What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NTSB to release safety study on experimentals

LettersFromFlyoverCountry

Well Known Member
From NTSB:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a Board meeting on May 22, 2012, to consider the findings of a draft safety study on experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft.

Of the approximately 224,000 general aviation (GA) aircraft in the U.S., about 33,000 of them are classified as E-AB. This includes a wide variety of aircraft, which can be built from a prefabricated kit, existing plans, or a builder's unique design. Unfortunately, this group of aircraft has, for several years, experienced accident rates greater than those of other comparable segments of GA.

The NTSB, with the assistance and input from the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and its many members, undertook the study to identify areas that could be addressed to improve the safety record of this growing and innovative segment of GA.
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The meeting will be webcast live at bit.ly/fzFiOW
[/FONT]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

From the study:
8. The safety of E-AB aircraft flight testing could be improved for some pilots and flight test circumstances if a qualified second pilot was authorized to accompany the pilot for the purpose of flight testing and not training.

I'm actually kinda shocked that a govt report would mention this... it makes too much sense!

I've long been a believer that having someone else on board to act as a "flight engineer" and keep focus on the engine monitoring & other instruments and record/interpret data while the pilot focuses on flying the ship would be a great idea, especially in these days of so many folks building their aircraft with sophisticated glass panel tech. The combination of having the high workload of flying a newly built high performance experimental aircraft with the high workload of glass panel information overload distracting you from the task of flying plus keeping a lookout for traffic all going on at the same time for a mandatory solo pilot in Phase-1, just never seemed to be the best combination of things in the interest of safety to me.
 
More...

This one makes sense too... How many builders do you know who just used the 25/40 hour test period to have fun, rather than document the flight characteristics?

The risk of E-AB aircraft accidents could be reduced by verifying that all E-AB aircraft are adequately tested according to a flight test plan, and that the resulting test data are used to create an accurate and complete aircraft flight manual.

Data obtained from glass cockpit avionics, electronic flight instruments, or other recording devices can significantly enhance the efficient accomplishment of flight test objectives, as well as the monitoring of parameters important to the continuing airworthiness of the E-AB aircraft, provided that they are demonstrated to be precise and reliable, record at sufficiently high sampling rates, and are easily downloaded by the aircraft owner.
{aka - use your EFIS data}

Accident case studies included in this report indicate that not all builders of E-AB aircraft create a detailed aircraft flight manual during Phase I flight testing.


Leading to this ---

Revise 14 Code of Federal Regulations 21.193 and related guidance or regulation, as necessary, to require applicants for an airworthiness certificate for experimental, operating amateur-built aircraft to CAH submit for Federal Aviation Administration acceptanceCAH a flight test plan that will (1)CAH ensure the aircraft has been adequately tested and has been determined to be safe to fly within the aircraft's flight envelope, and (2) produce flight test data to develop an accurate and complete aircraft flight manual and to establish emergency procedures and make a copy of this flight test plan part of the aircraft's certification file.
 
Incentives??

Identify and apply incentives to encourage owners, builders, and pilots of experimental amateur-built aircraft to complete training, such as that available in the Experimental Aircraft Association's Test Flying and Developing Pilot Operating Handbook, prior to conducting flight tests of experimental amateur-built aircraft.


I found this one interesting. What kind of incentives??
Insurance companies are the only ones in the position to give incentives for training, which they do to some extent.
EAA?? I can't see them being in a position to do much.
FAA?? Not much here either, besides credit toward a flight review or something like that.
 
I found this one interesting. What kind of incentives??
Insurance companies are the only ones in the position to give incentives for training, which they do to some extent.
EAA?? I can't see them being in a position to do much.
FAA?? Not much here either, besides credit toward a flight review or something like that.

Well, I'm pretty new to homebuilt game but I have a lot of experience in the safety world - military and commercial. When I read this recommendation I thought of the kit manufacturers. I'm sure it would add to the cost of the kit but if manufacturers, like Vans, provided transition training with every kit purchase that would be a strong incentive for pilots to complete the training and also add value to the kit. The ability of the manufacturer to standardize and then provide a quality transition training course would almost certainly have a positive impact on safety. Manufacturers have a big stake in the continued viability of the E-AB category and it will be in their best interest to help improve the safety of the community.

