2009 Fatal RV Accidents

Every year I compile the data on Fatal Warbird accidents. I have over 20 years collected.

Today was the day. I went to the NTSB site and searched for fatal accidents. Normally that yields just over 300 reports. This year it was 258. There may be a few end of the year stragglers come in, but doubtful any are warbirds. It figures, flying was down, so were the accidents.

This year there were 6 fatal Warbird accidents that claimed 7 lives... The average over the last 20 years is about 10. Way too many!!!!

Last year for a presentation I did for the MN RVators I searched the RV fatals and found 10 accidents with 11 fatalities in 2008. For '09 I found 12 Fatal accidents claimed 18 lives in RVs this year....

This is not a good trend. The next logical question is, "What caused all these accidents?" I did not read all the reports. I don't know what lessons they hold but should some seek to learn those lessons, do it with this admonition.

Read accident reports looking for the things that you do, not looking for the things that you don't do.... Looking for the things that the accident victim did, that you do not, is a counter-productive exercise in rationalization.

John and Martha King talk about, "The Big Lie." Telling ourselves that flying is safe is a lie. It is not, it is dangerous, and we should approach it that way. Flying GA airplanes is about as dangerous as riding Motorcycles on the highway. And while I don't have exact numbers, flying RVs is more dangerous than that.

Don't take this as a suggestion that anyone stop flying, but simply as a push to acknowledge the risks honestly and act appropriately.

Fly Safe in '10
Doug Rozendaal

Thanks.

Well stated.

Thank for the info. I enjoy hearing this type of stat and trying to learn from others mistakes as I read through reports....so I dont become one. Those that dont ever make dumb mistakes are in denial. I just try to learn and always work at being a better pilot.

Cheers

I was just thinking today whether I should do the 2009 year in review for accidents. In recent years, the rate of fatalities per flying RV has been pretty consistent. I had 15 killed in '08, but I might've include Rockets; I can't recall.

I've got 17 this year. Not counting those who might have registered as something other than "RV".

http://tinyurl.com/ye8lm9f

Phil

Make that 18.... Bob Milne's accident wasn't included.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CEN09LA236&rpt=fa

Phil

As the number of flying RV's increase, its to be expected that the total number of RV accidents increases as well. Vans RV meter is over 6,500 right now, just a couple short years ago I think it was around 4,000.

G-force said:

As the number of flying RV's increase, its to be expected that the total number of RV accidents increases as well. Vans RV meter is over 6,500 right now, just a couple short years ago I think it was around 4,000.

Click to expand...

True enough, but that is 12 fatal accidents for 6500 airplanes. That is one fatal accident for every 541 airplanes. I am not a statistician, but my public school math says that if you flew for 5 years that would be a 1 in 100 chance of being in a fatal accident.

Does anybody think that is an acceptable statistic?

We all want to believe these are great little safe airplanes, and they are, but the statisitics show they are much more likely to crash than a spam can... What gives?

That is the hard question and requires an honest and uncomfortable converstation with the pilot in the mirror.....

B25Flyer said:

We all want to believe these are great little safe airplanes, and they are, but the statisitics show they are much more likely to crash than a spam can... What gives?

That is the hard question and requires an honest and uncomfortable converstation with the pilot in the mirror.....

Click to expand...

The honest and uncomfortable answer for RV's and other GA types is that the guy in the mirror is the driving force in most accidents. RV's are subject to the same weather related, random mechanical, and other issues as other GA types. However, the aircraft's performance, the type of pilot that attracts, and the type of flying it encourages lead to a higher accident rate.

Who hasn't seen an RV pilot do a low altitude roll on takeoff or after a buzz job? Dish the roll and die, that's how it works. Same thing with formation flying - it's a high risk activity and when you get it wrong, you're prone to die. We've had at least 3 formation related fatalities in the last few years.

Oftentimes, it ain't the airplane, it's the nut attached to the stick.

I once read somewhere that there are three main causes which account for 90% of accidents: Approach/departure stalls, fuel mismanagement, and continued VFR into instrument conditions. These accidents are very, very preventable. Eliminating the accidents that fall into these three categories from all fatal accidents, you take flying danger from being mid-way between car and motorcycle travel to way better than by car.

Two RV fatalities I'm familiar with from the past year fall into bucket #1. Both stalled on approach, one was off-field when the engine quit.

rocketbob said:

I once read somewhere that there are main causes which account for 90% of accidents: Approach/departure stalls, fuel mismanagement, and continued VFR into instrument conditions. These accidents are very, very preventable. Eliminating the accidents that fall into these three categories from all fatal accidents, you take flying danger from being mid-way between car and motorcycle travel to way better than by car.

Two RV fatalities I'm familiar with from the past year fall into bucket #1. Both stalled on approach, one was off-field when the engine quit.

Click to expand...

BOB! I like the new doo man!

rocketbob said:

I once read somewhere that there are main causes which account for 90% of accidents: Approach/departure stalls, fuel mismanagement, and continued VFR into instrument conditions. These accidents are very, very preventable. Eliminating the accidents that fall into these three categories from all fatal accidents, you take flying danger from being mid-way between car and motorcycle travel to way better than by car.

Two RV fatalities I'm familiar with from the past year fall into bucket #1. Both stalled on approach, one was off-field when the engine quit.

Click to expand...

Okay so what percentage were low-level aerobatics, buzz jobs or other blatantly "unauthorized" maneuvers?

I believe we could make flying EA as safe as cars. A good first step would be to knock off all of that nonsense way outside the regs. Then instead of spending resources cataloging and analyzing that repetitious bucket we can concentrate on stuff that requires a bit more gray matter, like making fuel and fuel systems more reliable.

Flying through Thunderstorms doesn't help either...

This RV-7A lost the tail-feathers in either turbulance or the Airsheen exceeded the VNE and they fluttered off:

The flight track then turns back northwestward and penetrates the area of thunderstorms. A witness stated that the clouds in the
vicinity of the crash site were overcast about 200 feet with light rain and distant thunder. Examination of the airplane revealed the
vertical stabilizer and rudders separated and were not located. Examination of a tail cone section revealed fracture surfaces on the
front and rear spar, and the rear doubler assembly exhibited slant-fracture features consistent with ductile overload due to exceeding
the design limits. There was no evidence of preexisting damage due to fatigue or corrosion.
Updated at Dec 15 2009 10:25AM

In Florida...T storm country. Even a fully aerobatic Aircraft can't fight a T Storm.

These reports are sad... and telling.

One thing I've noticed over the year and half I've been participating in VAF Forums is that an awful lot of encouragement for bad behavior happens here.

Specifically when someone shoots live video of them flying an RV-#, posts it on youtube and then posts the link on VAF. So we all click on the link and see a beautifully constructed RV-# flying on a beautiful day conducting low level (less than 200ft I'd say) aerobatics with another RV-# in trail shooting the film. Then we see other video of formations of RV's flying very low level over the countryside, rivers and lakes.

All the comments in the thread give the pilots tons of encouragement and atta-boys for having such a nice airplane and flying so WELL. Although I've never commented after watching, I wish I had. Then next one I see however will include a comment like this -

"Hey, you don't own that airspace and you have no right to endanger the public, or yourself for that matter, not to mention you jeopardize all of our rights to fly as freely as we do. So knock it off or something really diplomatic like that

Peer Policing can be a powerful force.

CDR Ken Kopp, USN

one fatality in florida......

delusional said:

Okay so what percentage were low-level aerobatics, buzz jobs or other blatantly "unauthorized" maneuvers?

i know of one fatality in florida in 09. low level buzz job over a group of people.

Click to expand...

RV8R999 said:

One thing I've noticed over the year and half I've been participating in VAF Forums is that an awful lot of encouragement for bad behavior happens here...

Click to expand...

Ken, I think your misgivings are valid. I remember remarking to another person on this site that I was afraid the videos were going to turn into a "watch this" deal that would encourage people do do stupid things. I don't know if that has really happened and I suspect people do get negative feedback, privately. I know I have gotten plenty of it when posting about perfectly legal things (and I think perfectly safe things).

Despite the concerns, I really enjoy some of the videos. I think of "Tree Top Flyer" in particular. No way I'm going to criticize that guy. He knows what he is doing, legal or not.

I'm expecting a lot of response to your post.

I finished my CFI renewal a couple of months ago and one of the topics in the course was the fact that "maneuvering" flying accounts for the highest (25%) of fatal GA accidents. Followed by descent/approach, weather, and takeoff/climb. A significant percentage of the fatal "maneuvering" accidents are identified as having these primary causes:

• buzzing (a whopping 1/3 of "maneuvering" accidents
• traffic pattern distractions
• inadvertent stall/spin
• lack of piloting skills

additionally, aerobatics, formation flying, canyon flying, and other "special operations" are identified as frequent factors. The report notes that a lack of training and proficiency in these operations is a common thread in these fatal accidents.

These numbers are from the Nall Report and I believe they are from 2006.

I watched a T-34 do some pretty spectacular buzzing after departing a fly-in breakfast a couple of days ago. I would guess that a couple of the pullouts were within 25 ft. of the ground and directly over people, airplanes and structures. I have no idea if the pilot was trained or proficient in these types of maneuvers, but I could not help but think about these statistics as I watched.

So, what does all this mean? Well, I think B25Flyer pretty much has it right. "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

T-shirt philosophy



John Clark ATP, CFI
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

I always enjoy your posts, Doug.

Ken: You're spot on.

I am with Ken on this one - we do tend to encourage unsafe behavior when we Ooh and Ahh over things that are actually illegal. I have posted a few aerobatic videos on YouTube - all shot at thousands of feet of altitude, usually above the clouds (that's how high!) because frankly, I have no training on low level aerobatics, and even if I did there are very specific conditions under which they can legally be performed.

When I see someone doing something spectacular in the airport traffic area, and the area is not currently under a low-level air show waiver, my reaction is usually negative, even when everyone else is amazed. I am impressed by good judgment, not by spectacle. I have spent too long on the cutting edge of aerospace, and watched people cross over that line, never to return - more often than I want to remember. My profession is one of making the most exciting thing in the world as boring as possible. That might disappoint some folks, but it keeps others alive.

As to last year's statistics, thanks for bring it up Doug! It made me take a half hour and go look up the NTSB site myself. I searched the 2009 database for "RV", and got 49 hits, and the 17 fatalities you mentioned. (Bob Milne's accident was in 2008 Phil - time does fly....). I built a quick spreadsheet with the data, and read the findings or preliminary reports (whichever was present) to get a feel for the cause of the accidents. Of the thirteen fatal accidents, I'd put them in the following bins:

VFR in IFR conditions - 3
Loss of Control on takeoff - 2
Los of Control on Landing - 1
Low Level Aerobatics - 2
Low Level Stall - 4
Formation gone wrong - 1

We can argue over a few of the buckets, but it's only a crude parsing - it's not intended to be complete and comprehensive. The best thing we can do is to ignite everyone's curiosity enough to go look them up themselves, and take the hour necessary to read the reports. Make your own comparisons to operations you are familiar with. And don't be deluded - accidents happen to folks with tens of thousands of hours as well as those with only a few.

I'd sure like to bury less friends each year rather than more.

Paul

Red Neck Flying

Ironflight said:

I'd sure like to bury less friends each year rather than more.

Paul

Click to expand...

I'm with Iron on this one. The famous Red Neck Quote "Hey ya'll watch this" is an easy trap to fall into when you're flying a hot rod like an RV.

If you're going to do aerobatics or formation, get the proper training. Become a professional, not a statistic.

