I enjoyed reading Van's latest thoughts on safety issues with the experimental group, particularly with RV's. Thank you Doug. I can't disagree with anything he says (this time). I am puzzled however that he did not mention the fact that the NTSB recently discovered that almost 50% of the recent fatal accidents were by purchasers, not builders. I realize it's still a "think safety issue" but why would the builder (who may not have flown while building) be safer than the buyer? Is it as simple as, "I don't want to wreck this thing I put my heart into?" Curious also what type of transition training insurance companies require for an experimental and how that happens. Sure, you can do it in your own newly purchased RV but how many RV instructors are nearby to give you the right workout. As many have mentioned before, even the 12 is a way different animal that a Cessna.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Van's Latest Thoughts
- Thread starter Peterk
- Start date
rocketbob
Well Known Member
I am transition training a fellow in a RV-6 right now, he is low-time and needs a lot of work. Even though I'm not a CFI and the time can't be logged as dual and of course I can't get paid for it, the insurance company approved me to do the training since I have a bit over 1300 hours in RVs. The letter from the insurance co. states its at my discretion when he is ready to solo. But I set the bar high because I don't want him to become a statistic. 10-20 hours of "dual" with me.
If you're going to try to prep yourself for whats to come don't show up to the game without basic skills polished. Slow flight, accelerated stalls, turns around a point, crosswind landings, etc.
If you're going to try to prep yourself for whats to come don't show up to the game without basic skills polished. Slow flight, accelerated stalls, turns around a point, crosswind landings, etc.
Last edited:
just curious...does that become a liability issue? or do you get some type of waiver signed first? sounds like a good way to do it!
az_gila
Well Known Member
Could it just be that since the RVs have been around for a long time that 50% of the flying RVs are now owned by non-builders?
rocketbob
Well Known Member
No matter what you do there is always an issue of liability. Unless you live in a cave and never leave it. I am a named pilot on the policy so while I'm in it the liability is covered.
Bob is right about liability. And the real problem is when you get out and sign the guy off. If he flies off and does something stupid in the next 50 hours, his estate will likely sue the cfi, claiming inadequate instruction. And there is no insurance available to cfi's at anywhere near the needed limits and/or cost.
I stopped instructing students some years ago. More precisely, I'm happy to give them dual but I will not sign them off for solo or solo x/c, since my name and only my name in their logbook is their sole authorization.
I recently got the FAA paperwork (LODA) to give transition training in my RV-10. But my insurance company wanted an extra $2K to cover what I estimated to be 20 hours max a year. (The FAA will not allow me to give any other sign-offs than "transition training" in my experimental airplane). This just doesn't make any economic sense to me. And there's still the possible liability down the line.
As to the original question, about accidents: I think you're seeing different personality types. Homebuilders tend to be very careful types. And their flying reflects that. "buyers" come in all types, including type A personalities that are more likely to be risk takers.
I stopped instructing students some years ago. More precisely, I'm happy to give them dual but I will not sign them off for solo or solo x/c, since my name and only my name in their logbook is their sole authorization.
I recently got the FAA paperwork (LODA) to give transition training in my RV-10. But my insurance company wanted an extra $2K to cover what I estimated to be 20 hours max a year. (The FAA will not allow me to give any other sign-offs than "transition training" in my experimental airplane). This just doesn't make any economic sense to me. And there's still the possible liability down the line.
As to the original question, about accidents: I think you're seeing different personality types. Homebuilders tend to be very careful types. And their flying reflects that. "buyers" come in all types, including type A personalities that are more likely to be risk takers.
NTSB numbers
I am a numbers guy in trying to assess risk. I know if I don't fly in bad weather, don't fly at night, don't run out of fuel, and don't buzz anyone, I have cut the risk of flying down by a large percentage.
The NTSB numbers have been out for a bit and they are puzzling to me. I would think that there are more RV's and all experimental airplanes flown by non-builders than builders. Without knowing that, it is hard to get anything from the data. If there are fewer builder-owners and we still make up 50%, we need to figure out what is going on.
Greg, what you said about the builder knowing the plane better is the reason I am building rather than buying. I am a very low time pilot so I wanted to lower the risk more by learning everything about the plane so I would have the chance of understand the mechanics of the problem and possibly be able to figure out a quick fix. If I remember the statistics, the phase 1 period has the most risk which would be expected, so maybe my whole thought process is flawed.
The one thing that I have learned from the numbers is almost all crashes could be survivable if you stay in control of the plane. If you stall and go in upside down, it?s curtains. That was also driven home by my flight instructor years ago. I have to admit, after spending all the time on a build, a controlled crash rather than taking a shot at a perfect landing place ?just over there?, might be tempting, but that is why I have insurance. The same instructor asked me how much the plane was worth and I gave him a number. He asked, what was my deductible? He said that was what the plane was worth ? don?t risk your life for the deductible.
My plan is to get plenty of dual time when I am finished. I may have to even find someone to fly off my 40 hours if I don?t feel comfortable and more important, that my instructor doesn?t think I am up to par for that critical time. To me, it doesn?t make sense to spend all the time building and not flying at night, weather, etc, then not make absolutely sure I am ready to handle things that can come up in a flight.
This thread has the chance to help all of us lower the accident rate in RV?s and all experimental aircraft. I appreciate the time those with more experience than I have giving tips and opinions. As arrogant as I am in general, I have no pride when it comes to saving my life!
I am a numbers guy in trying to assess risk. I know if I don't fly in bad weather, don't fly at night, don't run out of fuel, and don't buzz anyone, I have cut the risk of flying down by a large percentage.
The NTSB numbers have been out for a bit and they are puzzling to me. I would think that there are more RV's and all experimental airplanes flown by non-builders than builders. Without knowing that, it is hard to get anything from the data. If there are fewer builder-owners and we still make up 50%, we need to figure out what is going on.
Greg, what you said about the builder knowing the plane better is the reason I am building rather than buying. I am a very low time pilot so I wanted to lower the risk more by learning everything about the plane so I would have the chance of understand the mechanics of the problem and possibly be able to figure out a quick fix. If I remember the statistics, the phase 1 period has the most risk which would be expected, so maybe my whole thought process is flawed.
The one thing that I have learned from the numbers is almost all crashes could be survivable if you stay in control of the plane. If you stall and go in upside down, it?s curtains. That was also driven home by my flight instructor years ago. I have to admit, after spending all the time on a build, a controlled crash rather than taking a shot at a perfect landing place ?just over there?, might be tempting, but that is why I have insurance. The same instructor asked me how much the plane was worth and I gave him a number. He asked, what was my deductible? He said that was what the plane was worth ? don?t risk your life for the deductible.
My plan is to get plenty of dual time when I am finished. I may have to even find someone to fly off my 40 hours if I don?t feel comfortable and more important, that my instructor doesn?t think I am up to par for that critical time. To me, it doesn?t make sense to spend all the time building and not flying at night, weather, etc, then not make absolutely sure I am ready to handle things that can come up in a flight.
This thread has the chance to help all of us lower the accident rate in RV?s and all experimental aircraft. I appreciate the time those with more experience than I have giving tips and opinions. As arrogant as I am in general, I have no pride when it comes to saving my life!
Neal@F14
Well Known Member
I'm about to buy an RV-6 this week, and despite the fact that I've got over 1000 PIC hours, and over 100 hours in tailwheel RV's over the past couple years (mostly RV-8 time, some -4 time, and a scant few hours right seat time in -6's, -7's, and a whole 30 minutes left-seat time in a 200hp -7A)... my first flight in my new-to-me RV-6 will be with a trusted CFI in the right seat who has tens of thousands of hours in everything from Ercoupes to USAF fighter jets to Stearmans as a former member of the Red Baron Squadron acro team.
Even though I'm pretty confident I'll have no problems landing this thing good enough the first few times... I still want to have someone well-experienced with me in case I have a brainfart with the stick-in-left-hand, throttle-in-right-hand transition since I'm so accustomed to flying the RV-8. (And there's that old saying about the pilot who checks himself out in a new airplane has a fool for an instructor).
Even though I'm pretty confident I'll have no problems landing this thing good enough the first few times... I still want to have someone well-experienced with me in case I have a brainfart with the stick-in-left-hand, throttle-in-right-hand transition since I'm so accustomed to flying the RV-8. (And there's that old saying about the pilot who checks himself out in a new airplane has a fool for an instructor).
