4

444TX

Well Known Member
Off the Pilots of America site, good read.

MORE TRAINING.

Without a doubt would help.

George

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question is, what can the FAA do, regulation-wise, to improve the accident rate in these categories?

I have direct experience here. I was a member of an FAA Flight Safety Board last year, examining how the EX-AB safety record could be improved. There were about twenty-five members, mostly FAA, with representatives from the EAA, AOPA, and some of the builder's groups. We met four times, mostly in Kansas City.

The main problem is that there were few key aspects that could be pointed to, as a cause. And the few that were found had no real solutions.

"More training," some of the FAA participants declared. "We should require that homebuilt owners get ten hours of instruction in type before carrying passengers."

The trouble is, how does the builder of a Smythe Sidewinder find an airplane to take dual in? How does he "rent" the airplane when the FAA doesn't allow that sort of use? Where does he find a qualified CFI?

Even where potential solutions were found, the benefits just weren't there. For instance, one of the concerns was the accident rate among recent purchasers of flying homebuilts. A couple of the senior FAA types were advocating requiring that newly-purchased homebuilts be placed into the phase 1 flight test limitations again (e.g., no passengers) for ten to twenty hours.

Nice idea, but such a restriction isn't really justified by the statistics. Over the ten-year period covered by my own analysis, there were about 750 accidents involving purchased homebuilts. Of those where the pilot had ten hours or less in the aircraft, only four passengers were killed. So such a rule (if the homebuilt world strictly abided by it) would save just one life every two years.

So, what could the FAA do?

Require check-outs before carrying passengers? Per above, they'd have to devise some way to do this for less-common types.

Increase the test period for new homebuilts? The accident rate drops to "normal" at the 40-hour point as it is (albeit it jumps up a bit from 40-60 hours as planes start flying cross-country--VFR to IFR, running out of fuel, etc.--and mechanical problems start arising from use).

Require annual inspections be performed by A&Ps? Many A&Ps won't touch homebuilts. In any case, my statistics show maintenance errors cause less than 5% of homebuilt accidents. Not much leverage, there.

About 55% of homebuilt accidents are due to pilot error (including judgment errors). The percentage is even higher if NTSB "Probable Cause" is used (the NTSB blames the pilot if the investigator feels a forced landing could have been safely made after an engine failure, where my records reflect the cause as mechanical error). The next leading cause..."Undetermined Engine Failure"... is about 8.5% of the total.

So the biggest bang for the buck, here, is pilot training. Which, considering the wide nature of the homebuilt fleet, is the most difficult to regulate.

The FAA would certainly be capable of instituting a shotgun policy with no real basis in reality. But the aviation groups will oppose, and those members of Congress on our side will get involved. Without some sort of statistical justification, FAA officials know they'll come out looking pretty bad.

Van is right to be concerned. One out of every six homebuilts on the rolls is an RV; 30%-40% of new homebuilts every year are RVs. This means the investigators are seeing a lot of RVs, and the sins of the homebuilt fleet are likely to unfairly attached to the RV line.

Ron Wanttaja


wanttaja
View Public Profile
Send a private message to wanttaja
Visit wanttaja's homepage!
Find More Posts by wanttaja
 
I do not agree George

The idea that more training is going to reduce EAB accidents is just wrong in my opinion. Some people have just not been interested in aviation for long and they don't comprehend the risks to any significant depth until they get EXPERIENCE. At some point you have to cut the new birds loose and let them fly. If that threshhold is not right then change it but threatening to have me with over 5,000 flight hours sit in the airplane I built and have raced and flown all over the US with a CFI because someone is concerned about the accident rate of EAB aircraft makes no sense at all. Work on the front end of airplane and pilot life if you want to effect a change in the EAB aircraft accident rate.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Good Question

The question is, what can the FAA do, regulation-wise, to improve the accident rate in these categories?

The trouble is, how does the builder of a Smythe Sidewinder find an airplane to take dual in? How does he "rent" the airplane when the FAA doesn't allow that sort of use? Where does he find a qualified CFI?
Ron Wanttaja

Ron -
The problem is the FAA has a poor track record of imposing meaningful requirements that don't carry along some unintended mandates. Some insurance companies have tried, by directing insureds to recognized CFIs, and that may be effective for RVs, but as you most astutely pointed out, someone that buys a Smythe Sidewinder is probably going to be without a knowledgeable CFI for getting checked out. I know this first hand - I used to own one.
Beyond the checkout, there is the issue of recency of experience. Three landings in the last 90 days is just not enough for a lot of folks that are flying these birds, as many homebuilts are just not as forgiving as many Standard Category birds.
So, it comes back to individual responsibility, possibly influenced by peers and industry.
 
Performance?

I've wondered often how the stats would look for RV's if our accident rate were compared only to certified aircraft with similar performance. Power to weight, speeds, etc. I know, nothing really compares and would have to toss out those accidents with landing gear problems, but I suspect the results would be a lot closer than say, a comparison to C-172's

What I'm saying is that overall performance must play a role...
 
My 2 cents..

Here's a thought - break down that 55% of "pilot error" accidents into specific causes. It seems that if you break it down into the leading causes, then you can focus on finding a solution for each one.

Here's an example (and it's really just an example, not based on any real data), if 1/3rd of the "pilot error" accidents were caused by low-level aerobatics, then you could educate pilots to avoid this activity, or get proper training for it. Or another example - if a certain percentage of accidents were "first flights", then maybe prescribing familarization training would help. This wouldn't help for the less common types, but then for those, maybe provide education on test flying a new design.

My point is, pilot-error accidents need to be more specificly defined in order to come up with a solution.
 
I’m thinking you can’t regulate stupidity.

If most of the E-AB accidents are caused by low level acro, steep climbs to a stall after takeoff, buzzing, low passes, continued VFR into IMC, running out of fuel, etc. then there is no possible way any regulation will stop these accidents.

If the accidents are the result of bad landings; too slow with a resulting stall and spin, running off the end of a runway, etc, then pilot training will help.

The saying, “You can’t fix stupid,” might apply here but if that is the real problem, then a push for pilots to recognize the hazards might help. Even then, it probably won’t get through to those who need it the most.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Bill. One of the things that does worry me since I purchased a RV6 is the number of accidents. My background is flight safety. I have been somewhat surprised at how little information is available on many accidents. I have learned so much in the course of my flying career by the mistakes of others as well as my own mistakes.
It seems logical to me that Vans should be tracking each accident and trying to determine trends and causes. It would be great to have a understanding of the various causes and phases of flight where RV accidents are happening. Setting up a database would not be expensive. Trying to search for individual aircraft accident records is tedious and does not give trends. While looking for a RV and even now keeping my eye out for a great RV8 I am surprised at how many aircraft have not only been wrecked but have had multiple accidents.
More information on how and where RV accidents are happening would also allow training to be directed at those areas and give those of us flying RV's knowledge of what we might want to put more practice into and things perhaps we should avoid all together.

George
 
I think we could take a clue from the insurance industry....it tracks and can quantify factors that increase risk....this may be a better approach than just looking at accidents which are usually the last event in a long list of "risk factors".

So let's ask what the insurance companies look for on an application. Having just shopped for insurance, I know that they look at:

Pilot experience/qualifications.
Pilot age.
Periodic pilot training/currency.
Type of plane.
Type of flying (commercial/private/acrobatic, etc)
Home airport location/runway type (grass, turf, paved).

What else goes into the insurance "risk analysis"?

Which of these factors can we change/regulate/improve?

Which of these risk factors is peculiar to the experimental world?


.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Last night there was a Remos LSA that crashed nearby, killing both occupants. I saw the airplane at our grass strip Sunday afternoon doing touch and go's..and he stopped in for a chat. It appears that he was taking a friend for a ride over his house...classic moose stall/spin accident. Unfortunately it was right over the passenger's home where his mother and 12-year-old brother witnessed the accident. A complete tragedy for the families involved. Easily preventable accident. But it wasn't the Remos design that was at fault, it was simple piloting skills that caused this accident. Unfortunately many RV accidents happen under similar circumstances thus we all get a black eye due to the large numbers of RVs flying.
 
Moose stall/spin...

If you're like me and have never heard of a moose stall/spin, here is what I found (thank you Google :)):

Moose Stall. You want to look at something on the ground. The best view comes from circling at 500ft above the object. If you let the airplane slow down and are not paying attention you can end up using aileron to keep the inner wing up. This has the effect of increasing drag on the wing. You may then apply inside rudder to keep the airplane straight. If you get slow enough the inside wing will stall and you'll enter a spin.

rocketbob said:
Last night there was a Remos LSA that crashed nearby, killing both occupants. I saw the airplane at our grass strip Sunday afternoon doing touch and go's..and he stopped in for a chat. It appears that he was taking a friend for a ride over his house...classic moose stall/spin accident. Unfortunately it was right over the passenger's home where his mother and 12-year-old brother witnessed the accident. A complete tragedy for the families involved. Easily preventable accident. But it wasn't the Remos design that was at fault, it was simple piloting skills that caused this accident. Unfortunately many RV accidents happen under similar circumstances thus we all get a black eye due to the large numbers of RVs flying.
Click to expand...
 
You Can't Fix Stupid, But....

If I recall correctly, the insurance industry in Germany used to void your insurance if you were found DUI. If you were involved in an accident, BIG financial hit. This was in addition to a long term suspension of your license. Result is virtually no drunks on the autobahns.
If aviation insurers in the U.S. voided insurance if you were in an accident and the cause was determined to be:
Continued VFR flight into IMC conditions.
Low level aerobatics
Formation flight (I know it's legal, but what if your decision to participate included knowing that you'll have no coverage).
Fuel starvation
Maybe, just maybe, it would have an effect on some people's decision-making process. Even if it didn't, at least the rest of us wouldn't be hit with increased insurance costs and the threat of the FAA casting a wide net to catch a few fish that are causing this backlash. Just a thought.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
 
terrykohler said:
If I recall correctly, the insurance industry in Germany used to void your insurance if you were found DUI. If you were involved in an accident, BIG financial hit. This was in addition to a long term suspension of your license. Result is virtually no drunks on the autobahns.
If aviation insurers in the U.S. voided insurance if you were in an accident and the cause was determined to be:
Continued VFR flight into IMC conditions.
Low level aerobatics
Formation flight (I know it's legal, but what if your decision to participate included knowing that you'll have no coverage).
Fuel starvation
Maybe, just maybe, it would have an effect on some people's decision-making process. Even if it didn't, at least the rest of us wouldn't be hit with increased insurance costs and the threat of the FAA casting a wide net to catch a few fish that are causing this backlash. Just a thought.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
Click to expand...

Don't forget the dreaded OH Break :)
 
Let's look at three diferent areas:

1) The system
2) The machine
3) The operator

1) The system: In my opinion, the FAA's job of regulation should stop at the system. In other words, they should be responsible for, and have proven to have aptitude for air traffic rules and management. They need to keep working on that effort and get better all the time. Without these rules and services the airways would be completely unusable, but they (the FAA) are the only ones that can currently do this job. There are accidents out there due to traffic issues, so they can do a better job of this, but I think they do a pretty good job now. In any case, it is clearly their responsibility.

2) The machine: Statistics show (to me at least) that the machines are as good as factory built machines. Whether this is good enough could be discussed, but it is an industry wide issue if it isn't, not an E-AB issue. The bottom line is that the machines are good in any case, and it is my opinion that the way to make them better is not through regulation of any kind, but by encouraging growth in the GA business and with the growth will come innovations that will increase machine safety. In any case though, the machines are not the problem.

3) The operator: The problem with the operators is, and I believe everyone can pretty much agree, experience, whether it is overall experience or time in a specific model or performance level. Here's the funny thing: pilots want to spend time flying! So why can't they? Well several reasons, which instead of going into, I will make some suggestions:

a) Work towards de-regulation of certified GA aircraft. This will ultimately bring new equipment prices down and will make it easier for low time pilots to get basic training and build hours.

b) Allow experimentals to be used in commercial operations (be rentable) after they have been proven to be reliable. This may be 40 hours, maybe more, but basically this recognizes that there is no basis for the idea that they are somehow less safe than certified machines and will make them drastically more accessible to aspiring pilots.

c) Allow pilots to charge for instruction time in a specific aircraft to holders of current PPL's, even if they are not CFI's. Mind you, this time is not being used to go towards any certificate or privilege, just to educate operators. This would allow me to get the time and attention of my buddy who has a plane that I need intruction in, or the guy in the hanger next door, or even some guy I met at the airport. If this thought frightens you as you read this, I think you are underestimating the proffessionalism of your average pilot, as well as underestimating people in general. Does this mean that poor instruction will be absent? No, just like today ;).

Thoughts?

Tim
 
Last edited:
Terry,

Respectfully, I think that is a terrible idea. Where does it stop? Why not add a few more conditions to the list:

Nose gear failure
Use of non-PMA parts (on a homebuilt)
use of auto engine
use of non-certificated engine (like most Lyc clones)
Homebuilts with fewer than 500 airworthy examples

To deny insurance based on other than blatantly illegal conduct would have a very chilling effect, not to mention probably not pass legal muster.
 
How About Being Responsible for One's Own Actions

The factors I've listed account for a very significant proportion of accidents and fatalities. With the exception of formation flight, all involve busting at least one FAR. Given the choice, I'd rather not be penalized for someone else who's decided to press on into IMC, fly with insufficient fuel, or try his limited skills at aerobatics a few hundred feet above the ground. They've made a choice, not me.
Terry
 
training

Training will unarguably make a large difference. The author made it quite clear a requirement to train would be difficult to make policy or enforce.

I am going to write a long post on this shortly. In the meantime anyone disagreeing should read the last three or four years of NTSB reports and see how many accidents (not just RV's) could have been prevented by training. You will be suprised. I read them and was.

Training does not have to be mandated by the government, but should be sought out by the pilot after evaluating his/her weeknesses, proficiency and experience. Also skills in safe building and maintaining his/her aircraft are needed. Van's has made the airframe safer to build than ever, but the systems are an area of concern for many.

The need for training varies. Some need a lot and others can self evaluate and train without needing formal training. Your number one job of a pilot is risk management. You will never remove all the risks, lack of training will not help.

George
 
Insurance companies will void your insurance if it is found you violated an FAR, were flying w/o a medical (DWI yanks that), don?t have a current biannual, the aircraft hasn?t had a condition inspection, etc. So that is already taken care of. The FAR?s can be interpreted very broadly, so the insurance companies can find a way not to pay.

Remember, there is no requirement to have even the most basic insurance and I?m willing to be that a number of pilots don?t have even liability insurance, regardless of the type of aircraft they are flying. (And I like that it is my option to purchase insurance, or not.)
 
Im spit balling here but my thoughts on addressing some of the concerns through "forced" training.

Phase I stays the same, 25-40 hours.

Phase II, 15 hour limit to day VFR within 250 miles. Within that time a solo xc must be logged covering a route of 250 miles. Phase not complete without the xc. Then day/VFR unlimited.

Phase III, same as PII, but night VFR, CFI optional, if equipped for night VFR.

Once all those are complete, the cuffs are off. Day/night/ifr if so equipped.

Think of it it like this, phase I is a proving period for the machine. Phase II is a "forced familiarization period" for pilot and plane. The latter seems to be where the break down is occurring. "Train train train" is a stupid safety missive unless you have clear cut goals.

What you would ultimately wind up with is a graduated step up program for plane/pilot. Once phase II is complete you can carry pax all you want as far as you want day VFR. Want to fly at night? Get phase III done. Want to fly IFR? Get them all done. Some may say "but I'm a private pilot, I can go rent a plane and do whatever I want.". Sure, but the ex-ab plane/pilot combo hasn't been proven or certified, this is the best way I can think of to "force experience" instead of guys being cleared weird after their 25-40 hours are done.
 
Last edited:
444TX said:
Training will unarguably make a large difference. The author made it quite clear a requirement to train would be difficult to make policy or enforce.

I am going to write a long post on this shortly. In the meantime anyone disagreeing should read the last three or four years of NTSB reports and see how many accidents (not just RV's) could have been prevented by training. You will be suprised. I read them and was.