Insurers might also offer additional incentives, in the form of greater rate reductions for pilots completing a manufacturer's transition course.

One thing is for sure. If voluntary programs don't improve the record there is a strong probablity Uncle Sam will step in and make transition training both mandatory and expensive.
 
Last edited:
NTSB

I got in on part of the webcast today. In addition to what has been mentioned on flight test programs being documented and making good, meaningful POH's, there was considerable discussion on fuel flow functional tests and documetation, so look for that comming down too.

I had the distinct impression that there was a sincere desire to cut the accident rate and that they had the inside track on how to accomplish that without being thought of as "Jack Booted Thugs"

I thought that they had some good recommendations.:)

First time I've been that impressed with Gov't Employees.:eek:
 
4. Accident case studies included in this report indicate that not all builders of E-AB aircraft create a detailed aircraft flight manual during Phase I flight testing.
5. Absent a review and assessment by the FAA, the adequacy of the flight test program stipulated in Order 8130.2G cannot be ascertained or ensured.


This is a good idea wrapped around a nightmare. The FAA won't even come out to look at homebuilts now, they have turned it almost completely over to DARs.

I can't imagine the FAA having the resources to perform this function. It could fall on DARs.

I did a detailed flight by flight plan for my -6A and followed it. Was done in about 3 hours flying because I had no problems.

This site could be a excellent resourse for test plans. Would help to set it up as a new forum.
 
3. A functional test of the aircraft fuel system could identify design deficiencies, leaks, and malfunctions prior to flight that would prevent fuel system- and powerplant-related accidents early in the operational life of an aircraft.EFW

What happened to the old "Tail in a hole" test? I don't think this is an issue on RVs with standard engine/fuel system installations. Auto engines are another thing.

I can't imagine someone flying without running the engine on the ground. Loose fittings are an issue, but they can also be a problem in any aircraft after annuals or whenever someone goes under the cowl with a wrench.
 
Revise Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to require the review and acceptance of the completed test plan documents and aircraft flight manual (or its equivalent) that documents the aircraft's performance data and operating envelope, and that establishes emergency procedures, prior to the issuance of Phase II operating limitations.

This seems like a reasonable idea on its face, but I wonder if complete performance data can realistically be obtained by the average RV builder during Phase I? Producing the sort of data that appear in a Cessna POH takes a considerable amount of disciplined effort (see for example Kevin Horton's excellent website; many of his data were obtained after the official flight test period was completed). Many RV pilots have produced manuals that cover areas such as emergency procedures, but how many many contain detailed tables of takeoff and landing data, climb performance at different conditions, etc? I'd guess very few, if any.

It seems to me that for most RV'ers, Phase I is really more about verification of an established design than about testing an unknown aircraft. Perhaps this idea could be expanded upon, by developing detailed "standard" performance profiles for different RV/engine/prop combinations? The job of the builder could then be to compare his/her airplane to this profile.
 
Can someone point me to the statistics on how EAB accidents break down?

IE: mechanical, fuel system, first flight, phase of flight, lack of performance data, lack of documentation, no transition training, lack of maintenance, pilot error, hotdogging, poor pilot skills etc etc etc.

In other words, are they targeting the most common root causes for accidents?
 
Can someone point me to the statistics on how EAB accidents break down?

IE: mechanical, fuel system, first flight, phase of flight, lack of performance data, lack of documentation, no transition training, lack of maintenance, pilot error, hotdogging, poor pilot skills etc etc etc.

In other words, are they targeting the most common root causes for accidents?

Look at the bottom of this link for some info:

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/safetyprogram/introduction/

I have not read their report but I doubt that having a POH will result in a significant accident reduction.

My view (perhaps biased), is that if people reviewed and followed the guidance offered at the RVFlightSafety website, we could set a standard for the E-AB community.
 
...but I doubt that having a POH will result in a significant accident reduction....

I'm not so sure. As a builder, I knew every inch of the aircraft and had spent a lot of time preparing for flight. My flight manual is very comprehensive (and was ready for the DAR and probably the thing the FSDO spent the most time looking through when I applied for the repairman certificate). But it is totally unnecessary for me inasmuch as I am the author as well as the builder.

