What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV Accident Database

T

ty1295

Well Known Member
With the recent accident as well as my current on-going PPL training I have carefully studied and looked at several accident reports (RV and Non RV related).

I think we all know ~80% of accidents are due to bad judgement calls somewhere (run out of fuel, flying into IFR conditions, etc.)

It got me to thinking if a RV specific database has ever been compiled (maybe from FAA records as well as other accounts like the fuel selector issue). Something fellow RV pilots and builders could learn from.

All this accidents are horrible things, even more horrible in my opinion is to NOT learn from them.

When the time comes for my first flight I would find it valuable to go through such a database and even form a checklist to check for these things in the hopes of increasing my safety and those around me.
 
There is one...I don't have the web address at the moment..Anyway, it's quite sobering to go through the accidents. In addition to the usual weather and fuel accidents, there are a disproportional amount of low level aerobatics, buzzing, cfit and midairs( mostly formation and airshows).
 
First off, mods please let me know if this is offensive.


I did this as professionally and accurately as possible. I downloaded the .XML file after querying the NTSB database for all accidents that were homebuilt and matched "RV" in the model descriptor.

There have been 521 accident reports regarding RV aircraft, the earliest of which is recorded as 1978.

Of the 521 accident reports, 160 of them involved fatalities. (30%)

There have been 215 fatalities associated with the 521 accident reports.

There have been 96 serious injuries, 151 minor injuries, and 301 uninjured.


Taking the data from the last 5 years, I read through all the fatal accident reports and compiled a quick summary sentence of what happened. I then classified them based on several factors.

The table looks like this:

Table.jpg


Of the 56 fatal accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years....

Aero.jpg


WX.jpg


Collision.jpg


Stall.jpg




I love data. Is there anything else that anybody would like me to analyze and report on?

Also, this is not in any way an indictment of RV's. I'm in the middle of building one, and the statistics for RV's does not vary significantly for fatal accidents from certified aircraft. This is purely taking data that already exists and making it accessible.

Disclaimer: I am not at all licensed or authorized or anything to comment on these cases. My heart goes out to all the family and friends affected by these tragic losses. If anybody does not want this on the boards, please tell me and I'd be happy to take it down. I just thought that others might be interested in these statistics.
 
This is offered as fodder for discussion, not making an argument, but how will more/better accident data improve safety if our behavior does not change?

Frankly, we have been collecting accident data for 100 years, and it is pretty clear that flying is a discretionary act that happens to carry significantly higher risk to life than sitting on the couch behind locked doors. We all know this ? yet we willingly risk our lives to fly anyway. Dissecting or distilling this fact down to the core causes may make us more informed, but for the most part, it?s obvious we?re going to keep doing what we have been doing. We will continue to run out of fuel; stall on the base to final turn; fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground and have midair collisions. We will do this, because despite widespread cries for ?safety?, we all enjoy performing ?unsafe? acts. Aside from the basic (and significant) risk of flying little airplanes in the first place, we also like to dig ourselves deeper by flying formation; acro; low; IFR; cross country; night; etc? We need to face up to the fact that we willingly choose risk because that?s what we like.

I think we as a society forget that additional risk is balanced by additional responsibilities in the form of increased skill and sometimes even a little luck. Some of us are going to come up short in this equation- that's life, and always has been. The best data in the world is not going to change this fact.
 
I believe data and discussion on aircraft accidents is the key to preventing future incidents or accidents. I think we really need a RV accident database where you can easily view each accident and the conclusions.
I have learned a enormous amount on this website. Some if it has come from near accidents and actual accidents. Some of it has come from speculation about those accidents. Opinions on this forum tend to be well thought out. When someone posts ideas on why something occurs they may be incorrect in that instance however given the expertize on here they are correct in that it could occur. Such knowledge is invaluable in the aviation community.
That is why I don't understand all the angst when posting about a accident. We all need to learn from the mistakes of others so we don't repeat them. Learning from others can change behavior.
I will give just one quick simple example. Junior's the RV-3's off airport landing has changed my behavior on how I will be switching fuel tanks in the future. I often switched tanks at low altitudes coming back into the pattern. I now understand that I was using a very bad technique with serious consequences possible.
Discussion about safely and accidents is a good thing and needs to continue. There is not a single pilot on this forum who can't learn something from the mistakes, incidents and accidents of others.

