Nall Report

The 2009 NALL report is available from AOPA, either through their email newsletter or at the AOPA website. Amateur-built safety and accident statistics are not improving, they are getting worse. It's not RV specific but is worth reading as a reminder.

"In 2008, amateur-built aircraft had
27.29 accidents per 100,000 estimated flight hours,
almost five times the rate of type-certificated
aircraft, and their fatal accident rate of 7.00 was
more than seven times higher."

"The shares attributed to mechanical failures (22%) and unexplained
losses of engine power (12%) were noticeably
higher. Together they accounted for more
than one-third (34%) of all accidents in amateurbuilt
airplanes, almost double the 18% seen in the
fleet as a whole and two and a half times the 14%
share in the manufactured sector."

I haven't tried to analyse the numbers nor am I trying to say that RVs are more or less safe than other homebuilts. It's just information and a reminder especially in the general categories of engine and mechanical failures.

Increase in accidents involving amateur-built aircraft

This morning, I read a very troubling report in the AVweb news letter and I quote:
"The Nall Report, an annual analysis of general aviation accident data by AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, found an increase in accidents involving amateur-built aircraft. The statistics from 2008 showed more fatal accidents and fatalities than any year in the past decade, the report says. 'The 27 percent lethality rate in these accidents was 10 full percentage points higher than that for accidents in type-certificated airplanes' "
I think that I built my RV9 better than the Chinese are building the Cessna Sky Catcher , but it is still a troublesome finding.
I wonder if the type flying that many home builts do, i.e. formation flying, acrobatics, fly-ins with heavy traffic, etc, can explain these accidents or is it something that does involve how we put our planes together?

newbie question...

Does this comparison include heavy jets / airliners? If so, wouldn't they tend to skew the results given the rate they rack up hours? Would be interesting to see a comparison of only single engine prop craft (factory vs homebuilt). Or is that what this is?

Without regard to that, and more importantly, I agree it is the trend line that is unfavorable. Good reminder.

Another possible "skew" of the data may come from the fact that the FAA accident reporting system often includes Light-Sport category aircraft under experimental amateur-built.
I have discussed this with them and they promise to "do better" but it still happens too often. Usually it's because the local FSDO sends in the information this way.

Most Experimentals are "High Performance"

Cleve and Karl:
When I started building my RV, the first thing I did was join a local EAA chapter (#13). One of the things that surprised me at the time was the high percentage of builders (over 60 airplanes under construction in the chapter at that time) who had little or no flying experience. While the FAA may not consider many of the RVs and other experimentals to be "High Performance", I'd argue that speed and control response put them squarely in that category - even the RV9. Back in the good old days, it took a fair amount of money and flight time to move up to something that would cruise over 150kts. Most singles, unless they had near 300HP, weren't capable. Even light twins barely made those speeds. I remember getting one of my co-workers checked out in my CT210. Ex-military with high time in turbine copters and about 300 hours in fixed wing resulted in insurance requiring 25 hours. Same insurance carrier required my brother (ATP, 5000+ hrs) to log 20 hours.
My point is that most of us build, suspend our flying during the build, get a BFR and a few hour checkout, and then launch off in an airplane that flies over 3 miles per minute. Oh yeah, and the next training we'll get is more likely to come from a formation clinic than an instructor. In fact, unless we're pursuing a more advanced rating, any "practice" we do is just as likely to consist of repeating bad habits as reinforcing proper procedures. Is this dangerous? Perhaps that's what the stats are telling us. And we haven't even added aerobatics to the mix.
How do you keep yourself from becoming a statistic? My suggestion would be that after your transition training and within the first six months, get at least 2 or 3 more hours of training. Tell your instructor where you think you're weak, and focus on making that the strongest part of your flying. In another 6 months, do it again. And then again. Same thing with instruments. Flying with a safety pilot on a nice day is better than nothing. Better yet, find a good instrument instructor, pick a crappy day, and go flying. If it's mostly nice weather where you live, find a good simulator to train in. Fly safe.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

I would really like to see EAA do some research on this, particularly on how much an effect using an EAA Tech Counsellor and/or flight advisor has on safety.

Another area of interest is what kind of transition training non-builder owners are getting.

I wonder if the youtube effect has anything to do with the increase.