jfetter

Well, safety is being used as a crutch IMO too, let's face it we all do something stupid at some point and we've all seen things that are being flown that are just waiting to explode but... The CD does have the right to opt on the side of safety so from that angle I can understand in principle. While I agree some jets may now be fixed, it's not really feasible to inspect each jet, especially if the fix is on the inside so again, understandable why the global ban. I think if FEJ would lose the attitude and simply ask, "what would you want from us to show we're taking this seriously?" some that are against them now might re-think (clearly others are too angry). The long and seemingly antagonistic tone they took (again, I'm neutral but I read enough to see there was a communication/attitude problem) probably didn't help and I'm sure some are happy with this outcome just because of that. I also think FEJ could make this better if they wanted to, instead of worse by ignoring it or now making the counter "boycott" argument...

Jack

DrScoles

My Feedback: (18)

Dude! Do you really think these jet events are put on as money makers? "They didn't want to sponsor our event so let's ban them." Really? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you are a fan of those conspiracy theory shows?

Jet events are there so like-minded individuals can get together and play with their expensive toys. I bet breaking even is the primary goal, and would never be achieved if the people running them were actually paid for their time. We had our little thirty pilot event last weekend. The two principal guys who ran it spent a ton of their time organizing and setting up/tearing down for the event. Their compensation? A hearty thanks from their friends.

I can appreciate how you can be upset that a specific brand of jet is banned, I can understand this could set a potentially dangerous precedent. However, spouting conspiracy theory bull**** is too much.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Disco (and that squintini dude from Joe's thread) again, there are many things that are banned because they aren't safe at jet events.

The maiden of an unflown or newly repaired aircraft is one.

Many jet events don't let turbine waivers get signed off either.

Those things need to be done after hours. There are many things done for "safety".

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

That is a really disingenuous statement on the face of it, and also indicates what must be an almost debilitating level of cynicism on your part. How can you function if you believe that people are so motivated???

As I've said many times before, I've been a critic of FEJ since I was one of the first buyers of their stuff in the US many years ago. Even so, I had to admit that there were guys out their with their planes that *seemed* to be having good luck with them, so I just made my opinion known and left it at that (in addition to keeping my eyes on a swivel when one of them was flying at an event...).

Lewis was one of the last people I could point to that was actively flying their planes and apprarently having good luck with them. When he lost the A-7, that was one thing, but now that he's apparently lost the Hawk, that leaves me with no one jet person that I can point too (that I know, and whom I have confidence in their abilities) that has had long-term success with FEJ aircraft.

For me, this is a tipping point past which I too think that they just can not be trusted - regardless of the work done on them and how "gently" they are flown and as a CD, I would ban them as well. That is likely where Frank was on this too. If a guy like Lewis can't keep one of their models together, then the likely hood that anyone else can is *really* low...

Bob

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

THIS CAN BE DONE WITH ANY MODEL JET! (FYI)

All it takes is one bad accident and all of us will feel the pain.[/QUOTE]

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

[/QUOTE]

If I'm not mistaken an event organizer like FT or a CD has always had the right to 'ban' or 'exclude' aircraft for whatever reason they decide............the FEJ ban at Florida Jets, and the other events that have followed suit in one form or another, confirms that right.

In this case FT was gracious enough to give everyone as much advance notice as possible of the ban to try and minimize any financial and/or personal hardship banning them right before the event might have caused.

AndyAndrews

If I'm not mistaken an event organizer like FT or a CD has always had the right to 'ban' or 'exclude' aircraft for whatever reason they decide............the FEJ ban at Florida Jets, and the other events that have followed suit in one form or another, confirms that right.

In this case FT was gracious enough to give everyone as much advance notice as possible of the ban to try and minimize any financial and/or personal hardship banning them right before the event might have caused.[/QUOTE]

Yep and when it comes to Frank's events he doesn't just make these decisions rashly. He has to take everything into consideration and as much as others have underplayed the "safety" aspect, Frank has stated that this is the number one reason for this blanket ban from his events. I would think that a guy who has what 30+ years experience with running large events would be qualified to make that determination.

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

THIS COULD BE PUT TO ALL AIRPLANES, JETS, OR WHATEVER..... REMEMBER.... EVERYTHING EVEN "YOU" HAS A EXPERACTION DATE! All jets WILL fail at some point and time, we ALL know or SHOULD know this! Would you say this is correct??
I am NOT sticking up for FEJ's, But what I am trying to do and say is that we must ALL look at this issue! I am NOT interested in hearing everyone complaining about this or that or I said this or that!! WE must look at it ALL!

AndyAndrews

lol Gary settle down dude.. You are missing the point that the FEJ jets in question are failing pre-maturely compared to comparable models from different manufacturers. Yes what you say is probably pretty true that all models eventually have an experation date. Just not a few months after you maiden it lol.

My BVM F86 is over 10 years old and I am the 5th owner. My BVM F-80 is over 16 years old and I am the 4th owner of that jet. My Skymaster F4 Phantom is over 8 years old and I am the second owner of that one. The same can be said of my CARF Ultra Lightning Classic and my BVM Ultra Bandit. All of these jets are mulitple year old jets. These jets should last a long time. Not less than a year.

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

Guess I'm a little slow on the uptake.........are you referring to the ban that FT and others have decided to institute on FEJ airframes?

If so I'll reiterate....they have the right to ban anyone, for any reason they wish with no need to explain the specifics to anyone........after all it's their event

If not please 'enlighten' me on your statement "WE must look at ALL'?

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

THANKS dubd!! YOU SAID IT RIGHT THIS TIME!!!

