Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Basic analysis of NTSB data regarding RV's
- Thread starter papalima
- Start date
Thanks for sharing! I took the liberty of adding percent of model versus overall fleet and percent accidents that are fatal. Also took the accident and fatal percent out one decimal place. I think it's legitimate.
Couple of things I noticed. The -9 has a low percent fatal when in an accident. (No "acro"?) Difference between -7 & -8, and the -7 & -6, percent accidents fatal.
Last edited:
I did a similar search a while back to try to get an idea of what types of mechanical things caused fatal accidents. I looked at all fatal RV accidents with a probable cause listed over the last decade, and found that in almost every case of a fatal engine failure, there was a distinct human mistake involved; ie fuel mismanagement, taking off with known engine problems, or a grossly incorrect installation. Even then, there was often a subsequent, avoidable loss of control. I basically wanted to get an idea of what mechanical issues could kill me, and make sure I address them as much as possible. It was admittedly a little reassuring to see how rare it is that one just falls out of the sky with no warning, and a good reminder that practicing emergency scenarios is hugely important.
Chris
Chris
Probably worth noting that there's a different numeric base for the Vans record, which are world-wide completed aircraft, vs. the NTSB numbers, which represent USA incidents. So the math is not apples/apples.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
Something that most EAA Tech Counselors pay very close attention to is fuel system...fuel system...fuel system. If the fuel system is assembled per proven design and with good construction practices the chance of an off-airport mechanical accident goes waaay down.
Did I mention you should make sure your fuel system is well constructed?
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Something that most EAA Tech Counselors pay very close attention to is fuel system...fuel system...fuel system. If the fuel system is assembled per proven design and with good construction practices the chance of an off-airport mechanical accident goes waaay down.
Did I mention you should make sure your fuel system is well constructed?
I focus on the fuel system, the engine installation, and the control system.
Barring any horrible structural problems, those three systems will bring you home.
ChiefPilot
Well Known Member
Hi,
I did a very basic analysis of the NTSB database regarding RV airplanes related to the completed RV's.
Note:
This is only a very basic analysis: completed / total accidents / fatal accidents
Not sure this means anything - there are lots of holes in the data. A more meaningful number would be incidents or accidents per 100,000 flight hours but that information will more difficult to come by.
DanBaier
Well Known Member
I don't know how to approach this, but I think it's important to separate accidents in Phase I (and maybe even first flight & first ten hours) vs total. From what I understand of the accident stats, the risks in the first few hours probably skew the overall averages.
Dan
Dan
N941WR
Legacy Member
Pages 3-5 from the recent advisory circular outlining the additional pilot program for phase one testing has some useful data points, as well - with numbers covering all EAB aircraft makes/models, though.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-116.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-116.pdf
As a small step towards normalizing the data to include flight hours, perhaps an estimate would be to normalize it based on years since model was introduced?
Of course everyone flies their airplanes at different rates (hours/year) but on average it would probably skew the data closer to the accidents/flight hour number.
Of course everyone flies their airplanes at different rates (hours/year) but on average it would probably skew the data closer to the accidents/flight hour number.
Thought about that as well. Converting each model to a standardized basis of years since introduced would help the time in service bias.
But the percent of accidents that result in fatal events stands alone and is legitimate indicator, regardless of time in service. Whether or not non-fatal events were reported as consistently 20, 30 years ago may be a factor.
aarvig
Well Known Member
I understand the thinking here but I would argue that every plane flying in this data group is subject to a 40 hour fly-off therefore that initial time is definitely relevant to the data regardless of how it skews it. Just my two cents.
"Probably worth noting that there's a different numeric base for the Vans record, which are world-wide completed aircraft, vs. the NTSB numbers, which represent USA incidents. So the math is not apples/apples."
My thought as well ... but then the percentages get WORST for US numbers, since the number of aircraft built IN THE US is lower. If instead of 283 RV-3's, you go with say 250 (with 33 of them elsewhere in the world), then the percentages go up on some already pretty bad numbers.
I don't care how long ago the plane came out, I doubt you'll find that 10, 11 or 16% of all C172's or PA28's in the US have had an accident! (The RV-3 was introduced after both those lines of aircraft).
