Announcement

**jaredyates** · 12-02-2022, 02:55 PM

So having heard several good inputs and hoping to make it actionable, this is what I'd like to propose:

Let's create a data collection form and see how it goes and what comes in. Here is a list of fields I'd propose, please share your thoughts.

Name (free text)
Email (free text) Subscribe to Safety Email Updates (checkbox, default unchecked)
Phone (free text)
Would you like for this report to be de-identified? (check box "please de-identify" default unchecked)
Should this report not be shared with other builders? (check box "please do not share" default unchecked)
To which Bearhawk types should your concern apply? (checkboxes for each plus an option to select all, default unchecked)
Would you categorize the airplane as mostly built from a kit? (Drop down "mostly built from a kit", "mostly scratch built", "N/A")
How would you classify the urgency of your concern (drop-down selection between "nice to know", "needs prompt attention", and "extremely urgent")
What happened (free text big box)
Suggestions for Mitigation (free text big box)

In addition to the fields, I'd propose the following introductory language:

This form is available to operators of aircraft designed by Bob Barrows as a mutual information sharing opportunity. If you have encountered a risk or threat while operating a Bearhawk type of airplane, this is a great way to help share your experience with others. Operators are encouraged to reach out to Bob Barrows with any matters related to the airplanes, in addition to reporting here. For matters relating to kit production, please also reach out to Mark at Bearhawk Aircraft. Please do not share identifying details about others who may not be willing to share, and please don't share incriminating evidence about regulatory violations unless you have also participated in a program like the ASRS (in the USA) or equivalent.

The next steps will depend on what we get in the submissions.

That's just a first proposal, let me know what you think please!

**AKKen07** · 12-02-2022, 03:06 PM

I like it. Will this be on the safety site?

**Nev** · 12-02-2022, 03:40 PM

I like it Jared, the first step towards a good safety initiative.

**RobinDeMarco** · 12-02-2022, 08:21 PM

I like the format, Jared and definitely think having the ability to share photos enhance the program.

**Utah-Jay** · 12-03-2022, 07:16 AM

Jared, looks like you nailed it!

Thanks as always

**schu** · 12-03-2022, 12:09 PM

I have a lot to say on this topic and debated whether to post publicly as it may offend some, but I think this topic is pretty important as the better this system is the safer our little corner of experimental aviation is, so here goes:

There are a number of issues with reporting safety, here are a few that come to mind:

1. What is actually a safety issue and what is an operational issue, or even an update to the design?
2. Who decides which category things fit into?
3. How is the information collected, categorized, and spread?

I think this thread deals mostly with #3, but lets talk about the first two:

1. Right now, as far as I understand, Bob decides what is a safety issue and what is an operational issue. While Bob is the engineer and no doubt the most qualified, it's also a conflict of interest. Cessna doesn't get to decide what is a safety issue, the FAA does. I'll use an illustration. Strength/design of the shock struts. From my understanding/memory, for a very long time Bob insisted that they are plenty strong enough, but people would bend airplanes anyway until finally Bob decided that they could be stronger and as far as I know they went through two updates before we have the current design and as far as I know the updates aren't listed anywhere obvious so a person buying a used kit wouldn't know what they have.

So, is this operational or safety? I mean if you don't suck at landing you for sure wouldn't have any issues, but then again, things happen, devil wind, critter on the runway, or the classic I screwed up. If it's decided it's safety, can a safety committee convince Bob to update the design?

What about 4-point harnesses? In my opinion the lap belt 3-point design is not enough for an airplane like this. I, like many other builders have gone through a bit of redesigning to add this important safety feature. Is that something that should be reported? As far as I understand the latest versions of kits do come with 4-point provisions which brings up another point, design updates.

From what I understand there isn't really anything out there that tracks updates to the kits nor are the updates to the kits always trickled down to the plans. In the case of seatbelts you could make the case that this should be documented under safety concerns, but what about other changes that aren't obvious like the engine mount getting longer or later kits getting hard points for mounting the fuel system so that there is some consistency?

2. I suspect that Mark, Bob, myself, Battson, Nev, and others would all have different ideas on what category things fit into. I think gear and seatbelt changes are absolutely something that fits into the safety camp, and I also think that design updates should be very transparent like the changelog on some software update, however I don't agree with Nev that flying coordinated and its effect on the fuel system should be categorized as safety as much as operational because it's well known that flying uncoordinated will affect nearly every aspect of any airplanes characteristics, from fuel flow to stall.

3. Once you have the observed issues with the design, and found some one (or team) to categorize them, how to you spread the information? I think having long threads on the forum is probably the worst way as many have abandoned the forums due to personal issues, signal to noise ratio, or other reasons. How do you resolve issues that are known, I think the worst way is to call Bob or Mark as it's not transparent and it doesn't consider the operational experience of the community. Despite my claim that these solutions are the worst way, it's the only way we have right now, which makes it the current best way.

Okay, enough with what I view are the issues, here are some thoughts towards solutions:

I think Vans gets this right because they use cad and have a system to track all of the changes inherent in their design process. They also have a team of engineers that evaluate all of the issues and more readily come to a consensus on how to deal with the issue. While I don't think this team approach is as good as an independent third party, I do think it's better than calling Bob.

So, one way for the BH community to get better at this without a team of engineers and software to track change is to form a safety committee and provide an email address and form to submit operational experience too. Nev would post his experience with fuel caps and uncoordinated flying and this committee would discuss amongst themselves if the issue warrants a design change or an operational notice or whatever. Also, any changes to the design whether plans or kit production updates would also go to the committee as well as any NTSB incidents. This way the committee can decide if it's worth putting out a notice that filler necks should be machined or inspected to ensure compatibility with the fuel caps, or if it makes sense for builders to inspect their wing lift strut mounts.

If I was on this committee, I would probably argue that we post something regarding the Patrol crash from a few weeks ago, and suggest that flying the airplane with known rigging issues is unwise, and that given that pilot was found pretty far from the crash, and that his seatbelt was not fastened nor found defective leads us to theorize that he was likely trying to look at the stab and fell out of the airplane.

Of course the problem with a committee, apart from the obvious, is that it's undesirable for a business to be regulated by it. As an engineer the last thing I want is for my designs to be criticized by a committee of people more ignorant than me, but on the flip side, there have been times I have asserted that my design was fine while people struggled with it operationally. Even if those struggles are their own dumb fault, the committee still compels me to update the design to be more idiot proof which is frustrating to me, but at the same time I must acknowledge that it does result in a better product.

In summary, I don't think that the design's safety will improve much until there is a process in place to evaluate possible issues from operational experience, manufacturing experience, and NTSB incidents, and that process is evaluated by a team of people with different perspectives/concerns, and the result of the process is posted publicly on a web page that is known to be the trusted source of bearhawk safety and operational information.

My $.02, which isn't worth much these days.

schu

**jaredyates** · 12-03-2022, 01:23 PM

I appreciate your input schu and I agree with several of your concerns. I don't think I'd endeavor to categorize the inputs as safety vs operational, rather let the reader decide. Someone might point out what seems like a problem to them, but a different reader might feel comfortable skimming then disregarding that concern, and that is ok. My biggest challenge is getting folks to participate, either by contributing or by reading the contributions. I can't understand how any factors (personal, signal to noise, etc) would seem more important than receiving this kind of information, which is a problem/bias that makes it hard for me to identify with the portion of the fleet operators who don't participate. This compounds in my inability to take action to reach them.

**Bissetg** · 12-03-2022, 02:25 PM

Really good stuff coming out here. Clearly there needs to be a robust way of reaching all participants with safety critical info.

Schu makes a good point that the panel/committee or whatever it is need to be a selection of appropriately qualified and experienced individuals.

The reporting format you have suggested is good Jared, if required it can be tweaked down the track.

**OhioLSA** · 12-03-2022, 07:46 PM

Thank you to Jared and to the others who have put forth useful suggestions. Please keep in mind that while it would be nice to have a perfect system, perfection may be unattainable, and that's OK. What's important is to have some kind of reasonably functional system, which will be a major improvement over what we have now. I'm not opposed to some parts of it being read-only, if that serves to temper some of the reactionary comments that might otherwise be posted before they are properly thought-out. I also think a team of moderators will be necessary to make informed judgments to keep things on track. Jared's proposed data collection form is an excellent start.

**Utah-Jay** · 12-04-2022, 09:09 AM

This is a good thread, and another example of the issue with posts showing up and comments not on the New Posts or Todays Posts. Pertinent information is easily missed

**Sir Newton** · 12-04-2022, 12:56 PM

Accident investigation is an impossible hurdle. IMHO it is a waste of time & resources of the group. NTSB can barely get the job done correctly.. sorry but it is the truth of the matter.

Bob & I spoke about the topic of updates to the design when I first purchased drawings from him. The current system in place is. Any purchaser of drawings can purchase a replacement set of drawings with all the updated revisions. This is a very straight forward system for builders. Can we help Bob administrant this system?

imho, This task will fall directly into Marks lap. Weather he likes it or not ! :-) lol, We love all that you do Mark!

One operational task this group has accomplished. Is getting BHers together & communicating. Focusing on open communication between independent builders is of utmost importance. Ya, it is not easy to being evolved in a church like setting. I am of the opinion that it is the best way to tackle the safety aspect of building a experimental aircraft. as painful as it may be at times.

Thank-you all putting up with me & my crazy enthusiasm...Build on BHers ! Build on...

**Bcone1381** · 12-06-2022, 07:17 AM

TOday I find I'm applying a problem to this discussion. Here is a link to a thread on Flap Handle wear that is being discussed this week. A hole is enlongating in the lever over 1000 hours of use.
https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/bea...ap-handle-wear

I like how Nev put a blog on line that covers things he finds. Each issue has a photo with a topic. The blog is good. It's his. I can read a short article about the problem, and his solution.

I think a benevolent dictator elected to office by his peers often times is better than a committee.....yes I mean a safety king who just decides and acts based upon his love for the design and community of builders. Be careful of this style of government. It requires a king who is righteous. Pride and self interest are huge risk factors.