George
 
Toobuilder said:
This is offered as fodder for discussion, not making an argument, but how will more/better accident data improve safety if our behavior does not change?

Frankly, we have been collecting accident data for 100 years, and it is pretty clear that flying is a discretionary act that happens to carry significantly higher risk to life than sitting on the couch behind locked doors. We all know this ? yet we willingly risk our lives to fly anyway. Dissecting or distilling this fact down to the core causes may make us more informed, but for the most part, it?s obvious we?re going to keep doing what we have been doing. We will continue to run out of fuel; stall on the base to final turn; fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground and have midair collisions. We will do this, because despite widespread cries for ?safety?, we all enjoy performing ?unsafe? acts. Aside from the basic (and significant) risk of flying little airplanes in the first place, we also like to dig ourselves deeper by flying formation; acro; low; IFR; cross country; night; etc? We need to face up to the fact that we willingly choose risk because that?s what we like.

I think we as a society forget that additional risk is balanced by additional responsibilities in the form of increased skill and sometimes even a little luck. Some of us are going to come up short in this equation- that's life, and always has been. The best data in the world is not going to change this fact.
Click to expand...

Well said, couldnt agree more.

I know this topic has been beaten to death on here...but this is my take.

We have become a society that tries and tries and tries (the new NTSB call for a ban on 'all' cell phone communications in a moving vehicle is a good example) to remove ALL risk from our lives. That, to have a society where no one dies a premature death is somehow a desirable thing. How boring would your existence be if there was absolutely no danger in it? I dont believe there is any pilot out there that doesnt enjoy that risk to some degree, whether it is a conscious or sub-conscious thought...I know I do. Dont get me wrong, I am never wreckless with my life or others in any endeavor...but I freely admit I do enjoy the danger of the task at hand. Otherwise you would choose a different hobby. That is part of what makes flying so alluring...at least to me.

All the while, "society" is trying to remove all risk...have you noticed how popular "extreme" sports are to the average citizen today? How many people were sky diving, bungee jumping, rock climbing, etc 30 yrs ago? Only very extreme personalities engaged in such things. Here in Colorado, almost everyone I know engages in such activities and they are just normal average people...not what I would consider "extreme" personalities. Why? Because, as human beings, I believe we need some risk to feel whole...we need to push things, push the envelope maybe just a little to feel alive. As everday life becomes more safe...people are turning to other avenues to interject danger to fill a void. And, is that a bad thing? I have never, ever gotten a "rush" from sitting on my couch watching tv...but, by gosh, I was safe from risk. Danger is ok, just use good judgement and responsibility as you pursue it.

anyway, just my 0.02....fly safe! :)
 
Daesharacor said:
First off, mods please let me know if this is offensive.

I did this as professionally and accurately as possible. I downloaded the .XML file after querying the NTSB database for all accidents that were homebuilt and matched "RV" in the model descriptor.

There have been 521 accident reports regarding RV aircraft, the earliest of which is recorded as 1978.

Of the 521 accident reports, 160 of them involved fatalities. (30%)

There have been 215 fatalities associated with the 521 accident reports.

There have been 96 serious injuries, 151 minor injuries, and 301 uninjured.

Taking the data from the last 5 years, I read through all the fatal accident reports and compiled a quick summary sentence of what happened. I then classified them based on several factors.

I love data. Is there anything else that anybody would like me to analyze and report on?

Also, this is not in any way an indictment of RV's. I'm in the middle of building one, and the statistics for RV's does not vary significantly for fatal accidents from certified aircraft. This is purely taking data that already exists and making it accessible.

Disclaimer: I am not at all licensed or authorized or anything to comment on these cases. My heart goes out to all the family and friends affected by these tragic losses. If anybody does not want this on the boards, please tell me and I'd be happy to take it down. I just thought that others might be interested in these statistics.
Click to expand...

Rob - thanks for doing this. Its very helpful to have access to objective data upon which to build discussion of this sensitive subject. In theory anyone can pull the raw data off the NTSB web site, but it takes considerable effort to compile a complete and accurate list. Ideally it would be nice if your full table could be posted somewhere publically available, perhaps here?:

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/
 
Toobuilder said:
This is offered as fodder for discussion, not making an argument, but how will more/better accident data improve safety if our behavior does not change?
Click to expand...