But, when I saw the meeting yesterday, it prompted me to take a look at it - and I have to admit that were I a purchaser of this aircraft, it would probably be very helpful. So, I lean toward supporting the recommendation. Of course, the details are something else - there seems to be wide variation in POH content.

One thing I do agree with is that the RV community is in a great position to make a significant positive impact on the data. It seems to me that it would be possible to get the RV data at or below the best of the standard category aircraft. My sense is it could start here.

Dan
 
I'm not so sure. As a builder, I knew every inch of the aircraft and had spent a lot of time preparing for flight. My flight manual is very comprehensive (and was ready for the DAR and probably the thing the FSDO spent the most time looking through when I applied for the repairman certificate). But it is totally unnecessary for me inasmuch as I am the author as well as the builder.

But, when I saw the meeting yesterday, it prompted me to take a look at it - and I have to admit that were I a purchaser of this aircraft, it would probably be very helpful. So, I lean toward supporting the recommendation. Of course, the details are something else - there seems to be wide variation in POH content.

One thing I do agree with is that the RV community is in a great position to make a significant positive impact on the data. It seems to me that it would be possible to get the RV data at or below the best of the standard category aircraft. My sense is it could start here.

Dan

Yes.... the RVs have been around long enough to have been sold and flown by non-builders.

Any guesses on how many are being flown by non-builders?

50%+?
 
Any guesses on how many are being flown by non-builders?

I am one. Maybe I have too much time in mine to worry about a POH. Newer pilots may well get substantial benefit from one. On the other hand, a well balanced transition program (or competent instructor) that teaches you how to fly the RV is likely FAR more important than a POH.

When you look at the accident categories here (http://www.rvflightsafety.org/safetyprogram/introduction/), "maneuvering" accounts for 21% of the fatalities in the data set examined. Is a POH more likely to eliminate these maneuvering fatalities...or a good intro to the aircraft via a transition training program or other competent instructor?

Excluding the "unknown" bin, the next largest fatality factors are as follows:

Take-off and initial climb: 6 ( 8%)
Fuel management: 7 ( 9%)
Mechanical failures: 6 ( 8%)
Unexplained power loss: 6 ( 8%)
Weather: 9 (11%)
Descent/approach: 7 ( 9%)

Why do these happen? Is a POH going to fix them? Or is it an attitude/judgment issue?
 
Maybe I have too much time in mine to worry about a POH. Newer pilots may well get substantial benefit from one.

In itself, an intriguing comment.

On the other hand, a well balanced transition program (or competent instructor) that teaches you how to fly the RV is likely FAR more important than a POH..."maneuvering" accounts for 21% of the fatalities in the data set examined. Is a POH more likely to eliminate these maneuvering fatalities ... or a good intro to the aircraft via a transition training program or other competent instructor?

My inclination is these are not mutually exclusive

Excluding the "unknown" bin, the next largest fatality factors are as follows:

Take-off and initial climb: 6 ( 8%)
Fuel management: 7 ( 9%)
Mechanical failures: 6 ( 8%)
Unexplained power loss: 6 ( 8%)
Weather: 9 (11%)
Descent/approach: 7 ( 9%)

Why do these happen? Is a POH going to fix them? Or is it an attitude / judgment issue?

At least as to attitude, it turns out my POH actually addresses each of these issues. I'd like to think that someone down the road who has little RV experience who winds up launching in my aircraft will benefit from the information.

My curiosity is whether we want to resist the basic recommendation, which in context, is to use a formal flight test program to document the aircraft's flying characteristics in a POH. Sure seems reasonable to me.

Dan
 
Safety

I have not read their report but I doubt that having a POH will result in a significant accident reduction.

My view (perhaps biased), is that if people reviewed and followed the guidance offered at the RVFlightSafety website, we could set a standard for the E-AB community.

I agree. Just having a POH doesn't automatically make you a better pilot.