**Battson** · 12-06-2022, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by jaredyates View Post

So having heard several good inputs and hoping to make it actionable, this is what I'd like to propose:

Let's create a data collection form and see how it goes and what comes in. Here is a list of fields I'd propose, please share your thoughts.

Name (free text)
Email (free text) Subscribe to Safety Email Updates (checkbox, default unchecked)
Phone (free text)
Would you like for this report to be de-identified? (check box "please de-identify" default unchecked)
Should this report not be shared with other builders? (check box "please do not share" default unchecked)
To which Bearhawk types should your concern apply? (checkboxes for each plus an option to select all, default unchecked)
How would you classify the urgency of your concern (drop-down selection between "nice to know", "needs prompt attention", and "extremely urgent")
What happened (free text big box)
Suggestions for Mitigation (free text big box)

In addition to the fields, I'd propose the following introductory language:

This form is available to operators of aircraft designed by Bob Barrows as a mutual information sharing opportunity. If you have encountered a risk or threat while operating a Bearhawk type of airplane, this is a great way to help share your experience with others. Operators are encouraged to reach out to Bob Barrows with any matters related to the airplanes, in addition to reporting here. For matters relating to kit production, please also reach out to Mark at Bearhawk Aircraft. Please do not share identifying details about others who may not be willing to share, and please don't share incriminating evidence about regulatory violations unless you have also participated in a program like the ASRS (in the USA) or equivalent.

The next steps will depend on what we get in the submissions.

That's just a first proposal, let me know what you think please!

I think the next steps are important.

Many of the safety issues which have mired some builders - perhaps even prompting calls for such a reporting system - are not clear cut issues. Watching the knowledge about the issues evolve, often it takes time to land on the agreed solution. Considerable investigation, analysis, and even real-world testing are sometimes required. Occasionally there is no consensus, and different people use different solutions.
Who does this work, prior to publishing the final bulletin?
Who decides what level of compliance is required, per the bulletin?

I think we also need to ask the submitter / reporter to clarify whether the issue with the core airframe (i.e. the kit), or something which is specific to each aircraft - (e.g. perhaps the fuel system design), or perhaps it relates to a scratch-built airframe issue (like filing witness marks leading to cracking in landing gear) which may not affect kit airframes. This will help define the applicability of the report.

Another good point which a fellow Bearhawker made - if one is submitting a 'Bearhawk safety report', then you are likely obliged to submit a similar report to your local aviation authority (FAA, CAA, CASA, etc).

**Bissetg** · 12-06-2022, 04:25 PM

The concept of a Safety System is to record incidents, defects, or failures of anything from parts to processes in order that a database can then be used to identify emerging trends that can be addressed to stop or mitigate further similar events.

It is a requirement for any AOC holder to have safety system in place. In this part of the world at least.

I think it’s really important that we don’t see a safety system as something that Bearhawk needs because of any deficiencies in the type or whatever. A safety system is to enable for continuous improvement so we can benefit from the experience of others.

At risk of repeating myself.

For example, loss of directional control accidents with Bearhawks are significant according to the NTSB data that Nev quoted.

I would argue that the Bearhawk is one of the most benign and well mannered taildraggers I have flown. So the issue is not likely to be a Bearhawk issue but something else. If your safety system works it might reveal that loss of directional control in a Bearhawk is most likely in Phase 1 flying on seal runways with low tail wheel time or uncurrent tailwheel pilots.

That then gives a heads up to someone about to undertake Phase 1 testing off a seal runway that they should get current, takeoff and fly to a grass runway, fly on nice days or whatever.

I really like what Nev has done and would encourage people to check it out at Bearhawkblog.com. I think he should be congratulated on the outcome of the work he has put into it.

The problem I could see with what Nev has done is that his system is his and not ours. As Brooks has pointed out that may not be a problem at all.

Aviation organisations usually have a team of appropriately qualified people reviewing and coming up with corrective actions to address the problems. The reason for that is that we all have bias in our thinking and you need to avoid the rat managing cheese security arrangements.

No system will be perfect and arguably doesn’t need to be so long as it’s an improvement.

**jaredyates** · 12-06-2022, 04:29 PM

I agree that the next steps are important, though I don't think we have to have a fully-solidified next steps plan just yet.

To answer your questions about issuing bulletins, there's no intent to change that away from Bob any time soon. My hope is to create a more frictionless feedback funnel to get the information back to Bob if it needs to getto him. I can imagine examples of things that are worth a report but that Bob might not be worried about, but that we could still make a good lesson from. At this point Bob is solely qualified to make any changes to the design, and any mandatory compliance bulletins will come from him.

The form not having granular data entry is intentional, trying to make sure the form doesn't "box in" the submitter. I think it will be easy enough to parse most of your concerns on the back end, though it could be useful to add a checkbox for whether the airplane was built primarily from a kit. I'll add that to the form proposal above.

For sure there are some instances that might be appropriate for a regulatory report such as the ASRS system in the USA, but I don't think there is a solid link in all cases between those systems and things that are nice or important to know for other operators.

Announcement

Creating a Safety Reporting System

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment