[MS19087]

Its all in how you interpret the numbers . . . the numbers are not surprising. See attached article which was published today in Philadelphia . . . I'm am always looking to see where others may have went wrong and attempt to learn along the way . . .

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home...mebuilt_plane_pilots_remain_enthusiastic.html

 

[lightning]

A spokesman for the FAA could not confirm the statistics but said the Experimental Aircraft Association was considered highly reliable.

at least the FAA doesn't see us as being a rambunctious group of unstable quacks... well doesn't see us as being "unreliable"

The term experimental can cause misperceptions about the safety record of homebuilt planes, most of which are built from well-tested kits and flown by experienced pilots, Knapinski said.

All experimental planes must be inspected by the FAA, and all pilots must maintain the same federal pilot training as other general aviation pilots, he said.

at least the article didn't try to paint us as the bad guys!

 

[mburch]

I actually thought that was a pretty good article. Kudos to the author for taking time to investigate and present the facts.

mcb

 

[Low Pass]

I actually thought that was a pretty good article. Kudos to the author for taking time to investigate and present the facts.

mcb

Same here. Very objective for a change.

 

[osxuser]

I agree, good intro, doesn't use scare tactics.

 

[Geico266]

I actually thought that was a pretty good article. Kudos to the author for taking time to investigate and present the facts.

mcb

I totally agree. It is pretty unbiased, factual.