good pilot using all the tools of Flight Following and weather services abounding on the ground and in the air, knowing personal limits of flying skill and personal physiology, all that and more makes the LSA a great and affordable plane to journey with in America.
The LSA is too expensive, even if it was build, production accomplished properly. The idea of a small and affordable hour by hour cost of less than 6 GPH, and 107 TAS, is a good idea. I loved my trip of 4K. It was safe. The avionics operated well. The Rotax 912 engine is phenomenal as it hums along at 5K to 5,200 RPMs for hour after hour.
The LSA may not continue production in vast numbers if the quality of production does not improve via the FAA regulatory process, and the cost of purchase reducing.
The set up of plane, engine and avionics are well thought out.
Now, for the industry to think out how to make this economical enough to sell to the average GA pilot.
Dave Phillips
Atlas Air Cargo, Flight Engineer 747
Boeing 787 Woes: Power, Money, Aviation and Government
from David M. Phillips
wrote 15 weeks 6 days ago
Grounding of the 787 is the proper decision.
The safe thing to do for reasons obvious.
I recall in the early days of the DC-10 production into service, cargo doors opened in flight for a reason of design failure and oversight, to then cause the cabin floor to buckle downward as cabin pressure escaping at different rates upper and lower to the flooring assembly.
Simple venting doors throughout the fuselage subsequently on all jumbo jets and perhaps other smaller airliners of size, prevented uneven pressures incurred wit rapid decompression at high altitudes.
Both these deadly, catastrophic issues were passed via FAA allowing Douglas Aircraft Co. to perform their own certification and testing on many systems; these two mentioned, doors and pressure equalizing panels.
Further, the DC-10 following two door openings in flight and complete failures to affected aircraft crashing to the ground, and one where the skill and resourcefulness of the pilots using auto pilot servo power to move flight controls arresting an uncontrollable downward plummeting aircraft to save the day and a landing.
The FAA was reticent to take the DC-10's within its authority, out of service pending design and repair of the cargo doors systems failing in flight.
Three years were given for the airlines to implement design retrofits to the doors.
Not sure the disposition of the pressure equalization panels regarding the FAA or Douglas Aircraft Co.
So, for three years, the flying public were traveling on DC-10's not safe.
This done, the planes allowed to remain in service pending retrofit, solely due to the immense cost of ground the fleet of planes.
That the 787 was pulled out of service until engineering can resolve the battery overheat to burn avionics issue, this is progress.
What is not progress is pallets of Lithium Ion Battery's are being shipped on cargo planes, banned on passenger planes due to battery instability.
2011 Dubai and a UPS 747-400 freighter crashed due to a pallet of LI batteries spontaneously ignited causing the plane to quickly become unflyable due to villainous smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and to crash, completely destroyed.
The FAA continues to allow as Class 9 HAZMAT, Lithium Ion Battery's be palatalized and shipped on cargo planes, in spite of knowledge of the record of an unsafe condition being allowed shipped.
The FAA is getting some courage. Some.
The FAA should not serve the industry business economic issues, but should serve as a safety and regulatory agency for the aviation industry. The dichotomy of mandates reduces tough choices being made.
The 787 will be back in the air shortly. The battery source will be rectified and safety will be restored. Just the way the regulatory agency should function. With authority and conviction to safety.