-------Oh yeah; Rocket Bob, I like your other avitar better.------

Ironflight said:

I am with Ken on this one - we do tend to encourage unsafe behavior when we Ooh and Ahh over things that are actually illegal. I have posted a few aerobatic videos on YouTube - all shot at thousands of feet of altitude, usually above the clouds (that's how high!) because frankly, I have no training on low level aerobatics, and even if I did there are very specific conditions under which they can legally be performed.

When I see someone doing something spectacular in the airport traffic area, and the area is not currently under a low-level air show waiver, my reaction is usually negative, even when everyone else is amazed. I am impressed by good judgment, not by spectacle. I have spent too long on the cutting edge of aerospace, and watched people cross over that line, never to return - more often than I want to remember. My profession is one of making the most exciting thing in the world as boring as possible. That might disappoint some folks, but it keeps others alive.

As to last year's statistics, thanks for bring it up Doug! It made me take a half hour and go look up the NTSB site myself. I searched the 2009 database for "RV", and got 49 hits, and the 17 fatalities you mentioned. (Bob Milne's accident was in 2008 Phil - time does fly....). I built a quick spreadsheet with the data, and read the findings or preliminary reports (whichever was present) to get a feel for the cause of the accidents. Of the thirteen fatal accidents, I'd put them in the following bins:

VFR in IFR conditions - 3
Loss of Control on takeoff - 2
Los of Control on Landing - 1
Low Level Aerobatics - 2
Low Level Stall - 4
Formation gone wrong - 1

We can argue over a few of the buckets, but it's only a crude parsing - it's not intended to be complete and comprehensive. The best thing we can do is to ignite everyone's curiosity enough to go look them up themselves, and take the hour necessary to read the reports. Make your own comparisons to operations you are familiar with. And don't be deluded - accidents happen to folks with tens of thousands of hours as well as those with only a few.

I'd sure like to bury less friends each year rather than more.

Paul

Click to expand...

Interesting there are no 10's on anyones's list. Different mission? Different personal needs? Different safety concerns? Most likely fewer people in the aircraft. They are certainly fast enough and vulnerable enough to fall into any of the above categories.

Dan Lloyd...

...is one RV-10 fatality.

Sometimes you just have to say no. My wife wanted to fly to the coast last week, to visit an old high school friend, 130 miles from here, in S.C. I said no, the weather's lousy and she didn't quite understand because it was CAVU here at home. I was pressured because.."She's only gonna be here another two days before she goes back to Maine"...or wherever.

Don't get suckered into a situation you shouldn't be in.

Nevertheless, I stood my ground and we left the next day because I deemed the entire trip, there and back, doable, VFR. It was barely VFR the last 30 miles and a turnaround to better weather was always my call and she accepts that.

Sometimes, just say no.

Best,

Ironflight said:

I searched the 2009 database for "RV", and got 49 hits, and the 17 fatalities you mentioned. (Bob Milne's accident was in 2008 Phil - time does fly....)

Click to expand...

Hey Paul,

I thought about this earlier this morning. Actually Bob's accident occurred in April of 2009, but it didn't register as a fatality in the NTSB databases. It's listed as a non-fatal because he died some days later in Memorial hospital.

In my mind, that makes it a fatality.

That's the reason it's not showing up under the fatal accidents.

Phil

Phil said:

That's the reason it's not showing up under the fatal accidents.

Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder how many non-fatal accidents eventually turned out being fatal and aren't reflected in our numbers.

I'd almost consider 'serious' as a fatality too. All of the people I know who have had accidents with a serious injury will never experience a quality of life I'd like to experience. Their flying careers are over, blindness, severe burns.... I'm not sure that's worth living for.

One accident in that database involved an RV that crashed for undetermined reasons. Witnesses had differing reports, none that agreed. In the end, the NTSB simply doesn't know what went wrong.

Both the pilot and the passenger had "autopsy evidence of coronary artery disease and a previous heart attack, though it is possible that either or both were not aware of their heart disease." It may have been medical incapacitation of the pilot that caused the crash, but nobody will ever know.

Both pilots were very careful and were not the buzz-job types.

One bucked most of my rivets in Smokey. I choose to believe that medical incapacitation was the underlying cause of the accident.