So there's something to these numbers ... Doesn't necessarily mean it's the aircraft design itself mind you ...
As for when the accident occur sin the life of the A/C, I believe it was a retired guy from the Canadian TSB that told us the same thing ... in their studies, accidents very early in the life of the A/C skewed the numbers, and those accidents were mostly human error, thought to be mostly correlated with the fact that the pilots had not flown enough while building ...
My thought as well ... but then the percentages get WORST for US numbers, since the number of aircraft built IN THE US is lower. If instead of 283 RV-3's, you go with say 250 (with 33 of them elsewhere in the world), then the percentages go up on some already pretty bad numbers.
I don't care how long ago the plane came out, I doubt you'll find that 10, 11 or 16% of all C172's or PA28's in the US have had an accident! (The RV-3 was introduced after both those lines of aircraft).
So there's something to these numbers ... Doesn't necessarily mean it's the aircraft design itself mind you ...
As for when the accident occur sin the life of the A/C, I believe it was a retired guy from the Canadian TSB that told us the same thing ... in their studies, accidents very early in the life of the A/C skewed the numbers, and those accidents were mostly human error, thought to be mostly correlated with the fact that the pilots had not flown enough while building ...
AlexPeterson
Well Known Member
just a data point:
I did a very cursory search, and found this on AOPA's site, first paragraph copied here:
"The world's most popular airplane, not surprisingly, has a great safety record. Safety and simplicity sell. In its latest safety review, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation looked at all the Cessna 172 accidents that occurred from 1982 through 1988 ? more than 1,600 of them. With 24,130 Skyhawks in the fleet, that's a good record, but it is sobering to think that every year about 237 Skyhawks are involved in reportable accidents ? that's more than four per week. Happily, most of the accidents result in little or no injury to the occupants."
So, in a 6 year period, about 6.6% of the fleet of 172's had an accident. The low injury rate is noteworthy. Extrapolate the time frame to 20 years, and about 20% will be involved.
If a fleet flies long enough, they will all be crashed.
I did a very cursory search, and found this on AOPA's site, first paragraph copied here:
"The world's most popular airplane, not surprisingly, has a great safety record. Safety and simplicity sell. In its latest safety review, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation looked at all the Cessna 172 accidents that occurred from 1982 through 1988 ? more than 1,600 of them. With 24,130 Skyhawks in the fleet, that's a good record, but it is sobering to think that every year about 237 Skyhawks are involved in reportable accidents ? that's more than four per week. Happily, most of the accidents result in little or no injury to the occupants."
So, in a 6 year period, about 6.6% of the fleet of 172's had an accident. The low injury rate is noteworthy. Extrapolate the time frame to 20 years, and about 20% will be involved.
If a fleet flies long enough, they will all be crashed.
Less Scientific
I speculate that small cockpitts have less crush space available or deceleration time for seatbelts to work and that they have much less wiggle room if placed upside down in soil, grass and trees and water. The 3 and 4 don't have much wiggle room if things go south.
Larger cockpitts like the C-172 chickenhawk provide more of both.
I speculate that small cockpitts have less crush space available or deceleration time for seatbelts to work and that they have much less wiggle room if placed upside down in soil, grass and trees and water. The 3 and 4 don't have much wiggle room if things go south.
Larger cockpitts like the C-172 chickenhawk provide more of both.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
If the data were broken down into tail draggers vrs nose wheel aircraft, it would have more meaning.
The 3's and 4's are tail draggers, so are most of the 8's.
Many 6's are tail draggers, same round gear as 3's and 4's. The 8's have a different gear system.
It is my experience the 8 is more forgiving during landing because of the gear design....but of course that is a microscopic observation and not proven to mean anything. But the 8 appears to be easier to land than the 6 and could be safer. (have not flown the 3 or 4)
The 3's and 4's are tail draggers, so are most of the 8's.
Many 6's are tail draggers, same round gear as 3's and 4's. The 8's have a different gear system.
It is my experience the 8 is more forgiving during landing because of the gear design....but of course that is a microscopic observation and not proven to mean anything. But the 8 appears to be easier to land than the 6 and could be safer. (have not flown the 3 or 4)
Last edited:
