Piper LSA?

[FastEddieB]

I'm guessing that the DA-20 is deathtrap as well.

I was under the impression that the whole Diamond line had much-better-than-average fatal accident rates.

This from 2002:

The Katana has an excellent safety record. In the April 2001 issue of AviationConsumer.com the article "The Safest Trainer" (Jane Garvey and Paul Bertorelli) gives high marks to the Cessna 172 and the Katana. If you're unsure about the Rotax engine, you'll be comforted by this quote from the article: "The trainer with the best engine reliability record was the Diamond Katana, with only two engine failures, one of which was operator induced by lack of oil." Should you kill yourself in a Katana, you'll be the first American to do so. The plane's fatal accident rate of 0.2 per 100,000 hours is entirely due to a Canadian VFR-into-IMC incident. The AviationConsumer article does caution Katana pilots to ensure that the canopy is well and truly closed. Three in-flight incidents, none resulting in serious injury, have occurred due to pilots failing to latch the canopy fully. [The older Austrian-built DV20 had a different latching system imposed on it by the certifying authorities. Opening either latch would completely release the canopy. In November 2001 two people were killed in Wiener Neustadt when their DV20's canopy came open in the pattern--only 500' above ground level. The theory is that they wanted to pull in a trapped seat belt strap that was generating a lot of noise.]
No Diamond airplane has ever caught fire after an accident.

I've been unable to find a chart or graph comparing the fatality rate in different aircraft models - anyone?

[KSCessnaDriver]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 3855&key=1

Here's a Diamond DA-20 roll over accident, in which the pilot was barely injured. He was trapped, but the canopy had broken in the roll over. Took roughly 30 minutes to get him out, but he came out of it ok. I had the opportunity to look at the plane after it had been moved. It was beat up fairly bad, except for the cockpit section. Parts and pieces came off, to take the energy away from the cockpit. To me, it looked like an Indy Racecar, just after a crash. Everything came apart, but the people survive.

[LightSportFlyer]

In LightSportFlyers case, I don't think there is a design that provides the safety margin he wants.

I have already acknowledged in this thread two low wing LSA manufacturers who do agree with my safety concerns and are installing rollover protection systems in their planes - Tecnams Sierra and AMD's Zodiac.

Unfortunately there still are other LSA manufacturers that haven't added it yet and probably won't until an accident happens. If the manufacturers won't do it now then its going to take the personal injury lawyers to convince a jury they made an unsafe airplane that upon flipping over traps its occupants with no way out - and it all could of been prevented with the addition of an inexpensive rollover protection system.

I can already hear the jurors anger and willingness to award a large judgement against an LSA manufacturer, and then we wonder why we pay such high insurance premiums. In cases like this it won't be the lawyers to blame but the industry's reluctance to mandate an obvious safety feature BEFORE accidents happen. Isn't that the purpose of the ASTM standards in the first place, to make LSAs safer ?

Forward opening canopies, especially those without rollover protection, are done because they're cheap to make and save weight. With all these totally green pilots learning to fly and in very light planes its only a matter of time before an accident happens and the scenario I described unfolds.

Its sad that the powers to be namely the FAA, the LSA manufactures, ASTM, and LAMA can't or won't make safety improvements like this before people get hurt.

[KSCessnaDriver]

I have already acknowledged in this thread two low wing LSA manufacturers who do agree with my safety concerns and are installing rollover protection systems in their planes - Tecnams Sierra and AMD's Zodiac.

Ahh, yes. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of an AMD is safety. The roll cage will protect you, right until the wings come off.

Unfortunately there still are other LSA manufacturers that haven't added it yet and probably won't until an accident happens. If the manufacturers won't do it now then its going to take the personal injury lawyers to convince a jury they made an unsafe airplane that upon flipping over traps its occupants with no way out - and it all could of been prevented with the addition of an inexpensive rollover protection system.

I can already hear the jurors anger and willingness to award a large judgement against an LSA manufacturer, and then we wonder why we pay such high insurance premiums. In cases like this it won't be the lawyers to blame but the industry's reluctance to mandate an obvious safety feature BEFORE accidents happen. Isn't that the purpose of the ASTM standards in the first place, to make LSAs safer ?

Forward opening canopies, especially those without rollover protection, are done because they're cheap to make and save weight. With all these totally green pilots learning to fly and in very light planes its only a matter of time before an accident happens and the scenario I described unfolds.

