Sport Pilot Talk

CharlieTango · Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: Flight Design forum - bias

the flight design discussions on this board have recently evolved. the portion of discussion here that, in my opinion is unfair bashing now includes the ct forum, which is a pilot/owner run forum, not flight design's.

1st art and fans are saying that no negative posts are permitted. not true at all. i publicly advised a member to fly the new ctls before he decides to buy one, i said i was skeptical about its handling. a plane that is designed for american lsa pilots ( easy to fly and land ) might not be as fun to fly.

every negative aspect of the ct is discussed by the members but we are labeled mac using kool aid drinkers.

the forum wants to be ct specific and doesn't want discussion about other designs, that is different than a bias, it is simply a rule.

the forum doesn't want the bashing, especially when it doesn't seem grounded in reality. artp's bashing didn't start with flight design, same behavior existed when he was a cirrus owner. he's had years of practice and is quite good at it. i find it interesting that he bought his ct from the cirrus dealer and now his complaints are all about dealer service. what's that about?

i've owned home builts, cessna, piper, mooney and flight design. i'm not and never was a big cessna or piper fan but when a design fits me well like mooney or flight design i stick with it.

pilot john's approach was interesting. he posted a long, not permitted evaluation of many designs. it was a fair post, a bit off on his flight design evaluation based on a 30 min ride in turbulent conditions at least he was being honest. the post didn't fit the rule and had an in your face flavor to it.

this forum is more appropriate for such a comparison but pj, didn't just post his report here he used it to call us names and bash our forum. in the end pj's report was ignored and the subject was about us sheep. silly.

so why do we come across as kook aid drinkers? i think it is because there are a few voices that are giving the wrong impression and a few voices responding. the responses are saying, wait a minute, i've got a ct, had it for years, hundreds of hours, and your reports just don't jive with what i know. i contend that a seemingly unfair comment countered by someone proud of their aircraft is to be expected and doesn't really deserve the name calling.

i have asked that art not put words in my mouth about 50 times by now. one common approach in this bashing is to build straw men and knock them down, much like saying negative posts aren't permitted.

i'm not trying to make ct fans out of anyone, i am trying to keep some balance and counter negative rhetoric when it seems unfounded.

vwvectors · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 93 Location: Florida

If Pilotjohn's post is fair & he wuz being honest IS that not balance . Which should be the rule ...

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 154 Location: Odenton, Md

CharlieTango wrote: i find it interesting that he bought his ct from the cirrus dealer and now his complaints are all about dealer service. what's that about?

I bought my CT from an LSA dealer who does not sell Cirrus. When I had the Cirrus it was serviced by a service center in Lancaster which is no longer a certified service center. In any casy my complaints about Cirrus were with the repetative failures, but to their credit (and unlike Flight Design) they actually fixed the parts when they failed. The only complaint I had against the Cirrus service center was the same one I have now, they had more work than they could handle.

Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth. Except for the time it takes to schedule an appointment, all of my complaints are about Flight Design and their inability to provide parts support or honor the warranty to fix items that don't work. I am sorry they can't design an oil cooling system that works but they sold me one and I would have hoped they work make it operational rather than publicly state I don't have one, and then retracting that statement by adding the thermostat works fine except below 25 degrees (it doesn't work at 80 degrees either).

CharlieTango · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am Post subject:

vwvectors wrote: If Pilotjohn's post is fair & he wuz being honest IS that not balance . Which should be the rule ...

i agree, roger makes the rules though, he owns the site

i'll be talking to him at the fly-in this week and my position will be that some "balance" will ligitimize the site more than it will have a negative effect.

in this case i don't think it was negativity as much as focus. probably not "fair" to do a comparison with a $250,000 gen cat design. roger wants the discussion to be solely on the ct.

i do understand roger's issue in that much of what he has dealt with was far from "balance" even though pilot john's post seemed honest he did admit that he was trying to mess with roger.