However, one of the impressions I came away with was that; of the accidents studied in 2011, none or almost none of them had a POH or any documentaion of how their test flights were done. None or hardly any of them belonged to a "type club" or "Vansairforce" Forums. It looks to me like there was almost a total absence of a "safety culture" in the pilots of the accident aircraft.

I think that they think (NTSB/FAA) that by requring such documentation may help to instill a more safety concious population of EAB pilots. They did commend the online safety courses of the EAA and AOPA.

We all know pilots who won't use a checklist, fail to do a proper pre-flight and are generally complacent about safety. I think those people are the ones they want to reach. The mere fact that you're on these forums and reading this, probably puts you on the safer side of the EAB society.
 
....

My curiosity is whether we want to resist the basic recommendation, which in context, is to use a formal flight test program to document the aircraft's flying characteristics in a POH. Sure seems reasonable to me.

Dan

It does sound like a productive use of those required 25 or 40 hours ....:)
 
... My curiosity is whether we want to resist the basic recommendation, which in context, is to use a formal flight test program to document the aircraft's flying characteristics in a POH. Sure seems reasonable to me. Dan

Four things our examiner wanted to see:

  • A pitot static test
  • A POH
  • A flight test plan
  • A completed condition inspection
If I was going to sign the paper ... I would too...
 
Yes.... the RVs have been around long enough to have been sold and flown by non-builders.

Any guesses on how many are being flown by non-builders?

50%+?

From what I've seen, I don't think that number is over 50% yet. Probably still well under 40% (a wild guess loosely based on the numbers of RV builders and non-builder fliers that I've met over the years).

I didn't build the one I now own, but I watched it being built (it's the first RV I ever saw someone build to completion, and the second airplane(1) in my entire life I ever saw someone build at all). Since then, I've participated quite a bit in helping a few friends build RVs (two -4's, a -10 and an -8). Got some permanent scars on my hands, arms and ribcage(2) to prove it too ;)


(1) First airplane I personally ever saw someone build was a "Teenie Two" that the father of one of my 6th grade schoolmates was building in their garage in 1974. He got killed in it shortly after finishing it. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=42528&key=0

(2) Fell out of the RV-10 while doing some wiring underneath the panel, and landed on my side against the main gear wheelpant bracket and either bruised or cracked a rib :eek: It hurt like heck for a few weeks. (so... building has its dangers too!)
 
Last edited:
Four things our examiner wanted to see:

  • A pitot static test
  • A POH
  • A flight test plan
  • A completed condition inspection
If I was going to sign the paper ... I would too...

That may sound reasonable to some but it is absolutely contrary to the regulations that inspectors or DARs are supposed to follow. NONE of those items are required per regulation. If we allow inspectors to make up their own rules.....where does it stop??

To be required to do these items in order to receive airworthiness certificate is flat out wrong.
 
Absolutely

I see a variety of inspectors imposing their idea of whats proper on the builders. I think the inspectors should point out problems, but to require changes of fabrication just because its not the way they like, or to impose extra requirements or documentation on the builder is wrong.
 
easy access to training

If their serious about traning, change the regs so that any CFI can train and charge in any homebuilt. Now that would make transition training readily available. Might not be perfect, but would be way better than the current system.
 
It is interesting to see how the FAA thinks. They suggest that another person be on board to monitor things (engine?) while the pilot concentrates on flying a new aircraft. Their comment:

"The Phase I flight test period is uniquely challenging for most pilots because they must learn to manage the handling characteristics of an unfamiliar aircraft while also managing the challenges of the flight test environment, including instrumentation that is not yet calibrated, controls that may need adjustment, and possible malfunctions or adverse handling characteristics."

Why is the aircraft unfamiliar? I have only done one first flight. It was not that unfamiliar even though it was a 7A and most of my time is in a 6A.

Perhaps any competent RV pilot should be permitted to be compensated for initial test flights even if not commercial rated. Minimize the number of unqualified people making the first flight. I do not know how many accidents happen during Phase 1. Seems like there was an RV-10 accident around Ohio with two people on board during Phase 1.

The point David makes in Post #23 is also spot on. Remove the impediments to getting RV time. RVs are common. Why should people have to travel across the country as opposed to a nearby airport?
 
Details?

Of course, the details are something else - there seems to be wide variation in POH content.

