artp wrote:The Corvair was a car built by GM with a rear engine that had a nasty tendency to lose control in curves. When it happened it was driver error (they went faster than was safe in the car). But what killed the car was that so many "driver errors" occurred that people questioned whether the car required a level of skill higher than required by other vehicles and if a car requiring that level of skill was safe.
aircraft and cars simply are not analogous in this case. an example would be a newly certificated private pilot with all of his time to date in a cessna 152. at this point he is only safe in a 152 and needs a check out or additional training and an endorsement (maybe even a new rating) to fly anything but a 152. also the corvair was in fact a flawed design, the fact that a ctsw requires training doesn't mean the design is flawed.
artp wrote:If you look at the accident reports many of the pilots were CFIs. While you can argue that they should have had more training specific to the CT before attempting to fly it, the FAA says they should be able to fly any single engine airplane based upon there certificates. They can fly Cessnas, Pipers, even Cirrus but they don't have enough skill to fly a CT?
recently i went flying with a cfi to get him 5 hours in my ct so he could instruct my girlfriend. this guy i have known and flown with since the 1980's and i know him to be a good pilot and a good instructor. he lasted less than 1 hour in the ct and was likely to damage it if he continued on the same tract. the problem was that he either already knew how to land the ct or he wouldn't even try. it wasn't a matter of skill, this guy is highly skilled. it is a matter of some adjustments though. if you are going to approach at idle with 30 degrees of flaps you will likely be presented with a sight picture you have never seen before. no cowling for reference, this require adjustment in how you perceive your pitch attitude. the ct was design with short/rough field capabilities as a requirement while coupled with best speed for the category. one of the results is the ability to approach steeply. in this configuration the ct requires a higher skill level and requires a finer perception of distance from the ground as well as deck angle as well as the current energy state.
any time you maximize performance more skill is required, like banking 60 degrees vs 30 degrees in a level turn. ultimately we have a hi-performance slsa that reacts quickly to input and conditions. the extra capability brings extra safety as well.
Anicdotes about how many landings you did are not very informative. It is like smokers saying they smoked for years and don't have health problems so that proves there is nothing wrong with smoking. If someone is concerned about the safety of an aircraft they should be looking an the number of accidents not at some individual who didn't have an accident.
if all the accidents have a similar profile he should look at that fact. i believe in all 12 we have new students and or new ( to the ctsw ) general aviation cfi's realizing landing incidents before they are proficient.
you can avoid this scenario with adequate training. simply looking at numbers doesn't paint as useful of a picture.
Finally in you one of your posts you talked about training being important and you also state that pilots routinely fly the CT in winds greater than 30 knots. Yet the CT POH states "After practice the airplane can be taxied in crosswinds up to 17 knots." and "In gusty wind or wind speed more than 21 knots flight operations should be stopped." Does this training you speak of teach pilots to ignore the POH?
i don't believe POH is the correct term in SLSA and as you pointed out multiple times in the past the SLSA Aircraft's Operating Instructions tend to be deficient by comparison.
we did a landing in 30+ kts it is true. however i have had experience at significantly higher wind speeds and have demonstrated that my personal minimums in this case to be more real world than the SLSA documentation. we were in a part of the country with very few airports and had a couple of issues that made landing important. rfane had demonstrated good judgment and good skills over the prior few days, i landed first and reported to rfane who did a fine job. we talked about taxiing as well and we were well within the capabilities of the design and if we were not we would have used wing walkers to insure a successful taxi.
the training i speak of teaches pilots to maintain a good energy state unless they are inches from the runway and to make necessary adjustments to maintain control. it can be a big deal for some who have lost the habit of using their feet or that are unable to adjust to a different sight picture, coordination or control sensitivity.