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 154 Location: Odenton, Md

CharlieTango wrote: i agree, roger makes the rules though, he owns the site

i'll be talking to him at the fly-in this week and my position will be that some "balance" will ligitimize the site more than it will have a negative effect.

Some "balance" will legitimize the site?

When I owned the Cirrus my first major complaint was the autopilot. I went through 7 of them. I complained on the Cirrus forum. I received the expected abuse from the CharlieTango's of among the Cirrus owners. I should complain to the service center because it is not a Cirrus problem. I should complain to STEC because Cirrus just installed them. No one else has the problem so it couldn't be Cirrus. But the forum did not attempt to suppress what some considered Cirrus bashing. As more people got the planes (I had a very early SR20 which I got after a 2 years on the waiting list) they started having the same problem. It turned out that it was a Cirrus problem. Cirrus had to recall all the planes to replace the aileron trim servo's.

A similar happened with the flaps locking up in a partially deployed position. Once again the earlier complainers (I had the problem but was not one of the earlier ones) got the predictable abuse, but once again their posts were not suppressed and in the end Cirrus had to recall all of the planes again to replace the flap relays.

There are other examples, but I don't want to focus the discussion on Cirrus, but rather the importance of a user forum that allows complaints to be aired rather than suppressed because they are not positive. The current CT forum is a feel good site for Flight Design. That is the right of the administrator, but those on the forum should not think that it is a serious platform for owners to address Flight Design problems.

rfane · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 214 Location: Sunnyvale, CA

artp wrote: That is the right of the administrator, but those on the forum should not think that it is a serious platform for owners to address Flight Design problems.

Where has it been said that it was? Roger has been consistent with the message of what the board is for. With that said, if we had a safety of flight issue, we wouldn't hesitate to discuss it.

vwvectors · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 93 Location: Florida

Charlietango , I hope your successful in your "negotiations" with Roger .

pilotjohn · Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 27 Location: New Jersey

I was only trying to mess with Roger AFTER the ridiculousness started, and the poke was really only the statement that I would not buy a CT just because of his forum... Of course, that is not true. I am unbiased toward the SLSAs I am evaluating. The opinions were an honest attempt at following his rules.

I will write a longer evaluation post sometime in the future, when all my analysis is complete and my mind is made up. The comparison to a 250k airplane (actually a 110k used 172) was because that is what I fly, and my reason for looking at SLSA is not because of medical reasons, but because of price.

CharlieTango · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject:

vwvectors wrote: Charlietango , I hope your successful in your "negotiations" with Roger .

progress has been made.

i'm sure roger doesn't want to see anything abusive

thorp · Joined: 08 Dec 2008 Posts: 23 Location: California

rfane wrote:
Roger has been consistent with the message of what the board is for. With that said, if we had a safety of flight issue, we wouldn't hesitate to discuss it.

Thats humbug. Roger has consistently shut down discussions that are entirely devoted to safety of flight issues, solely because he sees them as reflecting negatively upon FD sales. He is the kind of guy that would rather keep up the value of his plane than have you be a safe pilot.

Protest all you want, but the fact remains he has never allowed anyone to discuss the handling characterstics of the CTSW that are tricky and require special attention. He simply denies that such issues exist, or claims that they are easily resolved and thus no big deal.

Neither has he allowed anyone to point out the poor level of customer support. He would rather tout the quality of the manuals and brag about the good service he got, living right next to a dealer.

The manuals do look nice, but they leave much to be desired when compared to a standard POH.

Thats also another area where Roger H pushes the koolaid, by claiming that its a bad thing that LSA's should be held to similar standards as certified aircraft. He would rather have everything under the radar.

Anytime someone wants to hide things, then its a very very bad sign.

If Roger H had anything to do with the production of the CT series of aircraft, I would flee that plane like the plague.

Thankfully, cooler heads and better minds prevail in FD itself.

Roger · Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 100

Thorpe,

Where do I start. I guess with the fact that I mostly deal with facts and here we go!