This seems like an important question. Part of the answer may be that safety is not a black vs. white issue. As a pilot I make decisions all the time about how much risk I'm willing to accept. Knowing the outcome of other people's decisions makes me better informed about the nature of those risks, and this knowledge might indeed lead to modification of my behavior. Certainly I'm glad to have the information.

Personally I'm skeptical of the view that accidents generally result from someone intentionally doing something stupid. It seems more likely that most accident pilots weren't fully aware the risks they were exposing themselves to, or what they could do to mitigate those risks. No doubt there are those who simply choose to ignore reality, but I doubt they represent the majority of accident pilots.
 
No problem Alan. I'd be happy to compile (and perhaps do a more complete job compiling) more data from the NTSB and make nice looking charts and graphs comparing whatever you like. Do you moderate that site or should I contact them directly?
 
sailvi767 said:
I believe data and discussion on aircraft accidents is the key to preventing future incidents or accidents...

...I will give just one quick simple example. Junior's the RV-3's off airport landing has changed my behavior on how I will be switching fuel tanks in the future...
Click to expand...

With all due respect, fuel valve issues are not new, nor are they unique to RV's... Many of us are extremely cautious about selecting tanks because of the hazard presented in the existing data... My CFI drilled this into my head long before the John Denver deal.
 
Alan Carroll said:
...Personally I'm skeptical of the view that accidents generally result from someone intentionally doing something stupid. It seems more likely that most accident pilots weren't fully aware the risks they were exposing themselves to, or what they could do to mitigate those risks....
Click to expand...

Perhaps... If that's the case, then we really need to stop telling the fairytale about the "drive to the airport being the most dangerous part" of flying... I know we tell that lie at parties, but some of us are starting to believe it.

No, I am more likely to believe that the guy doing low altitude acro or formation knows it is dangerous... I sure do.
 
Since someone here has already spent some time compiling I would love to see say # of accidents due to IFR, fuel loss, control failure, engine failure, etc.

Engine failure broken down further might help all of us to watch for specific things that happen once or often.

Same with controls, fuel, etc.

My original goal here was a discussion on how we can learn from the past and reduce our own risk into the future. Fact is most of us won't take the time to go over each and every accident report, but seeing a trend of accidents caused by a specific reason might make a few more people look twice or think twice the next time and save some future grief.
 
It's worth knowing more about the risks

This is a good and useful topic, in my opinion. My brief scanning of the early accidents of RV-3's indicated that many, if not most were due to the wing spar failing. This information obviously led to the re-engineering done to the RV-3B wing...a good thing

I personally won't own or ride a motorcycle because I think it's too dangerous! am I kidding myself to believe that my love of aviation is far less dangerous than riding a Harley on weekends? (I would love to see actual stats on this)

In the air I don't usually (over) worry about collisions with other planes once out of the 10 mile radius of the airport. Then, I like to fly at 10000' or higher to minimize the chance encounter with most spam cans, since few of them travel up high because it takes so long for them to get there.

I maintain my airplane myself and know what it's made of. That gives me some confidence I wouldn't have with a rented airplane. Recently I decided to stop doing my "low passes" because of what I read here just a few moths back on how we RV drivers are/can be perceived as hot doggers. The plane itself gives me all the thrills/enjoyment I need. I don't have to show off to others how awesome it handles and performs. It's beautiful on the ramp and I love the reactions I get when it's standing still, looking like it's asking to get back up in the air.

I do still like my overhead approach, but I believe that is a safe manouver when properly planned and executed. So, bring more information about what we should know about the danger involved in our sport, our hobby. It could save us from overlooking something important, or doing something to increase our risk which we really don't need to do to enjoy what we love.

Ron Patterson
RV-4 N8ZD
 
patterson said:
...I personally won't own or ride a motorcycle because I think it's too dangerous! am I kidding myself to believe that my love of aviation is far less dangerous than riding a Harley on weekends? (I would love to see actual stats on this)...
Click to expand...

IIRC, the statistical truth to the "airplanes are safer than cars" myth only applies to the scheduled airlines. When talking GA (spam cans), you are seven times more likely to be killed flying than driving - which incidentally is right even with motorcycles.

That said, given the choice between an E-AB and a Harley, you will live longer on the bike.


Anyway,

Compiling data to uncover some unknown root cause is valid and useful. My point however, is that we already have reams of data which points to irrefutable evidence that a given accident was due to a willful act, yet we ignore it and die anyway. In other words, the PIC gambled and lost with his eyes wide open. It?s my contention that there is no ?fixing? this because it is tied to the human spirit.