I think the other important detail would be the procedure for making a change to the POH. I may be reading into the recommendations, but it sounds like we could be required to do a lot more coordination with the local FSDO for any modifications to the aircraft or POH. Can you imagine trying to run paperwork through the FSDO if you are going to add an autopilot, change your cooling ductwork, do some aerodynamic cleanup, add an electronic ignition, or update your EFIS software?

The EAA's opinion seems to be that the answer isn't more regulations, it's education. http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1651378323001


Paige
RV-8A
 
Can you imagine trying to run paperwork through the FSDO if you are going to add an autopilot, change your cooling ductwork, do some aerodynamic cleanup, add an electronic ignition, or update your EFIS software?

Actually you're already supposed to go through the FSDO for at least some of those items. However, my experience with the local FSDO when I made changes (different prop, and different autopilot) was entirely trouble-free. Both changes did require going back into Phase I for 5 hours.
 
Common sense approach

While recommendations for a sound mechanical fuel and control system is
to be taken seriously, there is one glaring deficiency contributing to accidents
in Home built aircraft.
It is the lack of training opportunities and I am glad to see that this has been addressed by the NTSB Board meeting. Ironically, the restrictions for training opportunities have been imposed by the very people who now recommend changes.
Flight instructors ought to be able to teach transition training without jumping through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops. When training becomes available
locally, not just builders but also buyers of Experimental aircraft will get training before doing their own thing. Easing restrictions in this area will be a
win, win , win situation and help reduce accidents dramatically.
 
To be required to do these items in order to receive airworthiness certificate is flat out wrong.

I didn't say he required them. He wanted to see them.

If the FAA acts on the NTSB recommendations related to these, as they likely will, they will be required.

If as part of phase 1 you are required to demonstrate that the aircraft is safe to operate in its entire flight envelope and you don't have a test plan, how are you going to do that.

Many folks just fly around for 25-40 hours. some get in trouble. Now the NTSB wants the FAA to require folks to actually test the aircraft as they are supposed to anyway.
 
Many folks just fly around for 25-40 hours. some get in trouble. Now the NTSB wants the FAA to require folks to actually test the aircraft as they are supposed to anyway.

It would be interesting to see the data showing how many accidents can be attributed to a lack of a good flight test program or the absence of a good POH. I put both of those things in a "nice to have" category, but are they really critical to flight safety?
 
If their serious about traning, change the regs so that any CFI can train and charge in any homebuilt. Now that would make transition training readily available. Might not be perfect, but would be way better than the current system.

A CFI can train and charge in any homebuilt. He/she can charge whatever the market will bear for services rendered. Just can't charge for the use of the airplane without the blessing of the FAA via the LODA.
 
Like it or not, the status quo in our business is not very good and the industry has not done a very good job of self regulation... Sticking our collective heads in the sand and saying leave us alone is not going to improve the safety record of EAB aircraft.... But... I have some serious concerns about some of the NTSB recommendations.

Clearly an airplane should be explored in the flight test period....

The rub is, the statistics are pretty clear that many pilots are not qualified to do first flights.... If these same pilots are required to explore all the corners of the envelope there will be even more accidents in the flight test phase....

The good news is that the FAA and the NTSB have a competitive relationship, and contrary to popular belief, the FAA ignores many of the NTSB's recommendations....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F-1 EVO
 
NTSB

It would be interesting to see the data showing how many accidents can be attributed to a lack of a good flight test program or the absence of a good POH. I put both of those things in a "nice to have" category, but are they really critical to flight safety?

Kyle:

I doubt that many of the accidents could be directly attributed to the lack of a good flight test program or POH. However it was noted that of the 2011 accidents, none or hardly any of them had any evidence of having same.

My take on this is that they believe that the lack of these showed a lack of a safety culture in the accident pilots. What they're trying to bring about is a greater sense of safety among the general population of EAB pilots through a structured test program and a good POH.

One other thing that they wanted to see was better training. I think that they're willing to expand and make better the way EAB pilots are trained and re-trained through freeing up training in EAB aircraft and LODA's.

