B-17 Canard?

FLYBOYJ said:

Define transition training when dealing with a pilot that had more than 2,700 hrs, MEL, SEL instrument and glider rating and typed in a Lear Jet - there's no such thing!!!! Additionally I could bet dollars to donuts that there isn't even an FAA approved Long-Eze training program. You don't "transition" into an aircraft that you've already been trained to fly, plain and simple.

There are dozens of NTSB reports that are "ridiculous" and "naive" because the accident investigators know little or nothing about the aircraft they are investigating and in some cases aren't even rated pilots.

Click to expand...

I am not an accident investigator or a pilot,so I have no idea what rules and regulations pertain to flying a new and unfamiliar type of aircraft. I have to assume that the NTSB does.
I was under the impression that the NTSB (and our equivalents) investigated accidents using a selection of people qualified in the field in order to produce a report on the accident. That report is not one man's opinion but a consensus reached bya panel of experts. The primary thrust of the investigation would be to establish the cause of the accident in order to prevent a repetition. Why would someone like a metallurgist qualified to identify something like signs of fatigue in a structure need to be a pilot?
I'm not sure how binding the recommendations of NTSB reports are in the US,but I doubt they are taken lightly.
Of course anyone is entitled to disagree with the contents of such a report. I would assume that they had good grounds to do so if they too were qualified in the relevant field (or fields) and had seen all the evidence available to the NTSB investigators. Otherwise they are expressing an opinion,to which they are entitled,but without being in posession of all the facts.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

I am not an accident investigator or a pilot,so I have no idea what rules and regulations pertain to flying a new and unfamiliar type of aircraft. I have to assume that the NTSB does.
I was under the impression that the NTSB (and our equivalents) investigated accidents using a selection of people qualified in the field in order to produce a report on the accident. That report is not one man's opinion but a consensus reached bya panel of experts. The primary thrust of the investigation would be to establish the cause of the accident in order to prevent a repetition. Why would someone like a metallurgist qualified to identify something like signs of fatigue in a structure need to be a pilot?
I'm not sure how binding the recommendations of NTSB reports are in the US,but I doubt they are taken lightly.
Of course anyone is entitled to disagree with the contents of such a report. I would assume that they had good grounds to do so if they too were qualified in the relevant field (or fields) and had seen all the evidence available to the NTSB investigators. Otherwise they are expressing an opinion,to which they are entitled,but without being in posession of all the facts.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

Well Steve, I am a pilot and I hold an A&P and I/A (In Europe, Maintenance Engineer with authority to approve annual inspections and major repairs and alterations) and I have been involved in accident investigations, have salvaged accident aircraft and had the FAA call me for information regarding certain aircraft. They along with the FAA are SUPPOSED to be experts and be smart enough to use all assets available to them when putting together an accident report. Most of the time they get it right, sometimes they don't. They didn't get it entirely right on this one.

Bottom line is the report mentions "Transition Training." There is no such thing with regards to the pilot and the type of aircraft he was flying and that's where I fault on those who put this report together It shows me either a rush to judgement or a lack of knowledge on how aircraft type and class are addressed with regards to licenses from this reports author. This is "private pilot regulation 101" and someone working for the FAA or NTSB should know better, especially when preparing a public record report. Many times these reports just go their merry way because few people challenge their correctness.

One thing I will say is I have seen the NTSB change reports when enough pressure is placed on them to put it right.

And that's fair enough. Thankfully we both live in systems in which we are able to disagree with "officialdom" and even,as you intimate,put pressure on them when we feel they have got it wrong. Nobody and no organisation has ever got it right every time!
You may remember the case over here of the RAF Chinook,returning from Northern Ireland,which flew into a Scottish mountain side on the Mull of Kintyre killing all on board. This was in 1994 and the RAF put the cause down to pilot error,actually "gross negligence", at the end of its investigation in 1995.Despite other enquiries at the time disagreeing with the RAF's conclusions it took years to posthumously clear the pilots' names.Cleared they eventually were in 2011.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

And that's fair enough. Thankfully we both live in systems in which we are able to disagree with "officialdom" and even,as you intimate,put pressure on them when we feel they have got it wrong. Nobody and no organisation has ever got it right every time!
You may remember the case over here of the RAF Chinook,returning from Northern Ireland,which flew into a Scottish mountain side on the Mull of Kintyre killing all on board. This was in 1994 and the RAF put the cause down to pilot error,actually "gross negligence", at the end of its investigation in 1995.Despite other enquiries at the time disagreeing with the RAF's conclusions it took years to posthumously clear the pilots' names.Cleared they eventually were in 2011.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

That's the accuracy and tenacity I live for!

N4521U said:

I guess I was a little unclear about the plane and repair in question. This one happened to be an all metal aircraft. Can't for the life of me remember the name. Low wing, tandem 2 seater, tricycle, 100 hp, the logo is like a little American Indian doll.

Click to expand...

Apologies for the zombie. I think you meant a Varga Kachina?

I will second that the plane described is a Varga Kachina. 2150 or 2180. Cool airplanes.