We know VFR into IMC usually results in loss of control within 40 seconds ? yet we do it anyway;

We know low altitude acro results in a substantially reduced (sometimes negative) margin ? yet we do it anyway;

We know that flying in formation serves no practical purpose and increases the risk of midair tremendously ? yet we do it anyway;

We know flying at night all but eliminates your landing options and complicates terrain and weather avoidance ? yet we do it anyway;

?and on and on?

In my opinion, even 100% accurate RV accident data would only confirm what we already know: Flying is dangerous, and some pilots like it that way.
 
Last edited:
Toobuilder said:
When talking GA (spam cans), you are seven times more likely to be killed flying than driving - which incidentally is right even with motorcycles.
Click to expand...

BUT, If I were to die in an airplane, it would likely be my fault. If I were to die on a bike, it would likely be someone else's fault.

I can control what I do, but can't control what they do...
I'm ahead of the game in the plane, and behind on the bike...
 
MauiLvrs said:
BUT, If I were to die in an airplane, it would likely be my fault. If I were to die on a bike, it would likely be someone else's fault.

I can control what I do, but can't control what they do...
I'm ahead of the game in the plane, and behind on the bike...
Click to expand...

That is my exact thought on motorcycles as well. Trail bike riding would be another story and lots of fun in my opinion. As far as airplane accidents go, there will always be someone dumb enough to try something they shouldn't and auger in.
 
MauiLvrs said:
BUT, If I were to die in an airplane, it would likely be my fault. If I were to die on a bike, it would likely be someone else's fault...
Click to expand...

Any way you slice it, dead is dead...

You may not notice what you just did there, but you are trying to rationalize "beating the odds" through your own sense of skill- the "other guy" syndome... We all do this to some extent, but we're not all as good as we think we are. ;)

The ones that aren?t end up in the NTSB database.
 
Last edited:
Daesharacor said:
No problem Alan. I'd be happy to compile (and perhaps do a more complete job compiling) more data from the NTSB and make nice looking charts and graphs comparing whatever you like. Do you moderate that site or should I contact them directly?
Click to expand...

I'm not part of the safety committee that made the web site, but but I think their contact info can be found on the site. They've been active participants in past safety discussions so probably they'll see this one.
 
Toobuilder said:
No, I am more likely to believe that the guy doing low altitude acro or formation knows it is dangerous... I sure do.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It also seems pretty clear that RV pilots tend to expose themselves to certain areas of risk that Skyhawk pilots would never consider. I doubt any of us take off with the intention of dying however, which leads me to believe that we may not be adequately informed about the relative magnitude of the risks and how to manage them.

If I'm reading Rob's charts correctly, stall/spin accidents are actually the biggest killer. It doesn't seem like these accidents can easily be blamed on bad pilot decisions. Low skill level maybe, but I believe two of these accidents occurred during instructional flights. Perhaps there is something to be learned here?
 
For those who are interested in improving their odds of flying safely, learning where other people went wrong can sometimes bring to our attention things that we were not consciously aware of. For me that has definitely been the case. So keep the information coming!

And, Michael, I agree with your numbers:

"IIRC, the statistical truth to the "airplanes are safer than cars" myth only applies to the scheduled airlines. When talking GA (spam cans), you are seven times more likely to be killed flying than driving - which incidentally is right even with motorcycles."
 
Last edited:
Alan Carroll said:
...I doubt any of us take off with the intention of dying however, which leads me to believe that we may not be adequately informed about the relative magnitude of the risks and how to manage them...
Click to expand...

If so, then we are simply not paying enough attention. This is like trying to sue the tobacco companies after a lifetime of smoking because "nobody told me it was dangerous".

Let's just clear the air here and now: Flying little airplanes is dangerous. :D
 
Nose Gear Related Accidents

Could this data be used to identify how many RV-A accidents have involved the nose gear? I have a 9A that was involved and was discussing it with a non-RV person. They asked how many RVs had this same "type" of accident and I could not answer him with any difinitive number.

Anyone have an idea of the number?
 
It is easy to rationalize that you can improve the numbers. I believe that mile for mile small planes have seven times the fatalities of cars, as Michael said. It is tempting to say that by being careful you can eliminate at least three quarters of the risk. This really doesn't change the ratio, however, because the person who is very careful with their flying will at the same time be more careful with their driving and there by improve their odds there as well.

