SonexBuilders.net

As for accident data, I see no reason to remove it. Accidents are an unfortunate but very real part of travel, whether by air or otherwise. We try to learn from it. The transportation industries have only gotten safer through (FACTUAL) investigation and discussion. To remove all accident data and discussion is to bury our heads in the sand and not learn a darn thing.

Speculation, on the other hand, is counterproductive as it's usually wrong, and nearly always biased. Speculation is not discussion. We harangue the media for speculating publicly, then we do it ourselves. To what end? If we really want to give the public the wrong impression, speculation will do it. Personally I won't get into "discussions" that are not based on the facts as they are known at the time.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree that we should keep it. It should be it's own section outside the general discussion forum but it should stay. The foundation is supposed to be supporting safety of the fleet not being a promotional piece for the company. I don't expect Sonex Aircraft to post accidents on their Web page but I do expect an owners group to actively discuss accidents and accident prevention. There is a certain RV site that if you went to it you wouldn't even know that there was a near fatal mid air between the rv aerobatics team or any discussion of why it happened yet they promote discussions on formation flying with no problem at all. The only censorship I would expect from this site is if a discussion got personal and out of hand or if the accident pilot specifically asks for a discussion to stop. For me, if I ever dent up my Sonex feel free to openly and actively discuss and speculate. Even if the speculation is found to be wrong later it at least gets people thinking about the possible risks.

Keith
#554

Robbie,

I agree we should keep it on the foundation web-site. Links to the site from this forum are enough, probably no need for double posting as that can lead to mistake when transcribing (factual) data.

I know the board of directors are discussing ways to step up this data search and reporting (to keep it up to date) and if any of the forum members have ideas for ways to better retrieve the data and post/upload to the foundation web-site please share your thoughts.

I also agree with keeping the information on the foundation web site. In my 50 years of flying I have always wanted to learn as much as I can to be a safer pilot. We can always learn from both the good and the bad.
Thank You to everyone on the foundation that works to provide us the info we need to be safer Sonex pilots!

Keep the forum open to discussion of all Sonex related issues. Censorship will discredit both this forum and Sonex. The issues will find an outlet, and people will be getting their information from less balanced sources. Love my Sonex, and think it is one of the best designed out there, but also see room for improvement. Continues improvement is vital to survival in today's world.

Speculation is inevitable, posted or not. Better to get the wild ideas out there and debunked than suppressed.

Have made some unapproved modifications to mine so that can reach and operate all controls and shut off fuel with shoulder belts tight in event of crash landing. One of those is hydraulic disk brakes that at the time were warned against by Sonex. That warning was sound if the brakes were over powerful or prone to grabbing, fortunately used that warning when selecting mine and they have proved ideal.

David A. Sonex TD with CAMit 3300.

I agree, keep the accident data.
The discussion will always naturally follow on anyway.
Happy Landings
John
N50NX

Robbie,

Sharing of accident information is essential, and here's why I say that. I think we all have the desire to learn from other people's experiences, both good and bad. When the Sonex fleet experiences a loss I think the rest want to know what happened, and most importantly what they can do to either prevent that from reoccurring, or to at least mitigate the risk. We need thoughtful, well thought out presentation of the relevant facts in order to piece together a narrative that answers two basic questions: "Why did this happen?" and "What can I do about it?".

The issue comes when the discussion turns unhealthy, speculative, and accusatory. Unsupported statements, premature conclusions, or outright name calling are all inflammatory and tend to get people's blood boiling. When that happens, the discussion becomes more of a liability to all of us than a help. It simply makes us all look bad.

We need to use the Foundation as a place that promotes thoughtful discussion, and airs legitimate issues, problems and negative trends. We need to be patient when the facts are not yet known, and police ourselves against unhealthy speculation. We need to be honest with ourselves and the community, and continually build our credibility. And above all, we need to learn from our mistakes and those of others, and strive to answer the question about what can we a the Sonex community do to prevent these things from happening again.

Sonex1517 wrote:Another separate contact was from someone who literally demanded we remove all of the accident data due to how the community is seen from the outside when we post accident data. His demand (and it was a demand) was also very strong.

The removal of all accident data will never happen. Respectful accident discussion with the goal of prevention is perfectly acceptable here. It's a goal of SonexBuilders.net to promote safety. It's safe to say that SonexBuilders.net and the Foundation share in that goal.

If a Sonex aircraft crashes and we don't discuss the reasons why, especially after we know why (NTSB report) then how are we to increase safety? I would argue that you are promoting more accidents by avoiding discussion. You cannot turn a blind eye to accidents or put your earmuffs on and help to lower accident rates. It just doesn't work that way.

If we were to delete all things bad that happened, we would be denying everyone who flies a Sonex aircraft information that could help to prevent that same something bad from happening to them too.

That's the official view about accident discussion from SonexBuilders.net.

The accident discussion about the Waiex tail separation was very valuable to me as a builder. As someone new to this, it made a strong impression to me on the importance of such things as proper deburring and using appropriate hardware. Now, I believe it remains unresolved whether either of those things contributed to the accident, but the DISCUSSION about the accident provided me with valuable (and relatable) insight for my build.

Rynoth wrote:The accident discussion about the Waiex tail separation was very valuable to me as a builder. As someone new to this, it made a strong impression to me on the importance of such things as proper deburring and using appropriate hardware. Now, I believe it remains unresolved whether either of those things contributed to the accident, but the DISCUSSION about the accident provided me with valuable (and relatable) insight for my build.

And that is where open "speculation" (or whatever you want to call it) is actually beneficial, hence I don't believe we should suppress/censor it.
I agree though that allowing this can easily turn a healthy discussion into a toxic one and we should be mindful of this.
Luckily most people who have been around this forum (and its predecessor) long enough know how to filter the information, but I can see how Sonex LLC would be more worried about the occasional lurkers and first timers who might be potential customers focusing on the odd negative unproductive posts and turning them away from a great aircraft.
I would like to think though people who decide to buy/build and aircraft, which is a major life changing decision, do their research a bit more thoroughly.

Anyway, the question then arises:
Is the primary goal of this forum to be a place where (potential) Sonex builders and pilots can get advise, discuss great or not so great experiences, issues, concerns, safety, etc?
Or,
Is it more to promote Sonex LLC and the Sonex line of aircraft?

As the discussion in this thread suggests, the two options above do not always align.

I'm happy to see Chris's (official) viewpoint on this matter at least from a safety perspective.