1. I VERY rarely (if at all) have shut down a discussion especially on safety. I started the board so I could learn to fly the CT and fly it safely. I've been able to do that from the discussion on the board. The CT certainly flies different than a 172 but like a 172 anyone can learn. And sorry but it has absolutely nothing to do with the value of my plane - that would be the value of my life - thank you very much!

2. In the over 11,000 posts you won't find one that mentions my name and the manuals and again by discussing the handling characteristics of the CT on the board I learned to fly my plane better.

3. Please show me where I ever said anything about LSA standards vs certified and your claim that "its a bad thing". Thats just "plane" made up hogwash (as is all of your post)

4. As I always do with the very few "grumps" I run into please except free transportation and lodging from me to our next CT flyin so I/we and you can discuss these issues in person.....I don't hide things! Let's see if you do by not coming!

And last if any of this were the case why would there be topics on the board in referencing "how to land the CT" or "mishaps".

But wait there's more...."living right next to a dealer" - I guess if you consider a four or five hour flight to my dealer living right next door then so be it. (I live in McMinnville Oregon - he lives in Minden Utah - hardly next door).

I certainly don't mind being bashed and I'm sure sometimes I might deserve it but all I ask is that it done with facts as I do on my board.

Thanks and sorry if somehow I've pissed you off....

Roger Heller
www.ctflyer.com
rheller@ctflyer.com

pilotjohn · Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 27 Location: New Jersey

Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter accusations seems to be your general modus operandi. It's pretty effective and your statements almost have some level of authority to them. Were you taught these psychological tactics or did you just decide that they work for you?

And this, I'm paraphrasing, "come talk to me on my dime at the CT fly-in and if you don't you're hiding something" and "we all know what's really going on" business is very annoying to me; although I don't expect you or anyone else to care. It seems to be part of your charm. I already wasted 10 minutes writing this stupid message, I'm sure as hell not going to waste several days traveling to talk to someone with whom I have obviously not much common ground.

On the positive note, you do run a board that provides some good discussion, however one sided, about one of the better LSAs on the market today. Despite its faults, there is value there, so I thank you for that.

CharlieTango · Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:44 am Post subject:

john,

roger h is being unfairly attacked here.

thorp wrote: ...He is the kind of guy that would rather keep up the value of his plane than have you be a safe pilot...

i have known roger for years and statements like this are not only incorrect but pretty insulting.

PilotJohn wrote: Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter accusations seems to be your general modus operandi.

read roger's last response, another unfair attack.

Roger · Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 100

Don't worry I have thick skin and enjoy lively discussion....

What does bother me is folks getting the facts wrong. And it's easy to point that out. One of the posts here mentions me and manuals....they are correct that it was a point on ctflyer.com BUT it wasn't me.

So....I tend to take with a "grain of salt" stuff said where it is plain and simply NOT TRUE!

Oh, and if I invite you to a fly-in it's to talk to many - not just one! While I am charming - it's the crowd you need to speak with! 8)

Yours, truly Roger H (not Roger L or Roger F)

thorp · Joined: 08 Dec 2008 Posts: 23 Location: California

Roger wrote:
Please show me where I ever said anything about LSA standards vs certified and your claim that "its a bad thing". Thats just "plane" made up hogwash (as is all of your post)

A member of your board wrote about how important it was for Light Sport mfgs. to comply with FAA regulations and to provide a standard of service that would allow owners to maintain their aircraft in an airworthy condition. You blasted that post. The author then wrote this in reply:

"The idea that maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition, as regulated by the FAA, is just a "small issue" for ROTAX powered aircraft is not born out by the facts. "

Your immediate reply to that post was this:

Roger wrote:
"I don't think putting pressure on the manufactures is necessarily the way to go...I think we put pressure on our local A/Ps to go to school and tell them "hey I'll pay you to work on my plane". I paid for my local mechanic to go to school (who by the way is not on a list)! It's a "cart before the horse" problem that will rectify itself as LSA's/LSA engines become more popular. Remember we live in a "greedy society" if there's money it in - it will happen!! If there's no money it doesn't make any difference what the law or the manufacturer says."