Last edited:
jetjok
Well Known Member
A lotta type A builders with egos out there, too. As a very low tech poll, I listed the EAB aircraft at my home airport, and whether they are owned by the builder or were bought flying. Then, based the final grouping on how they acted and flew their planes. I found that it would be very difficult to assume that all builders are careful and safe, while those who bought flying aircraft are not. Speaking personally, I can unequivocally state that I am much more particular about the condition of my RV, and how it is flown then the owner/builder was.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Good shot Paul! 
This quote sums it up perfectly
Now I have been in the Wars with PD and co for calling the truth about these types of individuals before, but the vast majority of these "not so clever chaps" are going to kill themselves in a C172 or A36 just as easily.
The fact it has Experimental on it has little to do with it, other than those on the fringe who disrespect the laws of physics and common sense also seem attracted to the extra freedoms of Experimental.
Geez Paul ...... Biting my tongue hurts.....
This quote sums it up perfectly
Now I have been in the Wars with PD and co for calling the truth about these types of individuals before, but the vast majority of these "not so clever chaps" are going to kill themselves in a C172 or A36 just as easily.
The fact it has Experimental on it has little to do with it, other than those on the fringe who disrespect the laws of physics and common sense also seem attracted to the extra freedoms of Experimental.
Geez Paul ...... Biting my tongue hurts.....
highflight42x
Well Known Member
"unless it's single-seat ..."
Ah, but there are good ways to train for first-flight in a single seater like the -3. I took ten hours in an Aeronca Champ, then four more in RV4's before I took my -3 up. And on its first flight, an experienced test pilot was in the cockpit, while I observed from the back seat of the RV4 chase plane. By the time I took it up, there were no suprises (and I was a 100hr pilot at the time).
- Steven
(700+ RV3 hours)
(+2 more today!)
Ah, but there are good ways to train for first-flight in a single seater like the -3. I took ten hours in an Aeronca Champ, then four more in RV4's before I took my -3 up. And on its first flight, an experienced test pilot was in the cockpit, while I observed from the back seat of the RV4 chase plane. By the time I took it up, there were no suprises (and I was a 100hr pilot at the time).
- Steven
(700+ RV3 hours)
(+2 more today!)
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Nope.
Single seaters are not the problem. Attitudes and lack of experience factor in more.
We've had to check out in PA-18 sprayers (1 seat), Agwagons, Pawnees, Air Tractors, Thrushes, Cassutt F-1, Pitts S1C, Turbine Air Tractors and Volksplane...all single seaters.
Best,
Single seaters are not the problem. Attitudes and lack of experience factor in more.
We've had to check out in PA-18 sprayers (1 seat), Agwagons, Pawnees, Air Tractors, Thrushes, Cassutt F-1, Pitts S1C, Turbine Air Tractors and Volksplane...all single seaters.
Best,
+1 on what Pierre said.....
Solo first flights is not a big deal... The US Army Air Corps did it all through WWII with pretty good success, and they did it with very low time pilots....
That does not mean that checkouts are not important.... They are!!!
Just like in WWII, my first flights in the Corsair, P-51, P-40, and Zero, were all solo.... In all cases, I was solo in the airplane, but I had an extensive checkout in all cases....
If the actual stick and rudder flying of the airplane is a big deal, then you are probably needed more training/experience period, not just "in type."
The primary purpose of a checkout is to teach the systems and confirm that the pilot skills are appropriate to the type of airplane to be flown.... (and to provide warm fuzzys to the new pilot)
So get a checkout, whether the instructor rides with you in the airplane, or flies next to you in another airplane doesn't matter.... Get training!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F-1 Rocket
Solo first flights is not a big deal... The US Army Air Corps did it all through WWII with pretty good success, and they did it with very low time pilots....
That does not mean that checkouts are not important.... They are!!!
Just like in WWII, my first flights in the Corsair, P-51, P-40, and Zero, were all solo.... In all cases, I was solo in the airplane, but I had an extensive checkout in all cases....
If the actual stick and rudder flying of the airplane is a big deal, then you are probably needed more training/experience period, not just "in type."
The primary purpose of a checkout is to teach the systems and confirm that the pilot skills are appropriate to the type of airplane to be flown.... (and to provide warm fuzzys to the new pilot)
So get a checkout, whether the instructor rides with you in the airplane, or flies next to you in another airplane doesn't matter.... Get training!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F-1 Rocket