Its sad that the powers to be namely the FAA, the LSA manufactures, ASTM, and LAMA can't or won't make safety improvements like this before people get hurt.

What qualifications do you have to judge the plane as unsafe. Are you an aeronautical engineer or what? The reason that GA is so expensive, is because of people like you. They don't get exactly what they want, and go running to the trial lawyers. If you honestly want to be absolutely safe, don't leave home ever. Nothing is ever totally safe, ever.

No one is forcing you to buy, fly, advocate for, sell, or do anything with these "unsafe" airplanes. Why must you keep spewing what you think is an "unsafe" feature, when most people really don't believe so.

[drseti]

Isn't that the purpose of the ASTM standards in the first place, to make LSAs safer ?

No, I think the purpose of the ASTM standards (and the LSA rule) was to bring unregulated Part 103 ultralights, and their pilots, under FAA jurisdiction.

[drseti]

What qualifications do you have to judge the plane as unsafe. Are you an aeronautical engineer or what?

I can't speak for LightSportFlyer, but I am, in fact, a PhD aeronautical engineer. In my professional opinion, rollover protection is probably doable, would add a little weight and cost, and is probably not a bad idea. But in my personal opinion, it's probably not necessary. I myself have no qualms about flying an LSA without it, even with a forward-hinged canopy like my SportStar.

[KSCessnaDriver]

I can't speak for LightSportFlyer, but I am, in fact, a PhD aeronautical engineer. In my professional opinion, rollover protection is probably doable, would add a little weight and cost, and is probably not a bad idea. But in my personal opinion, it's probably not necessary. I myself have no qualms about flying an LSA without it, even with a forward-hinged canopy like my SportStar.

Thanks for that. I'll agree 100% with that. In a perfect world, they'd put it in (the rollover protection). But honestly, the odds of ending up on the topside are so low, that I'm not sure its worth the weight penalty/cost. I'm not even a big fan of the BRS systems, but I'd much rather have the BRS system than a roll-over bar.

[drseti]

I'm not even a big fan of the BRS systems,

I have mixed feelings about that one. The developer won the EAA Safety Achievement Award in 1988 (which I consider a respectable honor -- I won it in 1987 ), and in some aircraft, it makes good sense. Not sure about LSAs, though. When a plane stalls at 45 knots or less, clean, it may make more sense to ride it to the ground than to put pyrotechnics on the airframe (which is what the BRS needs to deploy). And the weight penalty is substantially more than you would incur with a rollbar.

[KSCessnaDriver]

I have mixed feelings about that one. The developer won the EAA Safety Achievement Award in 1988 (which I consider a respectable honor -- I won it in 1987 ), and in some aircraft, it makes good sense. Not sure about LSAs, though. When a plane stalls at 45 knots or less, clean, it may make more sense to ride it to the ground than to put pyrotechnics on the airframe (which is what the BRS needs to deploy). And the weight penalty is substantially more than you would incur with a rollbar.

The only reason I'd want a BRS system is for in-flight structural issues. As you said, with such a low stall speed, I don't think the rollover risk is enough to be worried about. By the time the plane has rolled over, its lost a lot of energy. If the initial impact doesn't kill you, one it gets all stopped, you could probably push on something to get out. The planes only weight 600-700 pounds empty, so once you get your body weight out of the airframe, I'd like to think that in an emergency, you could at least move the plane a little bit.

[LightSportFlyer]

What qualifications do you have to judge the plane as unsafe. Are you an aeronautical engineer or what? The reason that GA is so expensive, is because of people like you. They don't get exactly what they want, and go running to the trial lawyers. If you honestly want to be absolutely safe, don't leave home ever. Nothing is ever totally safe, ever.

No one is forcing you to buy, fly, advocate for, sell, or do anything with these "unsafe" airplanes. Why must you keep spewing what you think is an "unsafe" feature, when most people really don't believe so.

No I'm not employed in the aviation world but judging by your personal attacks you obviously are and probably have a financial conflict of interest as well. I make my comments soley for the purpose of pointing out to the large group of new and prospective LSA pilots and owners that some of these planes aren't as safe as they could be.

Isn't it interesting of the certified low wing GA planes like Beechcraft, Cessna's low wing Corvalis, all the Cirrus, Mooney, and Piper models - NOT ONE of them has a forward opening canopy. And probably for the very reasons I've described, evidently the LSA pilots aren't entitled to the same protection.

According to you it's "people like me who are to blame for GA being so expensive" - when I am advocating obvious and relatively inexpensive safety improvements that will save lives and PREVENT large jury awards from ever happening in the first place ?? Who do you think ends up paying for that ? We ALL Do !!! You better think that one through again before you make more ridiculous comments.

Years ago before automobiles had the required safety features we all now demand they have or we won't even buy them, people like you made the same arguements against mandating them - and many many thousands of people died unnecessarily. And all so the automakers could save alittle more money on every vehicle they sold.

But once these safety features were required they've saved hundreds of thousands of lives and many BILLIONS of dollars in jury awards in accidents and injuries to people that fortunately NEVER happened - all because of the same kind of safety features you so vehemently oppose putting in LSAs.

Your comments clearly illustrate for people like you its more important to keep as much regulation out of what you want to buy so its as inexpensive as possible.

Life sure is cheap to you.

[KSCessnaDriver]

No I'm not employed in the aviation world but judging by your personal attacks you obviously are and probably have a financial conflict of interest as well. I make my comments soley for the purpose of pointing out to the large group of new and prospective LSA pilots and owners that some of these planes aren't as safe as they could be.

Fair enough. I'm an unemployed college student. If that makes me a financial conflict of interest, I'd sure like to know how. I was totally not intending to make personal attacks upon you, nor do I think I did. If you see it that way, I'm very sorry.

Isn't it interesting how certified low wing GA planes like Beechcraft, Cessna's low wing Corvalis, all the Cirrus models, Mooney, and Piper - NOT ONE of them has a forward opening canopy. And probably for the very reasons I've described, evidently the LSA pilots aren't entitled to the same protection.

None of which were designed with a specific weight limit in mind. Most of which were designed tens of years ago. Even the Columbia/Cessna 400/Corvalis is approaching 15 years old. The Beechcraft/Mooney/Piper lines are all more than 30 years old. Lots has changed since then. Is it fair to compare a weight limited airplane designed under the ASTM design standards to those designed under CFR14-23 or ever older CAR-3 standards? Probably not

According to you it's "people like me who are to blame for GA being so expensive" - when I am advocating obvious and relatively inexpensive safety improvements that will save lives and PREVENT large jury awards from ever happening in the first place ?? You better think that one through again before you make more ridiculous comments.

Years ago before automobiles had the required safety features we all now demand they have or we won't even buy them, people like you made the same arguements against mandating them - and many many thousands of people died unnecessarily. And all so the automakers could save alittle more money on every vehicle they sold.

But once these safety features were required they've saved hundreds of thousands of lives and probably many BILLIONS of dollars in jury awards in accidents and injuries to people that fortunately NEVER happened - all because of the same kind of safety features you so vehemently oppose putting in LSAs.

Your comments clearly illustrate for people like you its more important to buy your vehicles as inexpensively as possible - and life sure is cheap too.

Yup, its all the sue for anything and everything mentality. Its that mentality that brings people to think they have to have a solution for each and every possible situation, no matter how unlikely they are. If we could get away from that mentality, through tort reform, we could significantly lower the costs of airplane and many other items sold today. But, we would rather spend the money to put somewhat useless items on an airplane and buy insurance to protect against lawsuits. While GARA tried to help in this way, it still probably hasn't gone far enough to protect liabilities of builders/designers.

[rfane]

Years ago before automobiles had the required safety features we all now demand they have or we won't even buy them, people like you made the same arguements against mandating them - and many many thousands of people died unnecessarily. And all so the automakers could save alittle more money on every vehicle they sold.

But once these safety features were required they've saved hundreds of thousands of lives and many BILLIONS of dollars in jury awards in accidents and injuries to people that fortunately NEVER happened - all because of the same kind of safety features you so vehemently oppose putting in LSAs.

Your comments clearly illustrate for people like you its more important to keep as much regulation out of what you want to buy so its as inexpensive as possible.

Life sure is cheap to you.

Don't even bring the auto safety issues into Light Aircraft. When I get in my 5,400 lb. SUV to go to work, I have 10,000 + other people I have to contend with on the roads, many of which are very unsafe. The safety improvements in my vehicle are protecting me from harm caused primarily by them. How easy is it to get a driver's license? Not much to it.