Now tell me how on earth you can claim, after making such an OUTRAGEOUS statement, that following FAA practices for certified aircraft are being supported by your dangerous assertions?! You have clearly condemned the FAA practice for certified aircraft and dissed any lawful regulation.

On top of that, you absolve the manufacturer of any responsibility to provide the kind of follow up service needed to maintain those aircraft in an airworthy condition. All you are doing is promoting the old way of doing business in the Ultralight world, before the FAA got involved with regulating that mess.

Roger wrote:
But wait there's more...."living right next to a dealer" - I guess if you consider a four or five hour flight to my dealer living right next door then so be it. (I live in McMinnville Oregon - he lives in Minden Utah - hardly next door).

You sound like Bill Clinton trying to parse your words so that "my dealer" can be defined as someone far away from you.

What a bunch of hogwash. You know very well that the issue was with dealer provided service, and you have local service for your plane.

You might as well claim that your dealer is Tom P in Connecticut. It makes about as much sense.

Now tell us that you have to go all the way to Minden to have any service done on your plane!

You wont, because thats not how you get any service.

When Roger Lee posted useful information on how to find out if there was anyone nearby to any owner who was qualified to provide ROTAX service for their plane, you immediately trashed that post with this statement:

"I don't believe your list of "Rainbow Aviation" graduates means they're qualified to tear apart 912's. That could be misleading."

Nobody said anything about tearing apart a 912 (although I know for a fact that at least 1 person on that list is actually qualified to do so), and yet you tried to make a helpful post on how an owner could get service into a worthless post that could mislead someone!

Talk about A DIS-service!

And you are claiming you are trying to help owners!

No one would accept your claim that you are being helpful in the subject of how to get their plane serviced.

Instead, you want to help us to form a social commune. What's up with that?

Roger wrote:
I certainly don't mind being bashed and I'm sure sometimes I might deserve it but all I ask is that it done with facts as I do on my board.

Facts? You throw out baseless claims that something might be so(such as the "misleading" information from Rainbow), then argue that on such a basis you must act to protect others from actual, valid, and real factual information.

I'm sure ROTAX and Rainbow really appreciate your characterization of their list of qualified service personnel as "misleading".

This particular habit of yours has often shown up in other topics as well.

For example, on the subject of yaw instability in the CTSW, which has been verified by MANY pilots with far more experience than you (and, incidently dissed by CharlieTango by conducting invalid cruise tests that have nothing to do with this issue), and was recently also written about in the recent NASA CAFE tests by one of the test pilots, you wrote the following to discredit this factual information:

"I usually base my opinions on facts or fact that we don't have yet...I personally think the yaw thing is a bunch of crap."

HUH? What facts demonstrate that the "yaw thing" is a bunch of crap?

The only crap is your denial of the facts presented by MANY pilots, and your attempt to discredit them with crappy statements.

I could go on and on with the absolute absurdity of your posts, but its not worth my time. Any thinking person can see for themselves what a hole you have dug for yourself.

Its so bad that you say "if I have offended anyone....". My god man, when are you going to get it? Unfortunately for us owners, it will probably be too late. You have already managed to piss off quite a few.

I received a private e-mail from another member of the CTflyer forum telling me that he has to bite his tongue to avoid the fate you have bestowed on others (shutting down anyone with a different opinion).

The truth is you have created a forum where everyone has to be careful to post only information that suits your current whim, or watch out!

I am not going to subject myself to that kind of stupidity, so unless I get a full and complete apology from you, I would not want to participate in any aspect of that CTflyer forum. The real credit for the value of the CTflyer forum goes to Roger Lee and others. Yet, you seem to take the credit all for yourself.