There are times we just don't know what happened ...

One of the reasons we don't learn more from individual RV accidents is because we don't know HOW to talk about individual RV accidents.

pierre smith said:

...is one RV-10 fatality.

Click to expand...

Pierre there were no fatal RV-10 crashes in 2009. I believe the last fatal RV-10 crash was almost two years ago on 4/7/08. There was a six month stretch there back in late 2007 early 2008 when we had three fatal RV-10 crashes. Dan's accident was 11/2/07.

Bob Collins said:

One of the reasons we don't learn more from individual RV accidents is because we don't know HOW to talk about individual RV accidents.

Click to expand...

I think we can blame that on our P.C./soft society. In the world we live in, no one is willing to accept blame and those who try to call it like it is are persecuted.

Now days you can't come right out and say on the internet, "That guy was absolutely stupid because of 1.XXX 2.XXX and 3.XXX." Those conversations occur face 2 face in a hangar.

If you do, then folks say you shouldn't be so judgmental. They say that family members are reading posts and we can't let their family know they were missing a few marbles at the time of the accident.

In Bob's case, he made a stupid decision. I knew Bob, well. He'd tell you in a heartbeat that he screwed up. Originally his brother came on VAF and said we had it wrong and the Bob would never do anything stupid. After learning more about the accident he came back and humbly admitted that Bob screwed up. That doesn't happen very often and I have much more respect for them for admitting it and then using his accident to make sure other pilots understand the impact of their decisions. It's rare for a family to accept blame.

It's easier to talk about the group of accidents as a whole and not call any individual stupid. I think that's where you were headed.

Phil said:

Actually Bob's accident occurred in April of 2009, but it didn't register as a fatality in the NTSB databases.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct Phil - I was focusing on the ones labeled "Fatal", and didn't read the others, and somehow, I thought it was the end of '08...tme gets ll jumbled up when life gets busy!

And it IS definitely misleading when they don't call it fatal if the person lives beyond a certain time, then passes away later from the injuries.

Paul

I didn't read the posts so this point may have already been made.

There is less warbirds every year but more RV every year so looking only at death is misleading. Death/flying airplane or even better death/flying hours would be a better metric.

It's been mentioned in passing earlier in the thread, but just to highlight it again, don't focus on the straight number of accidents. The number of RV's flying every year is increasing, so it's not unsurprising that the number of accidents also increases. One would hope that the rate of increase in number of completions is increasing faster than the rate of increase of number of accidents, but that's probably not the case.

Also, comparing to motorcycling on a highway may not be a fair comparison... Some motorcycle accidents are caused by the nut that connects the seat to the handlebars, sure. But the vast majority are still caused by inattentive drivers of cars, at no fault of the motorcycle involved. I don't think that can be said for the majority of RV accidents.

My objective was to generate discussion about safety. And I am all for people taking the time to go look in the database for themselves, but like the judge says to the jury, heed the admonition... Read them looking for the things we do, not the things we don't do.

Lets look at Paul's buckets:
VFR in IFR conditions - 3
Loss of Control on takeoff - 2
Los of Control on Landing - 1
Low Level Aerobatics - 2
Low Level Stall - 4
Formation gone wrong - 1

Everyone who flies has done one of these activites, many of us have done all of them in the past year.
Answer these questions honestly:
Have I flown into deteriorating weather?
Have I made 1 take-off in the preceeding 12 months where I was at the limit of my ability and had a gust hit me, I might have lost it?
Same question on landing except add a tire failed?
Have I done ANY Acro below 1500 feet not associated with a waiver?
Have I gotten slow even once in the base to final turn where wake turbulence might have induced a stall?
Have I flown formation once where something caused me to take quick evasive action?

If the answer just one of these questions was yes, then we're in "There but for the grace of God go I" category. I don't mean by this to imply that we all have to quit flying, but what I do mean is that we all need to acknowledge that we participate in exactly the same activities that killed our buddies. That means we have to honestly look at our own skill and abilities.