No one likes to see more restrictions on flying. But lets face it, our record stinks. A lot of comment too, was on the Canadian and Great Brittan way of certifying their EAB aircraft. Theirs is a lot more restrictive.

Their concern is the whole group of EAB pilots not just Van's piots. Granted; the Van's aircraft aren't in the same need of such an extensive flight test program---as they're already a proven design.

As I said before, the mere fact that you're on this forum and reading these posts probably means that you have a greater sense of safety concern than the accident pilots, as hardly any, if any of them belonged to a "type club" or to forums like these.
 
Regarding the POH

My Sonex kit it came with a pretty comprehensive POH, or Flight Manual as they call it. Airspeeds, W&B, and such were blank as those needed to be determined in Phase 1, but all the charts and tables were there for completion during testing. It also had preflight and other checklists, emergency procedures, etc.

Sonex sells them for $10.

Perhaps something like that could be generated for the RV lines. I purchased my RV-4 and it had no POH...
 
According to today's AvWeb email (obviously referring to the NTSB report):

"Nearly 10 percent of E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during first flight, the board said, and 14 out of the 125 accidents in aircraft that were sold crashed on the new owner's first flight."

I do not recall ever seeing statistics like this. It certainly supports making it easy to get time in an RV.
 
I strongly believe that opportunities for training need to be improved. I am somewhat typical, an old guy that USED to fly a lot, very rusty, never flown in an RV, spent the last year and a half busy building, and will soon need to see if it will fly or not. I would not dream of letting someone else make that first test flight in my creation.
Getting up to date on my skills and familiar with such a light plane becomes a real challenge. There is an RV12 trainer 600 miles away, but scheduling around our schedules and weather will make it quite a challenge. Sure there are some local CFI, who have never flown an RV12 either, not a very good choice. Makes the choice of just going out myself and figuring it out all far too attractive - and dangerous! (I hope it flies like a Cherokee 140:)
 
I strongly believe that opportunities for training need to be improved. I am somewhat typical, an old guy that USED to fly a lot, very rusty, never flown in an RV, spent the last year and a half busy building, and will soon need to see if it will fly or not. I would not dream of letting someone else make that first test flight in my creation.
Getting up to date on my skills and familiar with such a light plane becomes a real challenge. There is an RV12 trainer 600 miles away, but scheduling around our schedules and weather will make it quite a challenge. Sure there are some local CFI, who have never flown an RV12 either, not a very good choice. Makes the choice of just going out myself and figuring it out all far too attractive - and dangerous! (I hope it flies like a Cherokee 140:)

Don, this may be the mindset that results in accidents. You built your plane. Only you can make the first flight. But you may not have the requisite experience to do it safely.

I watched an RV-7A owner make the first flight in his plane...which he did not even build. I do not recall if he had transition training but he came very close to a departure stall. There was a chase pilot yelling at him to get the nose down and had the chase pilot not been there, I may have witnessed a first flight stall/spin fatality.

Will a detailed POH solve this situation?

There are plenty of POH examples available for people to use as a template. I borrowed one to redo my POH.
 
Last edited:
According to today's AvWeb email (obviously referring to the NTSB report):

"Nearly 10 percent of E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during first flight, the board said, and 14 out of the 125 accidents in aircraft that were sold crashed on the new owner's first flight."

Which is exactly why I spent the time and effort to take training from Mike Seager. I was a typical first time builder. 250hrs TT, and limited flying the last yr or so finishing the plane. Then with his endorsement and my prep, I knew I could fly this thing. BUT I'm no test pilot, I'm an average pilot at best. So I found someone to do that first flight. Someone with a lot of RV/Rocket first flight time not to mention tens of thousands military time. Yes I hired a pro to check for cobwebs, before I did my first flight later the same day.

As far as a 2nd person in the plane during testing, I'm torn. There were a few things I could have used a hand with such as calibrating the AOA or recording during some of the high speed stuff. OR during my unstable roll situation, a more experienced RV person might have a better idea what is going on. But in the end I figured out how to get it done. Also when a lowtime pilot like myself, a tes pilot is hired for the shakedown. it would be smart if the test pilot was able to ride along during the builders first flight as a check pilot. NOT a Training flight, just very brief get rid of the possible jitters flight.
 
