What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

NTSB Completes Data Collection On E-AB Aircraft Accidents

roadrunner20

Well Known Member
Thought this would be of interest to the forum.

NTSB Completes Data Collection For Study On Experimental - Amateur Built Aircraft Accidents
January 23, 2012
WASHINGTON - Throughout the 2011 calendar year, the National Transportation Safety Board has been conducting a study of Experimental Amateur-Built (E-AB) aircraft to evaluate the safety of this growing and innovative segment of general aviation. In addition to using the information gathered during its accident investigations, the NTSB has been working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and individual owners and builders to evaluate a range of issues unique to this popular segment of general aviation.

"The cooperation we have received from EAA and the E-AB community has been tremendous," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P Hersman. "Through this study, we hope that we'll be able to give the innovators and aviators in the community information about accidents that will result in a real and immediate safety payoff for them when they are flying these aircraft."

As part of the study, NTSB investigators have conducted in-depth investigations of 222 E-AB aircraft accidents that occurred during 2011. Fifty-four of these accidents resulted in 67 fatalities. Most of these accidents (93%) involved amateur-built airplanes, the remaining accidents involved gyroplanes (4%), helicopters (2%), and gliders (1%). These accidents occurred in 44 states, with California (18 accidents), Texas (16 accidents), and Florida (14 accidents) accounting for the most. More than half (53%) of the E-AB accidents investigated in 2011 involved E-AB aircraft that were bought used, as opposed to having been built by the current owner.

The EAA has supported the study by conducting a web-based survey of E-AB owners and builders. More than 5,000 E-AB owners and builders responded to EAA's survey, and 4,923 of these responses were sufficiently complete to use in analyses. Most respondents (97%) described E-AB airplanes, while gliders, gyrocopters, and helicopters were each described by slightly less than 1% of the respondents. Sixty-three percent of respondents had already built their E-AB aircraft, 13% were currently building their E-AB aircraft, and nearly 24% had bought used E-AB aircraft. More than 340 distinct makes of amateur-built aircraft were reported, although kit manufacturers accounted for more than 55% of the reported aircraft.

"The NTSB is extremely pleased with the number of respondents who participated in the survey," said Dr. Joseph Kolly, Director of the Office of Research and Engineering. "The survey data provides us with quantifiable, factual information that enriches our understanding of how E-AB aircraft are built and operated."

The safety study is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2012.

Contact: NTSB Public Affairs Peter Knudson
Contact: NTSB Public Affairs Keith Holloway
(202) 314-6100
 
More than half (53%) of the E-AB accidents investigated in 2011 involved E-AB aircraft that were bought used, as opposed to having been built by the current owner.

...didn't see that one coming.
 
Last edited:
More than half (53%) of the E-AB accidents investigated in 2011 involved E-AB aircraft that were bought used, as opposed to having been built by the current owner.

Wow...didn't see that one coming.

Based on actual observation I would see this as a valid point. Builders seem to be quite concerned about putting their new plane at risk due to lack of training......that doesn't seem to be as much the case with new pilots of pre-owned RVs.

I suspect the reason is builders are more likely to have been plugged into the RV community for a long time and have considerable exposure to sermons about getting transition training. New owners of pre-owned RVs often have very little exposure to experimental aviation of any sort and haven't been schooled in the need for transition training. Second owners are more likely to have several years flight experience which may lead some to believe transition training isn't necessary.

Wonder if this study will prompt insurance underwriters to make their training requirements more stringent.....
 
Based on actual observation I would see this as a valid point. Builders seem to be quite concerned about putting their new plane at risk due to lack of training......that doesn't seem to be as much the case with new pilots of pre-owned RVs.

I suspect the reason is builders are more likely to have been plugged into the RV community for a long time and have considerable exposure to sermons about getting transition training. New owners of pre-owned RVs often have very little exposure to experimental aviation of any sort and haven't been schooled in the need for transition training. Second owners are more likely to have several years flight experience which may lead some to believe transition training isn't necessary.

Wonder if this study will prompt insurance underwriters to make their training requirements more stringent.....

Makes sense when you put it that way. Wonder what the NTSB will "recommend"? They always have something pretty substantial to say.
 
Difference? & I got the survey request & insurance demands

The write up at the start of this thread is one of the nicest I have seen on this subject. Well done!

First of all, I don't think 53% vs. 47% is a significant difference deserving a WOW! I would have expected more like a 60/40 buyer/builder split. If the Phase 1 testing accidents were removed the results would move in that direction I believe.

I got the survey and I studied it but I threw it in the trash. As the builder and frequent modifier of my airplane, I was not anxious to report all of that to a government agency interested in safety and opposed to modifications to improve performance - I do not view them as a needed friend.

Insurance companies are rightfully scared of exposure to early flight accidents. I accepted the risk and flew the first 5 hours without insurance as a direct result. After that I applied and got the insurance at a tolerable rate. I suspect I may not be the only one that will only allow insurance companies to control my actions so far in the pursuit of happiness.

Bob Axsom
 
Sam is right on. Spending years lurking on VAF before flight training, reading NTSB reports and finally building has made me a much safer pilot. I have learned a great deal from others mistakes. I will always try to prepare and fly like a 200 hour pilot at the end of phase 1. Yes, it takes more prep time and I won't get to say "watch this", but I am okay with that. I sure hope we can reduce these numbers.

I flew the entire 25 hr test period with a 10% of hull value deductible. This got me a very good price for the year for a low time pilot. I now have a $250 deductible which did not change the way I plan or fly. Safety and training is still and always will be top on my list, especially since it is not just me anymore. Pretend you have your mom, wife or kids in the plane with you even when it may be just you or you and another pilot. Be safe.
 
I really dislike insurance companies. Alaska + Experimental = No insurance at any cost.

I can't even buy builders insurance to cover the cost of parts if I lost my house in a fire or some other natural disaster.

I talked to my home ower's agent and they won't touch anything aviation with a ten foot pole.

Now I understand that people don't want to insure in perceived high risk situations, but good grief, builders insurance where I am has less risk then someone building on the east coast due to hurricanes.

Also, there may be a situation where I'm willing to pay the money for the insurance. For example, you can't fly through Canada without liability insurance, but I can't buy it. If I was living in the lower 48 then I could have insurance and fly to Alaska and back, but living in Alaska, I can't buy insurance to fly to the lower 48 and back.

This is one of many reasons why I'll probably leave Alaska once the airplane is done. I'm just sick of getting treated like I live in a foreign country.

Probably what I'll do is fit floats to the airplane (no it's not an RV) then fly it down southeast to Wrangle then go from there to Washington. Is that the safest way to do it, heavens no, but I think I'm willing to do it one time if I allow myself 2 weeks for weather, fly in July, and get really picky about when I launch.

When the airplane shows up in Washington, I'll leave it in the lower-48 and only fly back to AK for vacation.

Sorry for the rant, carry on.
 
First of all, I don't think 53% vs. 47% is a significant difference deserving a WOW! I would have expected more like a 60/40 buyer/builder split. If the Phase 1 testing accidents were removed the results would move in that direction I believe.

Not enough information to know if this is a "wow" or not. You need to know the total number of hours flown in E-AB aircraft by the builder vs hours flown by someone that purchased the plane. Or at least know the percent E-AB that are still owned by the builder vs owned by a non-builder.
 
As one who purchased an experimental already completed and flying, I am certain I learned much during the years of ownership that the builder would have known prior to first flight. Would that have made a difference in accident rate? I am not convinced it would. As a low time pilot at time of purchase though I am convinced of one thing. I am absolutely certain I would have crashed on first flight had I not received transition training from a QUALIFIED pilot.
 
What percent of E-AB airplanes are owned by their builder?

Not enough information to know if this is a "wow" or not. You need to know the total number of hours flown in E-AB aircraft by the builder vs hours flown by someone that purchased the plane. Or at least know the percent E-AB that are still owned by the builder vs owned by a non-builder.

It would be interesting to know how many E-AB planes are owned and flown by their builder. My guess would be that many more planes are flown by second, third, or fourth owners and many less are flown by builders. If that is true, and I have no way of knowing if it is or not, than builders need to step up their safety program. From reports I have seen and makes sense, the first 40 hours is the time to be extra cautious. That may be the reason it is close to 50-50 in this survey.
Without additional information, it is an interesting report, but doesn't give enough detail to make much of a judgment other than be careful!
 
It would be interesting to know how many E-AB planes are owned and flown by their builder. My guess would be that many more planes are flown by second, third, or fourth owners and many less are flown by builders. If that is true, and I have no way of knowing if it is or not, than builders need to step up their safety program. From reports I have seen and makes sense, the first 40 hours is the time to be extra cautious. That may be the reason it is close to 50-50 in this survey.
Without additional information, it is an interesting report, but doesn't give enough detail to make much of a judgment other than be careful!

+1

The following are arbitrary made up numbers, but:
If 5/500 planes owned by builders crash, and 5/5,000 planes owned by 2nd/3rd/4th owners crash, you get the 50/50 ratio stated in that statistic, but clearly there is a different trend.

I'd like to see a study with data on how much pilot TT, pilot RV specific time, acft TT on that specific RV, transition training, currency, etc., to see the whole picture before drawing any statistical conclusions.

Me thinks there are too many variables to point fingers at one specific trend. Each trend is important to note, though, so long as the rest of the factors are observed and noted as well.

That said, I am quite certain those conducting these studies are just as aware of these variables as we are (hopefully more-so), so I'm interested to see more when published.
 
Firstly you've gotta get around this "it's my inalienable right to be an idiot in whatever manner I please" mentality which those types of personalities often exhibit.

I agree also that the "53%" figure doesn't have enough surrounding context and information to make judgements on exactly what it means.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike
Firstly you've gotta get around this "it's my inalienable right to be an idiot in whatever manner I please" mentality which those types of personalities often exhibit.

That is exactly the problem. Nor respect for the rules of law, rules of physics and the plentiful supply of previous deaths that have proven the consequences........ohh but I am a smarter pilot than they were!!:mad:

DB
 
"it's my inalienable right to be an idiot in whatever manner I please"

I think the official FAA term for this attitude is "anti-authority". Perhaps EAB owners are a bit more likely to exhibit it than the general pilot population? After all, one of the major reasons for building such aircraft is that you don't have to conform to a type certificate (="authority").
 
I am really curious about the upcoming report and how the experimental -v- certified SEL statistics play out.
 
Firstly you've gotta get around this "it's my inalienable right to be an idiot in whatever manner I please" mentality which those types of personalities often exhibit.

Around here, we have a joke:
Q: What are the last words of a redneck?
A: "Hey, y'all, watch this!"

I agree also that the "53%" figure doesn't have enough surrounding context and information to make judgements on exactly what it means.

There are lies, d-d lies, and statistics. The rate with contributing factors would be more demonstrative than a top-level grouping. I would hazard a guess there are statistics galore in the underlying data. It would be interesting to do an analysis. If you enjoy that sort of thing...
 
Back
Top