Now Don't YOU Be a Test Pilot Too, Ya Hear??


Reading the NTSB's rare URGENT safety recommendation against the Zodiac CH-601XL light sport aircraft, it's apparent that if you fly one of these, you're a credulous test pilot.


(This is an Evektor Aerotechnik Sportstar, similar to the Zodiac CH-601XL and also referred to below.)

The NTSB cited six fatal accidents since 2006 where the Zodiac came apart in flight.  In all six, ten people were killed.

Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is a new FAA category of aircraft.  LSAs are manufactured with a lot less oversight than "regular" FAA-certified planes.  That way you can afford one and become a Light Sport Pilot (limited to flying tiny Light Sport Planes) in as little as half the training necessary to become a "regular" Private Pilot.  Thus far, Light Sport Aircraft are a sort of diet version of "regular strength" planes that require only "diet" flight training.  (Sport pilots may only fly in very good weather during daylight hours.)

Why are planes getting cheaper?  So you can afford to learn to fly.  New planes and learning to fly has become so expensive, there aren't enough new student pilots to maintain the pilot population.  Private pilots are becoming extinct.  Fewer pilots mean fewer hours flown and insufficient use to maintain the infrastructure of airports and services relied upon today.

But, when fewer rules govern airplane makers, buyers BEWARE!



If a plane looks snazzy, it may fly that way!  (Or not so much.)

Never premature with product development, the Cessna Aircraft Company is flight testing its own LSA.  It's called the Cessna 162 SkyCatcher.  Buyers are waiting until 2011 when Cessna will start deliveries of over 1,000 firm orders that were first placed in 2007.

Watch this video.  Convince yourself that Light Sport planes, like those sold today (the deadly Zodiac CH-601XL for example) are not manufactured, engineered or tested to the extent Cessna puts forth in every plane it sells:



New plane builders possess neither Cessna's capital resources nor its lessons-learned, Cessna having built over 192,000 planes in eighty-two years of business.

I know.  You naysayers cannot wait to exclaim, "But, Cessna crashed both their prototypes already."  In fact, yes.  Two SkyCatchers were lost in flight test during out-of-balance spin maneuvers.  Loss of life: none.  Buyers as test pilots: none.  Cessna surpasses all manufacturer's efforts to abuse, overload, and overstress its aircraft before delivery to customers.  Nothing is left to chance; there are no untested flight characteristics or scenarios for owners to discover on their own.

Light Sport Aircraft are marketed to new and prospective pilots, and many have been sold to naive first-time airplane buyers.  Competitors to Cessna offer a $5,000 discount (the amount a SkyCatcher deposit) to tempt a Cessna buyer to surrender their order.

Last year, I began to notice how cheaply LSAs seem to be made.  (I searched up photos of crashed LSAs posted on aircraft salvage websites.)  Then, I sent this email to airplane dealer friends:

Dear (airplane dealer friend):

I found this report with photos showing the result of a hard landing to a competitor's LSA. Obviously, it's not built to withstand flight training.

Take a careful look at the photos of this 2006 Evektor-Aerotechnick AS Sportstar LSA:

(Here, I included a link that showed images of a wrecked Sportstar LSA, but that webpage no longer exists.  Basically, it showed a hard landing that had it been a regular plane would have resulted in a flat tire or sprung landing gear.  In this case, the entire body of the flimsy LSA looked like a wilted plant - both wings drooped to the ground.  It was totally destroyed.)

Landing gear, wing, and prop. Totaled.

Don't miss Tom Aniello's new comments on the SkyCatcher website:
...our engineering team was to come up with a new aircraft capable of withstanding the rigors of a flight training environment, built to Cessna standards for handling qualities and airframe life...  ...In designing the SkyCatcher, we did accept some weight increases that some of our competitors may not face - full fatigue testing of the airframe, use of an engine proven in the high-utilization flight training market, and resilient landing gear...

Steve Wilson

Here's an example of one of the many critical replies I got:

I think you may have over-reacted to this accident. I have been training students for over 30 years and had up to 10 Cessna 152's at one time -- now down to one 152. I have ordered my two 162's and look forward to training in them. In the interim, I am operating a Zodiac CH 601XL LSA trainer. We put 300 hours of training on the plane during the past 12 months. Yes, we did have one landing incident which resulted in a collapsed nose gear, prop and engine teardown. Fortunately we had a spare engine (Lyc O-235) on hand and were out of service only 13 days. During my 30 years with the 152, I have seen many similar accidents with similar results, it is not unique to Light Sport. While we may hope the 162 is a superior design, it is not proven and I suspect there will be landing accidents in it as we have seen before. Please forward these comments to the same distribution as your message. Thanks.

First built in 1959, Cessna's 150/152 never crumpled like a wilted plant after a minor walk-away hard landing.  Neither has one ever had an in-flight breakup in 40 years of flight.  Remember, the Zodiac is on record already with six fatal in-flight breakups in three years.