According to today's AvWeb email (obviously referring to the NTSB report):

"Nearly 10 percent of E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during first flight, the board said, and 14 out of the 125 accidents in aircraft that were sold crashed on the new owner's first flight."

I do not recall ever seeing statistics like this. It certainly supports making it easy to get time in an RV.

That's because the stat is not correct. The original NTSB news release on its meeting had an error that could easily mislead people regarding amateur-built accidents. The agency has since fixed the error online, but not re-sent the news release to its list. The proper context is that 10 percent of all amateur-built aircraft accidents in 2011 occurred on the first flight.
 
I'm glad you guys are discussing this. It's been fairly quiet around the various forums otherwise.
 
I hope it flies like a Cherokee 140

Unfortunately, no. Good airplane, but low weight / inertia. It would be like the difference you'd see between a C-152 and a kitfox. See if you can't find someone with a LSA (similar to Evektor) close by and hitch a ride.

Dan
 
My Sonex kit it came with a pretty comprehensive POH, or Flight Manual as they call it. Airspeeds, W&B, and such were blank as those needed to be determined in Phase 1, but all the charts and tables were there for completion during testing. It also had preflight and other checklists, emergency procedures, etc.

Sonex sells them for $10.

Perhaps something like that could be generated for the RV lines. I purchased my RV-4 and it had no POH...

As I continue to research and determine what airplane I want to build I have to admit I've been impressed by the SONEX support system - to include a manufacturer provided POH. I doubt I'll build a SONEX aircraft but I'd sure like to see more of this type of thing from Vans.

Why doesn't Vans provide a POH or at least a template? With 7000+ aircraft out there it seems a little ridiculous that every builder has to recreate this wheel. Sure, every RV-7 will fly a little differently but Vans could certainly provide the template and let the test pilot fill in the aircraft specific information.
 
Why doesn't Vans provide a POH or at least a template? With 7000+ aircraft out there it seems a little ridiculous that every builder has to recreate this wheel. Sure, every RV-7 will fly a little differently but Vans could certainly provide the template and let the test pilot fill in the aircraft specific information.

There are plenty available. Google it and I believe plenty are on this site as well.
 
That's because the stat is not correct. The original NTSB news release on its meeting had an error that could easily mislead people regarding amateur-built accidents. The agency has since fixed the error online, but not re-sent the news release to its list. The proper context is that 10 percent of all amateur-built aircraft accidents in 2011 occurred on the first flight.

And a similar, but worse, statistic on first flights from a decade or two ago is what set off the EAA Tech Counselor and Flight Adviser program IIRC.

When it was first introduced it came with the good incentive of an EAA insurance discount and first flight coverage.

With those incentives long gone, I wonder what the real participation in the TC and FA programs is currently....:confused:
 
In my own case, I asked a TC if he would be of help during my build. Yes, of course.

I couldn't get him to come near the airplane - responses to questions were vague and hopelessly unresponsive. He kept saying he didn't need to see it until just before the inspection. Not a lot of help.

I chose badly. So, I approached a IA that I had worked with for years on the certified side and asked on a couple of occasions if he would just stop by and give me a list of what he saw. The good news was there were few items and easily remedied. BUT, there were items.

When it came time for the DAR, I think it made things a lot smoother inasmuch as there had been a IA looking at the airplane less than 2 weeks before the inspection and I could document that. Nothing was said about lack of TC involvement. In retrospect, I'm just as happy to have used the IA - I think I had a good quality inspection and prevented some problems.

I wish the TC program, at least in our area, was more active - but it's just not there. I also wish the FA program was more robust. Again, it just doesn't seem to be something on that tops the list.

Dan
 
That was a "tongue in cheek" remark, even my Ercoupe flew differently than the Cherokee.
Unfortunately, no. Good airplane, but low weight / inertia. It would be like the difference you'd see between a C-152 and a kitfox. See if you can't find someone with a LSA (similar to Evektor) close by and hitch a ride.

Dan
 
I am a tech counselor, we have three of us in the chapter I am president of. As far as I know none of us have ever been asked to look at a project. I think the mentality is that unless you have built one like the member is building, you would know nothing about his project. I cannot even get the other two to come look my project over! What a waste of talent.