The rub is, none of these guys intended to crash. All of them thought they were capable of doing the thing that killed them. So then, again, we have to go back and look at ourselves in the mirror and ask, "Am I as good as I think I am?" I am an instructor, DPE, FAR 135 checkpilot, & CAF fighter checkpilot. I fly with lots of pilots, from airline captains to private applicants, and I can say with very strong certainty, that very few pilots are as good as we thing we are. (I am looking in the mirror too.)

All this is fine and good, but that the real question is, "So what can I do about that?" First off. Increase your margins, here are some sample examples:

If you think a 1000 ft or 3 miles is good enough for VFR X/C don't go unless it is 1500 ft or 5 miles.

If you think you can handle a 20 kt X-wind, use 15 as a limit.

If 1500 ft is your base for acro, use 2500.

If 60 kts is your min speed on base, use 70 kts.

And If you normally fly formation with anyone who comes along, commit to fly only with people you know and trust.

The second thing is, try to take annual training from the best pilots that you know. Embark on a quest of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in your flying. Get new ratings, fly with instructors. because I fly with so many pilots, not only do I get to fly with some who are not as good as they think they are, I get to fly with some that are so good they make me want to hang up my headset.... Flying with really good pilots does 2 things, it makes me better, but more importantly, it makes me realize how much better I could/should be.

Business managers know that CQI is a journey and not a destination and we all must make a personal commitment to that in our flying. It is tough, but it is rewarding too, and hopefully it keeps us alive to keep flying.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Paul Thomas said:

I didn't read the posts so this point may have already been made.

There is less warbirds every year but more RV every year so looking only at death is misleading. Death/flying airplane or even better death/flying hours would be a better metric.

Click to expand...

Actually the number of flying warbirds continues to increase. And please do not compare RV flying to Warbird flying. Warbirds are much more dangerous. We have exactly the same problems in the Warbird world, they are just much worse.

Accidents per flying hour is really tough because no one is keeping score. But really we are not there yet, unless you believe our current accident rate is acceptable. It is not.

The point is, that our accident rate is WAY TOO HIGH. For now, let's just agree on that and focus on lowering it.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Just wanted to thank Doug for putting this together. Great perspective for RV pilots and pilots in general.

Aerobatic RV's

Some posts have noted the low rate of RV-10 accidents. Perhaps I didn't see all the reports, but I only found one instance of an RV-9 accident (non-fatal), and that seemed to be an Eggenfellner powerplant failure. Perhaps non-aerobatic RV's are somewhat less likely to be flown in manner that results in these sorts of accidents. Of course, it could also be that there are fewer RV-9's and RV-10's flying.

AFR

try to take annual training from the best pilots that you know. Embark on a quest of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in your flying. Get new ratings, fly with instructors. because I fly with so many pilots, not only do I get to fly with some who are not as good as they think they are, I get to fly with some that are so good they make me want to hang up my headset.... Flying with really good pilots does 2 things, it makes me better, but more importantly, it makes me realize how much better I could/should be. Doug Rozendall

I wanted to highlight what Doug wrote about getting more training and consistently trying to learn to be a better, more skillful pilot. I have set my Bi-Annual requirements to Annual Flight Review. I do this with a pilot that I believe to be one of the best flying today, and I ask him to put me through all the requirements for BFR and more.

Reminds me...it's time for my AFR in April. Better get ready.

Ron
RV-4

patterson said:

try to take annual training from the best pilots that you know. Embark on a quest of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in your flying. Get new ratings, fly with instructors. because I fly with so many pilots, not only do I get to fly with some who are not as good as they think they are, I get to fly with some that are so good they make me want to hang up my headset.... Flying with really good pilots does 2 things, it makes me better, but more importantly, it makes me realize how much better I could/should be. Doug Rozendall


Reminds me...it's time for my AFR in April. Better get ready.

Ron
RV-4

Click to expand...

As I was reading Ron's post another thing hit me. When flying with pilots that are really good, they always try to pick my brain to figure out what they can learn from me.