[QUOTE=dubd;11867707]. Every product can and will have failure,

Peter A

My Feedback: (34)

I think Best In The West 2014 is a smarter approach.
Banning the kits that have have proven to be problematic not all their products like the F16, L39, Vipers etc.
I have none of their products and I was a victim as well (in fact I was one of the first people to loose a HAWK over 4 years ago) and to this date, FEJ HAWKS are still loosing stabs in flight.

CafeenMan

I don't own a jet and never plan to, but I read the jet stuff all the time. I've especially read the FEJ threads - there are a lot of them and have seen the XRays. There's no doubt in my mind these planes are fundamentally defective. And seeing the documentation from the owners trying to get the problems resolved it's also clear that the manufacturer has no intention of admitting there is a problem or fixing them. It amazes me that these planes are even allowed in the country or on any AMA sanctioned flying field. I don't see how anyone can honestly try to defend them. There is overwhelming documentation against them. If you tried to mount a defense of these planes in a court of law you would be so crushed you'd be lucky to walk out with your shoes.

dubd

I don't think it's realistic to expect the CD to verify every FEJ model to determine which ones had defects. Was it pre honey-comb or post honey-comb. Was it pre redesigned stab or post redesigned stab? And of the planes that failed and haven't been posted here, do you want your event to be the place where the failure occurs? Much more pragmatic to just ban them all.

AndyAndrews

I'm curious, what attracts you to the Jet forums if you don't own a jet nor plan to own one? Has this debate gone outside the Jet Forums on the prop forums? Just curious.

Andy

Oh, and I agree whole heartedly with your post. If this were a "toys R Us" toy the government would ban them.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Yes sir. Scary stuff.

Peter A

My Feedback: (34)

Then the CD did not make his proper homework before banning like the BITW CD did .

AndyAndrews

Hey Peter,

Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing is for sure... he made a bigger statement.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

1. Thats not true
2. How many jet events have 1000+ pilots and several flight lines going that would saturate the 2.4 band in any case?

dubd

There are FEJ planes with known failures not on the BITW list.

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

LOL.. No no Andy.... I understand... Just saying is all I a m doing... By the way.... I am in line for your F4!!!

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

hb... I just erased EVERYTHING I was going to say to you!! You just aren't worth the time!

QUOTE=Hinckley Bill;11868589]Guess I'm a little slow on the uptake.........are you referring to the ban that FT and others have decided to institute on FEJ airframes?

If so I'll reiterate....they have the right to ban anyone, for any reason they wish with no need to explain the specifics to anyone........after all it's their event

If not please 'enlighten' me on your statement "WE must look at ALL'?[/QUOTE]

Len Todd

After running our first West MI Jet Rally, several other plane events and emceeing MI Jets as well as working as a MI Jets Flight Line crew member, and as a relative newbie, I am wondering what I am missing here? It seems to me that:

No matter what plane you fly and radio you use, etc. there is a risk of catastrophic failure. The consequence of this risk is drastically reduced by never allowing the energy of the aircraft to be directed toward persons attending and running the event. Maybe some of you recall this from our Turbine Pilot's Operational Rules? I have watched Lewis fly the Hawk, and he is one of the better pilots to consistently practice this requirement.

The Turbine Pilot is supposed to ensure all the Operational Rules are followed, not just particular ones. The effective flight-line crew also ensures that all pilots follow the rules (e.g. do not allow the energy of the plane be directed toward people.) If organizers and their flight line crew can not ensure that the rules are being met, what are they doing trying to run the show or allowing a show to go on at a site where this can not be effectively achieved?

That being said, other than the pilot who is losing the investment, who cares if a plane disintegrates and/or crashes. For us, it is apparently an acceptable risk or we would not fly. Different people have different risk tolerance. So, .. some us fly riskier planes, at riskier speeds, into riskier maneuvers, etc. etc. As unfortunate as it is for the pilot's pocketbook, a crash makes for a good spectator show. Everybody remembers the crashes! But, if the event organizers are allowing the energy of any plane to be directed at the people on-site, they need to be looking at themselves or the site versus banning specific planes or radios, ... because sooner or later all brands will have a crash. From an event perspective, follow the rules and who cares which plane crashes or not?

However, I do agree with forcing implementation of newer technology once it has proven to effectively and significantly reduce significant risks. I think the move to 2.4 Mhz from 72 Mhz was good. I think using DSMX versus DSM is good for high density events. But trashing the older or newer unproven technology because a particular event prefers to avoid or minimize certain risks at certain events seems to go over the line.

If we do not field test new technology, the current technology will never advance. Without field testing new technology (e.g. honeycombed components, DSMX, telemetry, etc., etc.) the components made available to us will never get better and/or become less challenging. Without the challenge the aspect of the hobby, the hobby may even die. For me trying new tech is fun. W/o new tech to try, the challenge of flying jets seem somewhat boring. And,.. companies that provide new technology take risks. Sometimes the risks do not payoff. Sometimes the consequences spell demise for an unresponsive company. But, they may just figure as long as we keep buying the riskier stuff, why should they change?

In summary: I do not agree with banning a manufacturer's product. I do feel that effectively implementing our Operational Rules and using a flightline crew as a second level of defense to ensure the Operational Rules are being effectively followed reduces the involved risks to an acceptable level. I do agree with grounding a particular pilot who does not practice safe flying techniques (i.e. at a minimum IAW with the Operational Rules.)

Just my thoughts, as I mulled this banning issue over for application at our next Jet Rally.

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

+1

dbsonic

My Feedback: (3)

Nah...so many cases of aircraft flying into the crowds... some rule of thumb is not going to protect you. And these are seriously big jets.
This is not unlike what the FAA does when it appears a serious fault has been found in a given aircraft. They ground em.

FT. and Joe C. are doing the right thing. There is more than enough precedence on the matter.