In my own case, I asked a TC if he would be of help during my build. Yes, of course.

I couldn't get him to come near the airplane - responses to questions were vague and hopelessly unresponsive. He kept saying he didn't need to see it until just before the inspection. Not a lot of help.

I chose badly. So, I approached a IA that I had worked with for years on the certified side and asked on a couple of occasions if he would just stop by and give me a list of what he saw. The good news was there were few items and easily remedied. BUT, there were items.

When it came time for the DAR, I think it made things a lot smoother inasmuch as there had been a IA looking at the airplane less than 2 weeks before the inspection and I could document that. Nothing was said about lack of TC involvement. In retrospect, I'm just as happy to have used the IA - I think I had a good quality inspection and prevented some problems.

I wish the TC program, at least in our area, was more active - but it's just not there. I also wish the FA program was more robust. Again, it just doesn't seem to be something on that tops the list.

Dan
 
My point exactly! I did not mean to infer that I was going to fly it without instruction in an RV12, but to point out that getting that instruction can be very difficult to obtain, and therefore often not accomplished..

Don, this may be the mindset that results in accidents. You built your plane. Only you can make the first flight. But you may not have the requisite experience to do it safely.

I watched an RV-7A owner make the first flight in his plane...which he did not even build. I do not recall if he had transition training but he came very close to a departure stall. There was a chase pilot yelling at him to get the nose down and had the chase pilot not been there, I may have witnessed a first flight stall/spin fatality.

Will a detailed POH solve this situation?

There are plenty of POH examples available for people to use as a template. I borrowed one to redo my POH.
 
And a similar, but worse, statistic on first flights from a decade or two ago is what set off the EAA Tech Counselor and Flight Adviser program IIRC.

When it was first introduced it came with the good incentive of an EAA insurance discount and first flight coverage.

With those incentives long gone, I wonder what the real participation in the TC and FA programs is currently....:confused:
It's not great. The TC program is doing okay, and we do have a lot of participation and visit reports that come in daily. I am working through the program to see how we can best incentivise the program to make it more effective.

In my own case, I asked a TC if he would be of help during my build. Yes, of course.

I couldn't get him to come near the airplane - responses to questions were vague and hopelessly unresponsive. He kept saying he didn't need to see it until just before the inspection. Not a lot of help.

I chose badly. So, I approached a IA that I had worked with for years on the certified side and asked on a couple of occasions if he would just stop by and give me a list of what he saw. The good news was there were few items and easily remedied. BUT, there were items.

When it came time for the DAR, I think it made things a lot smoother inasmuch as there had been a IA looking at the airplane less than 2 weeks before the inspection and I could document that. Nothing was said about lack of TC involvement. In retrospect, I'm just as happy to have used the IA - I think I had a good quality inspection and prevented some problems.

I wish the TC program, at least in our area, was more active - but it's just not there. I also wish the FA program was more robust. Again, it just doesn't seem to be something on that tops the list.

Dan

Dan, can you email me or PM me about the details of this visit?

The FA program is bad. We only have 463 FA's total. That's not good...we need more, and we need more people who FULLY understand the program and are qualified and WANT to help. I am revising the FA manual so it's clearer in it's presentation and up to date. The FA program is very important, and it is at or near the to of my list. I just have to get through AV first...:eek:
 
Make type training much easier to take and to give. If I get signed off "in
type", before I fly solo in mine, I'll be safer for it.

If my plane is a clunker despite my best efforts, the non-emotional decision to exit may be a life saver. I ask myself, unless on fire, would I chuck the plane?

Maybe, we should try to eliminate the perfect storm of events:
Low time in type, emotional/ monitary and life investment in the plane, thoughts about breaking in a new engine etc. Then add, being Test Pilot to the equation.

With over 1100 4's,1100 6's,1100 7's and 1100 8's FLYING, I don't consider these aircraft truly Experimental, Home Assembled/Crafted, yes. Experimental, not really. If mine's ever ready, Kevin or Paul can do the first
flight.
H
 
Last edited:
Back
Top