An example is Warren Pietsch, an Airshow pilot from Minot ND. Warren is my ACE which means he issued and renews my low-level aerobatic card. Warren is more comfortable in an airplane upside down clipping a ribbon at 10 feet than I am in a steep turn at 1500. He wears an airplane but when ever we fly together, he is always asking me questions and trying to learn....

Another is Matt Younkin. Matt flies so much better than I could ever dream and yet he is always calling asking me about this, that or the other thing because he want to know and learn everything he can about everything he flies....

Ya suppose that is how they got that good? Duh....

Tailwinds,
Doug

Most accidents I've read about...

Most accidents I've read about actually start hours, days, or months and years before the actual incident. Often the pilot is doing something stupid, careless, or thoughtless. Even the RV accidents related to fuel problems in the first few hours: clearly something built wrong.

My first flight is still 2 or 3 years from now, but there is much that can be done to make it safer now. Likewise my current flying can be safer now with a proper attitude and approach to not just flying, but life in general.

Motorcycles and small aircraft may have about the same accident rate, but with airplanes we control much more of the situations than motorcyclists, who have to contend with clueless auto drivers. So, let's use that control we have!

How about an Oshkosh forum?

After flying RV's for 12 years now and staying alive doing it, those statistics were alarming. I wish someone with the knowledge and ability would carefully dissect a few of these accidents and incorporate them into an Airventure forum on RV Safety.

Steve Ciha

That is a good idea.

steveciha said:

After flying RV's for 12 years now and staying alive doing it, those statistics were alarming. I wish someone with the knowledge and ability would carefully dissect a few of these accidents and incorporate them into an Airventure forum on RV Safety.

Steve Ciha

Click to expand...

Perhaps this was already mentioned, but how do these compare to general GA stats? Is there anything specific to RV's that show a common repeating problem?
If we are talking VFR flight into IMC, that is not really any different than any other airplane, but if there is something like a higher percentage of base to final stalls or other data, that could be really usefull in trying to understand, and then train for.

If we are just on the norm with other GA accident numbers and type, the RV is no longer unique.

The sobering part of all of this is we are human animals. Even if we know what might kill us, train to keep away from it, we still can fail. I watched a video called "Flying the P-38 by Jeff Ethel" in which he forewarns the viewer of the "widowmaker" fuel management system of that airplane. The next year he died in a P-38 in Tillamook Oregon caused by a fuel management issue. Very sad. One of the most experienced War Bird pilots of our time, but still, just human, like you and me.

One of the things about the NTSB reports that bug me is they're not consistent in what they report. Some investigators will indicate total time in type, some won't. That's too bad because that would be very helpful information.

Richard Collins did a study a few years ago that show most accidents occur in the first hours of a pilot in type. A Cirrus group just released a study, on the other hand, that showed most of the accidents in the Cirrus are with pilots who had a comparatively high number of hours, even in type.

It would be helpful to have the information to analyze whether the mistakes we're making are as a result of unfamiliarity, stupidity, or complacency.

steveciha said:

After flying RV's for 12 years now and staying alive doing it, those statistics were alarming. I wish someone with the knowledge and ability would carefully dissect a few of these accidents and incorporate them into an Airventure forum on RV Safety.

Steve Ciha

Click to expand...

Doug Rozendaal:

You have been know to put on talks about safety to EAA chapters, can you find the time in your busy Warbird Schedule to put on an RV Safety Forum for us at AirVenture?

I like Steve have 12-years flying my RV. I have at least 14-RV friends that have had fatal accidents. IMHO, one accident is one to many.

Are there any common RV related traits?

RV6_flyer said:

Doug Rozendaal:

You have been know to put on talks about safety to EAA chapters, can you find the time in your busy Warbird Schedule to put on an RV Safety Forum for us at AirVenture?

I like Steve have 12-years flying my RV. I have at least 14-RV friends that have had fatal accidents. IMHO, one accident is one to many.

Click to expand...