Michael is right. No matter how you cut it, flying a small plane is going to be several times more dangerous than driving a car.
 
Close call database?

The NTSB report is just the very end of the accident chain. Has anyone used the aviation safety reporting system (NASA report) to file a report or analyze RV specific data? I was always taught that it was a "get out of jail free card" if you break a reg, but not something pilots actively do to report non-violation safety concerns. So maybe we need something tailored to our own safety concerns to catch those stories of life saving experience that would normally go untold, unread, or unanalyzed.

This forum would be a great place to experiment with starting a database for close calls in kitplane flight, maintenance, Phase 1 testing... sort of a formalized, searchable, analyzable report to add more utility to the "I almost died today, here's why" stories... or the "I found this in my annual, and it could have killed me" stories... which imho are some of the biggest assets of this forum.
 
Toobuilder said:
If so, then we are simply not paying enough attention. This is like trying to sue the tobacco companies after a lifetime of smoking because "nobody told me it was dangerous".

Let's just clear the air here and now: Flying little airplanes is dangerous. :D
Click to expand...

I am certainly not among those who would argue to the contrary. Risk is not an either/or proposition however; it varies continuously depending on a number of factors. None of us need to fly a homebuilt airplane at all; its purely an optional activity. Given that I've decided to do it I want to do what I can to manage risk vs. reward.

By the way here are some actual numbers on cars vs. airplanes, which back up your earlier post:

According to the Census Bureau there were 1.26 fatal accidents per 100 million miles driven in 2008. According to the Nall report there were 1.19 fatal accidents per 100,000 miles flown by fixed-wing non-commerical aircraft the same year. If you compare based on miles travelled and assume average speeds of 50 mph for cars and 150 mph for airplanes, airplanes had fatal accidents at a rate about 6.7 times that of cars.
 
According to the Census Bureau there were 1.26 fatal accidents per 100 million miles driven in 2008. According to the Nall report there were 1.19 fatal accidents per 100 said:
I consciously covenant with myself to not do a long list of risky flying behaviors every time I go up. I'm not as literal when I drive, but good, safe habits are ingrained and have resulted in no tickets or accidents in 30 years. I have less control over other drivers and believe I am much more at risk from them.
Given the vast majority of GA fatalities are lone-aircraft accidents it might be interesting to compare those statistics only with multiple-car accident fatalities; what I assume to be the majority on the auto side.
Click to expand...
 
Toobuilder said:
...................We know that flying in formation serves no practical purpose and increases the risk of midair tremendously ? yet we do it anyway; ............
Click to expand...

Michael, your overall point about pilot behavior is well taken, however, I am not sure that what may SEEM obvious or SOUNDS right is actually true. There are very few mid-air collisions in formation flight. In the Warbird arena, most of the collision accidents occur on the ground. I do not "KNOW" that formation flying increases the midair potential "tremendously".

Do you have published statistics to offer?

One practical purpose of formation flying is to improve one's stick and rudder skills, especially in the area of smoothness.

............Similar in some ways to practicing short field landings by ultra-high angle-of-attack approaches. ;)
 
Reasons for formation

Formation flying :

if a group of planes want to fly to the same destination at the same time from the same starting location I'd say a well briefed and standardized formation is far safer than those same airplanes flying randomly...

1. you have built in SAR capability
2. a formation of planes is easier for other planes to see than single ship
3. you have on-demand assistance with any technical issues
4. you have someone to talk to on a long cross-countries
5. you have people to share the cab/beer tab with at the destination
6. you can make awesome youtube videos
7. most important of all and the entire reason these aircraft exist - IT's FUN!

out
 
PCHunt said:
...There are very few mid-air collisions in formation flight. In the Warbird arena, most of the collision accidents occur on the ground. I do not "KNOW" that formation flying increases the midair potential "tremendously".

Do you have published statistics to offer?;...
Click to expand...

I "know" that if I want to avoid hitting other airplanes, the best way to do this is to stay away from them. Therefore, intentionally flying in close formation IS a tremendous risk increase compared to "normal" see and avoid techniques. As for statistics, didn't we just kill a trained member of an RV formation team within the last year?