When I get in my plane, I see a few others around, piloted by people who have gone through enough training to satisfy the FAA, their instructor, etc. Every now and then, one will do something stupid that affects me, but I'm not asking for a weight increase to 5,400 lbs. for LSA in order to protect me.

Most issues that would cause a plane to roll over on it's canopy, are at slow enough speeds that will not cause major damage to the airframe.

[LightSportFlyer]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 3855&key=1

Here's a Diamond DA-20 roll over accident, in which the pilot was barely injured. He was trapped, but the canopy had broken in the roll over. Took roughly 30 minutes to get him out, but he came out of it ok. I had the opportunity to look at the plane after it had been moved. It was beat up fairly bad, except for the cockpit section. Parts and pieces came off, to take the energy away from the cockpit. To me, it looked like an Indy Racecar, just after a crash. Everything came apart, but the people survive.

And the reason is the DA-20 survived was because it has an extra 400 lbs devoted solely to STRUCTURAL support than any LSA has.

Read what AvWeb's Paul Bertorelli was told by Diamond's CEO Peter Maurer recently on his visit to the Diamond Plant just last August '09:

"During my visit, Diamond CEO Peter Maurer and I had a discussion about why Diamond isn't doing an LSA. I don't think they should do an LSA either, but my understanding of why was different than Maurer's.

He pulled out a sketch pad and listed all the basic weight specs for a DA20 C1, Diamond's basic trainer, and a 1320-pound light sport land airplane. When you account for the engine, the people and the fuel—all the same for both LSAs and certified two-placers—the Delta is something like 400 pounds. Where does that weight go? "Structure," says Maurer.

Diamond's analysis reached the conclusion that the C1, even though more expensive to buy, will ultimately have the same or lower operating costs as an LSA because it will hold up better. Almost as if to prove the point, there was a 6000-hour school airplane out on the ramp still going strong. The paint was a little faded, but it looked sound."

[KSCessnaDriver]

And the reason is the DA-20 survived was because it has an extra 400 lbs devoted solely to STRUCTURAL support than any LSA has.

Incorrect. Over 100, closer to 150, pounds of that weight is the difference in the engine alone. Couple that and the difference in airframe size, and construction techniques, and I'd say at best, there is an extra 250 pounds of structural differences.

Read what AvWeb's Paul Bertorelli was told by Diamond's CEO Peter Maurer recently on his visit to the Diamond Plant just last August '09:

"During my visit, Diamond CEO Peter Maurer and I had a discussion about why Diamond isn't doing an LSA. I don't think they should do an LSA either, but my understanding of why was different than Maurer's.

He pulled out a sketch pad and listed all the basic weight specs for a DA20 C1, Diamond's basic trainer, and a 1320-pound light sport land airplane. When you account for the engine, the people and the fuel—all the same for both LSAs and certified two-placers—the Delta is something like 400 pounds. Where does that weight go? "Structure," says Maurer.

Diamond's analysis reached the conclusion that the C1, even though more expensive to buy, will ultimately have the same or lower operating costs as an LSA because it will hold up better. Almost as if to prove the point, there was a 6000-hour school airplane out on the ramp still going strong. The paint was a little faded, but it looked sound."

What would you expect him to say. Of course he is going to be all positive about his airplane. If the CEO was out there not saying all good things about the plane, who's going to buy them. Its called marketing. He can see that his plane could have a reduction in market, due to the influx of new LSA's that can do 90% of what a DA-20 can, at a lower initial purchase cost. Quite honestly, its going to take a very long time to make up the 60,000 dollar price difference, when the operating costs are so similar. I'd venture to guess that neither plane would last that long (its going to be up close to 10,000 hours). And don't get me started on the quality of Diamond's production. They've had a number of issues, some of which involve a lengthy process of tapping on the wing of an airplane in order to determine the amount of de-lamination that has occurred within the spar. Once you reach a certain point, the fix was to pull the wing, and put a new one on. Don't think I'd want to be paying that maintenance bill.

[Daidalos]

Anyone can clearly see that this thread went down the path of safety discussions. But it started as a discussion on whether Piper would brand the SportCruiser as their own.

See: Piper Sport