If we cant find any common problems that separate our machines from the GA population, it will just be another safety seminar, not that that would be a bad thing.

Wow, Gary, that is a sobering statistic! Way too many friends to lose, let alone in RV's. In all that experience, does any one thing tie them together?

JonJay said:

Wow, Gary, that is a sobering statistic! Way too many friends to lose, let alone in RV's. In all that experience, does any one thing tie them together?

Click to expand...

If I may, Jon, I will share my answer to that...

Several things, but the most important are:
They were flying RVs.
They did not intend to kill themselves.
They believed they were capable of accomplishing what ever they did that killed them.

I know because I too have lost way too many friends in airplanes. That is why I beat the drum here and in the Warbird and Airshow communities.

Tailwinds,
Doug

Some time ago I started a thread about creating an RV safety course. Cover the major accident causal factors.

Some people are Darwinistic (Refer to one notable RV-10 pilot) and are destined to die flying. But if you get the majority of trainable pilots to learn to say no to flying when it is bad, avoid get there-itis, don't hesitate to cancel a trip, accept a delay, do a 180 and land, know the basics...then the accident rate should be easily reduced by 50% or more.

But there was no support for such a course.

So I do what I have to do to ensure that I won't be in an NTSB report.

Thats the same list....

B25Flyer said:

If I may, Jon, I will share my answer to that...

Several things, but the most important are:
They were flying RVs.
They did not intend to kill themselves.
They believed they were capable of accomplishing what ever they did that killed them.

I know because I too have lost way too many friends in airplanes. That is why I beat the drum here and in the Warbird and Airshow communities.

Tailwinds,
Doug

Click to expand...

I appreciate it very much Doug and the drum does not get beat often enough. But substitute RV, or Warbird, with Airplane in your list and you have the same list as with any airplane.
It would be great to know if there is anything specific to the type, an RV, that keeps popping up.
I am glad you beat the drum and like Gary said, one accident is too many. But if we can not find any common causes, common to the RV specifically, then RV specific safety training is no different than what is currently available through the EAA, AOPA, and other resources.
One thing might be different, even if there are no commonalities. If you advertise an RV Safety forum, you will get a lot of interest and attendance from the RV community. That would be a good thing regardless. Let's keep pushing Steve's idea.

Have?

RV6_flyer said:

I have at least 14-RV friends that have had fatal accidents.

Click to expand...

"Had", right? Sorry. I'm not trying to joke about a serious topic, but 14--wow. I sure hope you know lots and lots of RV'ers. Or maybe we simply shouldn't be your friend?

I've read the posts in this thread and find them interesting. For instance, the idea of flying with and learning from more experienced pilots. My take on this is that the act of flying with the more experienced pilot does little to reduce the less experienced pilot's chance of an accident. Rather, it is the attitude displayed that is the key, that is, the humility to keep learning, the humbleness to know that one does not know. Kinda zen, maybe.

I also like Robert Nuckolls' take on some incidents. What might seem like an unavoidable equipment failure in fact can be turned from life-threatening to annoying incident by first, knowing and understanding your systems, and second, by designing the systems (in Bob realm, electrical systems) so they cannot cause a crisis.

Ultimately it's probably the same old line: the ones reading this thread aren't the ones that need to change their ways to reduce their chance of an accident.

Assuming no problem with AOPA, they have enough online courses to provide a basis for a safety program. Have people complete those, then have a forum where the main issues can be discussed.

In reality, my view is that the main issue is judgment. Know when to say no.

Beaucoup cases to show that, such as the plane that took off from the LOE fly in into a thunderstorm cell. Two fatalities that were 100% avoidable.

Ron Lee said:

...Beaucoup cases to show that, such as the plane that took off from the LOE fly in into a thunderstorm cell. Two fatalities that were 100% avoidable.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, for those that are not familiar with this accident. The airplane referred to was a factory airplane.

Good clarification Larry. The point was that the aircraft was not the problem and that may be the case most of the time. It is the pilot. Poor judgment and probably get home-itis