Here's another one:

When Cessna designs an aircraft that will withstand that kind of hard landing, I suspect it will be far too heavy to fly, let alone qualify as a Light Sport Aircraft... and I certainly do not think it will be called a Cessna SkyCatcher. Let's face it, if you hit hard, it will bend or break. It won't matter very much who happened built it.

So I don't really get where you come off saying the SportStar is "obviously not built to withstand flight training". Like every other light aircraft I've flown, it's simply not built to withstand hard landings. The only aircraft I know of that can survive repetitive firm landings tend to operate off aircraft carrier decks.

But I hope I'm wrong... after all, I have four SkyCatchers on order!

Guess I'll find out in the next three or four years, that is assuming Cessna can deliver.

I'm not sure this person's spent much time at a small airport watching little planes pound in (as they have for decades).  Unlike cars, the average age of a single engine plane is over 30 years old.  Their safety and strength is proven having endured a very long time.

My email ruffled the feathers of the SportStar LSA manufacturer (the wilted plane maker).

Dear Mr. Wilson,
 
I´ve received your e-mail regarding our light sport aircraft the SportStar - see bellow.
 
Probably you don´t have enough information about our airplanes and experience from the LSA market otherwise you wouldn´t distribute such incorrect information.

I would like to inform you that the SportStar airframe comes from EASA JAR-VLA certified pilot training airplane the Harmony JAR-VLA.

Aircraft was fully tested, incl. fatigue tests, all strength tests, drop tests,  crash tests, etc. Together with the European version of the SportStar there are around 800 aircraft in operation in 40 worldwide that have proved excellent reliability and safety record of the SportStar.

I´m persuaded that with respect to my today´s e-mail you will stop immediately distribution of these incorrect information that demage name of our product and name of our company. We wouldn´t like to be forced to take further steps in this matter.

I remain with best regards,
 
Vít Kotek
Marketing Manager
Evektor-Aerotechnik a.s.

Well, Mr. Kotek, the NTSB reports you suck.  Following the death of two people killed in your plane recently, the NTSB probable cause reads:  "...inadequate information for preflight planning provided by the manufacturer, and the insufficient standards for Pilot Operating Handbook information required by the ASTM consensus standards."

Stupid pilots.  (Perhaps, but I'm being sarcastic.)

Now, don't you go and be one too.  Stick with Cessna.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Posted by Stephen T Wilson at 4/15/2009 8:46 AM
Categories: Flight Instruction,Air Safety,Aircraft Sales
Tags: Flight Instruction Air Safety Aircraft Sales
 
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • 11/19/2009 8:05 PM Stephen T. Wilson wrote:
    Good luck Bruce. You just said something bad about an airplane -- not a popular move.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 4/18/2009 10:39 AM Joel C wrote:
    I feel that you are just on a marketing push for Cessna. If that's your goal, do it. But don't bash every other LSA on the market. Clearly, you've never flown them, never done any research, never talked to a group of pilots who fly them, and never have closely looked at the standards to which LSA's must be certified. Nice Cessna marketing ploy sir. Let us know how the Groundcatcher works out for you
    Reply to this
  • 4/18/2009 11:04 AM Jay Maynard wrote:
    Wow. Your blog entry is such a naked display of conflict of interest I don't know where to begin.

    I bought my AMD Zodiac XLi new at the factory last June. (It's the airplane in the page I linked to above.) I've flown it 154.5 hours since then, including several significant cross countries and for all of my work on a CFI-SP rating. In that time, I've never once had anything close to a problem that would cause an inflight emergency.

    It's also better equipped than any Skycatcher will ever be. It's fully IFR certified, as well; that was a requirement for any LSA I purchased. The Skycatcher won't be offered in an IFR version. When I asked a Cessna VP about that at Sebring 2008, he claimed ignorance that any LSA could be. I don't know if he was just playing dumb, or was genuinely ignorant.

    My Zodiac is far from "deadly". If you'd like, I'll be happy to demonstrate for you; my home airport is less than 90 minutes' flight from KSUX.

    There are more Zodiacs flying, homebuilt and factory, than there are orders for Skycatchers. The type has a long history of homebuilt success, and is one of the more popular homebuilts around for very good reason. How many of those Skycatcher firm orders are from real buyers, and how many from Cessna Pilot Centers and Citation dealers who were forced to place orders for the Skycatcher in order to retain their status?

    By the time I could get my hands on a Skycatcher (that assumes that the schedule doesn't slip, as Cessna execs have recently said might happen due to the second crash), I may well have flown 500 hours in my Zodiac. When I was ready to buy last spring, I wanted an airplane now, not three years from now. My airplane was built in the US by American workers, as well.

    I have no doubt the Skycatcher will be a fine aircraft. Cessna is not known for putting out turkeys. However, an aircraft I can fly today beats an aircraft I'd have to wait three or more years for. (The first few hundred Skycatchers will go to Cessna Pilot Centers.) I haven't seen a price on the Skycatcher, but I'll be greatly surprised if I could get as much airplane for as little money.

    In short, your message is a lot of innuendo and FUD. I guess that's what you have to do if you can't compete on the merits.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.