PCHunt said:
...One practical purpose of formation flying is to improve one's stick and rudder skills, especially in the area of smoothness....
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that such activity sharpens your stick and rudder skills, but the same can be said for flying inverted under a freeway overpass... There are much less risky options for gaining those skills so don't use false logic to justify your actions... Sometimes "because it's fun" is plenty of justification. We should not let anyone tell us otherwise.

PCHunt said:
...Similar in some ways to practicing short field landings by ultra-high angle-of-attack approaches... ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is higher risk than a normal stabilized approach; just as a forward slip is higher risk... I never said otherwise.
 
Last edited:
RV8R999 said:
nope - best way is to stay home and knit a sweater
Click to expand...

Exactly my point - staying at home is certainly one way to stay away from other airplanes and therefore minimize risk.

But let's not kid ourselves - Flying formation requires skill, discipline and rapt attention to avoid a midair. This is why flying enroute in "loose contact" allows everyone to relax a little. Flying as a single ship requires even less skill, discipline and attention (as evidenced by allowing student pilots to share the air with us). Therefore:

Single ship = easy/lower risk;

Formation = more difficult/higher risk

Have we come to the point in this little forum world where we are so afraid of offering ?weak? justification for our actions that we make up ridiculous, but socially acceptable ones?

Formation is ?safer? than single ship ?see and avoid?? Come on!

What is wrong with simply accepting the fact that we?re all well informed adults, some more prone to risky behavior than others and leave it at that? After all, we are free to kill ourselves cleaning out our own gutters and topping our own trees without some ?acceptable? justification - why should our decisions about low flying, acro, or formation be any different?
 
As has been said elsewhere in this thread a number of accidents have occurred while low flying and any risk assessment of doing that must show less room for error. Low level aerobatics, power lines and misjudging terrain at speed are all increase risk down low as are the outcomes of stalls be they low speed, high speed or stick stalls leaving no room or time for recovery.

We are all human and tend to minimize or justify higher risk actions to satisfy our decision to do something risky whether that be low flying or convincing ourselves the weather will be OK. As most of us fly for a hobby/sport we probably take risks we would not take if it was just a job given we fly for fun.

I think one of the issues with RV's versus spam cans is that the RV is a quick, responsive joy to fly and the temptation to hot dog is far greater than trying to drag a no where near as responsive Cessna around. Having an RV I certainly quickly fell in love with it's performance and had to have a stern talk with myself to fly sensibly as I was taught.

The old saying that the runway behind you, the sky above and the fuel you left behind are useless to you is true and many of the accidents relate to one of those things.
 
Last edited:
Sports cars have higher accident stats than family sedans. Sport planes like RVs are going to have higher accident stats than your family hauler C182.

If all RVs were flown in day VFR conditions while on IFR flight plans and on short legs with tanks full, their safety stats would go up dramatically. People are going to do low level aerobatics, fly untrained/unequipped into IMC and do it for reasons that just baffle me. Just don't be the person that does it. If you tell yourself that you will never do low level aero, never fly into IMC (unless done properly), always have a good traffic scan, always carry lots of gas, etc. then you have a higher safety level then the stats predict.

If everybody took a second to think about what they are going to do, analyze the risk, then I bet some accidents would be prevented. The ground hurts a lot more than the 3000' mark on an altimeter. Granitis-rockus "clouds" hurt a lot more than telling your boss that your going to be late to work on Monday.
 
Many good points have been made. It boils down to the fact that we are each going to accept a level of risk that we are comfortable with.

The accidents/incidents I'm most concerned about are those that involve the design or building of an RV. We all learned a lot from the fuel valve handle problem and if neccessary will make fixes. We should all be concerned with problems that are easily fixable and make our flying safer and let each individual choose his/her own level of risk.
 
In the safety forum

Sunriver Ken said:
Could this data be used to identify how many RV-A accidents have involved the nose gear? I have a 9A that was involved and was discussing it with a non-RV person. They asked how many RVs had this same "type" of accident and I could not answer him with any difinitive number.

Anyone have an idea of the number?
Click to expand...

The data you are looking for is in this thread in Safety forum: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=78858&page=2
 
David Z said:
... If you tell yourself that you will never do low level aero, never fly into IMC (unless done properly), always have a good traffic scan, always carry lots of gas, etc. then you have a higher safety level then the stats predict.
....
Click to expand...
And that is why our safety risks are 90% better than average and it is safer to fly ...
Low level acro -> Nope
Runnin' on empty -> Nope (carry an hour reserve)
Mountain, airplane, cloud sandwich -> Nope

One time, at a party, one of our friends asked us if we could fly them to a wedding the Saturday after next...

Asked: Do you have to be there ???
Answer : .... YES..

Asked: Can you leave as early as Thursday and come back as late as Tuesday if we have to?
Answer: :eek: NO...

"Then you would need to drive..." Granite always wins...​

Thanksgiving timeshare in Tahoe...
Fly or drive?
Fly: 40 Min, Drive: 3 hours... each way Fly!
Fly: 6.5 gal, Drive: 15 gal... each way Fly!
Travel day up rain and snow: Loose day at resort. Granite hard... Drive!
Travel day back fog at home: Loose day at resort or buy two more... Drive!

Fly: Die flying into rocks with ice... Drive: Long drive with traffic or late drive with little traffic...
It isn't rocket science...
DRIVE!!!​

Our number one flying goal:
Don't become a report for others to learn from on the NTSB web site...
Maybe some of the folks have never heard of Murphy?
 
Last edited:
MauiLvrs said:
...Our number one flying goal:
Don't become a report for others to learn from on the NTSB web site...
Click to expand...

Interesting... This assumes that the overriding goal of undertaking a dangerous endeavor is "safety"... If safety was truly the driving force, one would avoid flying altogether. After all, nobody flies just to prove it can be done without death.

I think to be accurate, the true number one goal is "have fun", with "don't kill yourself" somewhere lower on the list... And there's the rub - "don't kill yourself" falls lower on some people's list than on others.

We are a risk seeking species, and "fun" continues to be a powerful motivator in the risk/reward equation, and if there is any doubt, check this out.
 
Believe it or not Michael, some people actually choose to work at making a risky activity as safe as can be so they can go home to their families at the end of the day. I mean, the RV-8 guy obviously didn't but many do. Shall we give up any notion of flying safely simply because flight in itself involves some risk? :rolleyes:
 
Yes Ryan, and I'm one of them. I'm also sure that most people doing low altitude acro are trying to do "low altitude acro" (or single engine IFR at night, or formation, or...) as safely as it can be done. The probelm is when somebody writes off the whole concept of "low altitude acro" as stupid simply because that activity does not rate high enough on their own risk/reward scale.

That video shows some activity that makes my skin crawl, but I sure don't think any of the people shown have a death wish. We simply can't always apply our values to other people. That's all.
 
Last edited:
None of us wake up in the morning thinking "I'm going to die in an aircraft today". Some just seem to try harder at it based on how they fly or make aeronautical decisions.
 
I used to really scratch my head when I encountered blind spots regarding people?s views and beliefs about risk, especially when the blind spots were demonstrated by people who themselves were risk takers. I could understand how someone who wasn?t a pilot, or a rock climber, or (insert your favorite risky avocation here) might look at those activities and say ?anyone who would do such a dangerous thing has to be irresponsible.? But I was always surprised when I heard a climber, whose activities were limited to wall climbing (even big walls!), question how someone engaging in alpine climbing (high altitudes, ice, inclement weather?i.e. much higher risk) could justify taking such an extreme risk. Mind you, the direct implication was NOT that alpine climbing was merely more of a risk than THEY were willing to accept, but that anyone who would accept such risk was ?going too far?.

For fun, the next time you encounter the behavior try pointing it out (respectfully) to the other person(s) and see what reaction you get. Occasionally someone will pause and look back with an ?ah-ha? kind of moment. In my experience, usually the reaction is more along the lines of ?I can?t believe that you don?t agree with me?!

Even now it can still hurt my head to see/hear such notions pursued with vigor. I just wish people could more readily accept that different folks have different risk tolerances, and that we don?t need to be critical of where others draw their lines to make us feel good about where we draw ours!

Michael, you are spot on with all of your posts in this thread. And people don?t fly (or climb, race, jump, et al) primarily for safety. Such an assertion is, on its face, rather incredulous! People engage in these kinds of activities because doing so gives them something they cannot get elsewhere. It makes them feel alive!! It is an adventure, and the desire for adventure runs deep inside human beings and drives us in ways that we may not always be consciously aware of. There is lots of interesting stuff about this in behavioral science literature, for anyone interested in learning more about WHY we do what we do.
 
Last edited:
WhiskeyMike said:
...
For fun, the next time you encounter the behavior try pointing it out (respectfully) to the other person(s) and see what reaction you get. Occasionally someone will pause and look back with an “ah-ha” kind of moment...
Click to expand...

Bill,

My "Ah-ha" moment was reading an article in one of the aviation magazines when the author (an accomplished ATP) was interviewing one of the aerobatic superstars. The author talked with "superstar" about the risk of low altitude acro - to which the superstar replied he was far more comfortable with it than shooting an ILS to minimums. "Ah-ha", we have different comfort zones...

While there are some accidents where we can all get behind and wonder WHY the pilot chose that course of action... Like penetrating a hurricane in a Tri Pacer, the outcome is almost certain. However, much of our collective hand wringing occurs on this forum as a result of much less certain outcomes, but is in fact a function of our own comfort level. We may wonder why the pilot crashes as a result of poorly executed low altitude acro, but do we ever stop to think that low altitude acro was the "mission objective" for that flight, and the pilot went into it with eyes wide open?
While databases are fine if you are looking for some unknown trend, much of the same accidents will continue to happen because they are deliberate acts - not the crash, of course, but reduced margin flying. Yes, we should make our activities as "safe" as possible, but I'm a realist and know that some of these deliberate activities would make my eyes water.

Let's not be so quick to compartmentalize and judge other pilots.
 
longranger said:
What are you driving that burns 10gph?:eek:
Click to expand...
Oops mixed round trip for one and each way for the other...
So it's about 5 gal hour...

Toobuilder said:
Interesting...
I think to be accurate, the true number one goal is "have fun", with "don't kill yourself" somewhere lower on the list..... .
Click to expand...

That was my first impression to, but decided to swap the order because we'd like to continue to have fun.

In most things it is really important to put safety first.

Flying and SCUBA diving are two of the things we do where safety comes first.
Driving too, but you have very little control over what other people do.
 
Last edited:
Fly to travel

I am new to the this board, but have been around flying most of my life in everything from and old piper 140, Kitfox, Glassair, 182, and Citation Ultra. None of them were my planes, but I did fly them from the left seat- except the Citation.

I am getting ready to start on a 9a. My reason to build and the reason I flew previously is to get from one place to another. I enjoy flying and the freedom it gives me to go where I want without the restrictions and BS you have to deal with when traveling commercial. When i travel for business, i go commercial or if I am lucky, I get the Citation. I have fixed times and dates I need to keep - something I can't guarantee with the 9a I am building. I am lucky, most of the time I can do my job wherever I am so a day early or late isn't a problem. Those are the times I would take the 9a.

An example - I am near the GWS airport in Colorado. We travel to Provo (PVU) quite often to visit kids - grandkids. It is a 5-6 hour drive of 350 miles. FLTPLAN.com has it at 209 nm. In the 9, that is about 90 min wheels up to wheels down. Same thing to Boise, Denver, SLC, or wherever.

I have no need for a thrill or any interest in plugging myself and wife into the ground. I know there is risk in everything and I do what I can to minimize that risk. I enjoy life and family too much to risk losing it in any way. My personal limits for flying include no night flying, no buzzing anyone, no bad weather flying, not running out of gas, and flying a plane I believe is the best it can be.

I don't really concern myself with others limits and what they feel are acceptable to them. It is their life and as long as they stay away from me while I am in the air - it is their business. I appreciate the accident data and other information on how and why the type of plane I am building and plan to put myself in when I go from 2 dimension to 3 dimension and back. Maybe I can learn something that will lower my risk and allow me to spend more time with my wife and family.

The one fact we all have to acknowledge is that when a homebuilt plane has an accident - no matter what the reason, it is the first thing about the accident that is in the news. All of us have to deal with the aftermath and possible changes in rules to "protect us from ourselves". The last thing we need is idiots in Washington trying to further regulate the experimental airplane community.

I just want a faster way to get from point A to point B, as safe as I can make it. Of course it is much more fun flying than driving most cars, but I had a Fiat one time that was pretty fun to drive! Be safe and have fun too.
 
One thing I would like to add on the posts on low altitude acrobatics. I don't see anything wrong with them as long as there is proper preparation and training. That statement however excludes low altitude acro that is not planned well in advance over a know area. Low altitude acro that is spur of the moment over terrain of varying or unknown altitudes without a spotter is a entirely different animal and seems from the accident reports to be where the problem can be found.

George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top