Training does not have to be mandated by the government, but should be sought out by the pilot after evaluating his/her weeknesses, proficiency and experience. Also skills in safe building and maintaining his/her aircraft are needed. Van's has made the airframe safer to build than ever, but the systems are an area of concern for many.

The need for training varies. Some need a lot and others can self evaluate and train without needing formal training. Your number one job of a pilot is risk management. You will never remove all the risks, lack of training will not help.

George
Click to expand...

George, I'm with you....I'm a big believer in training. However, how many accidents have been prevented by BFR's (mandatory training)?

That's a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer. However, on occasion when I have refused to sign someone off on a BFR, it usually results in them just finding someone who has lower standards than mine...not remedial training. So how effective is that BFR in keeping pilots sharp? The devil is in the details.

What kind of training?
What frequency?
Who evaluates the training?
Who will do the training?
What will be the carrot? What will be the stick?

:confused:
 
sprucemoose said:
Terry,

Respectfully, I think that is a terrible idea. Where does it stop? Why not add a few more conditions to the list:

Nose gear failure
Use of non-PMA parts (on a homebuilt)
use of auto engine
use of non-certificated engine (like most Lyc clones)
Homebuilts with fewer than 500 airworthy examples

To deny insurance based on other than blatantly illegal conduct would have a very chilling effect, not to mention probably not pass legal muster.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that response Jeff! Terry, lets be very careful what we wish for!:eek:
 
Sig600 said:
Im spit balling here but my thoughts on addressing some of the concerns through "forced" training.

Phase I stays the same, 25-40 hours.

Phase II, 15 hour limit to day VFR within 250 miles. Within that time a solo xc must be logged covering a route of 250 miles. Phase not complete without the xc. Then day/VFR unlimited.

Phase III, same as PII, but night VFR, CFI optional, if equipped for night VFR.

Once all those are complete, the cuffs are off. Day/night/ifr if so equipped.

Think of it it like this, phase I is a proving period for the machine. Phase II is a "forced familiarization period" for pilot and plane. The latter seems to be where the break down is occurring. "Train train train" is a stupid safety missive unless you have clear cut goals.

What you would ultimately wind up with is a graduated step up program for plane/pilot. Once phase II is complete you can carry pax all you want as far as you want day VFR. Want to fly at night? Get phase III done. Want to fly IFR? Get them all done. Some may say "but I'm a private pilot, I can go rent a plane and do whatever I want.". Sure, but the ex-ab plane/pilot combo hasn't been proven or certified, this is the best way I can think of to "force experience" instead of guys being cleared weird after their 25-40 hours are done.
Click to expand...

Again, lets be careful what we wish for here! I am not saying some of these approaches might not be effective, but I am very reluctant to wish for more federal regulations on flying. As noted in an earlier post, the insurance companies do a good job of policing non-compliance when there is an accident or an incident.
Take another look at RVFlightSafety.org as Ron Lee suggests.
 
7dayflier said:
I think we could take a clue from the insurance industry....it tracks and can quantify factors that increase risk....this may be a better approach than just looking at accidents which are usually the last event in a long list of "risk factors".

So let's ask what the insurance companies look for on an application. Having just shopped for insurance, I know that they look at:

Pilot experience/qualifications.
Pilot age.
Periodic pilot training/currency.
Type of plane.
Type of flying (commercial/private/acrobatic, etc)
Home airport location/runway type (grass, turf, paved).

What else goes into the insurance "risk analysis"?

Which of these factors can we change/regulate/improve?

Which of these risk factors is peculiar to the experimental world?


.:confused:
Click to expand...

I'll take a shot at this.

During the first RV Safety Committee conference call, I volunteered to look in to accident data other than the NTSB reports, which might be available from insurance companies or other sources. I contacted the Air Safety Institute and the data they provided is already available on the RV Flight Safety website.

I also contacted A major Insurance Company and explained what we were doing. I was put in contact with one of their employees who suggested we meet in person. Air Venture at Oshkosh seemed to be a good venue and so while there, the S/O and I met with him and other members of the insurance industry in an effort to glean better statistics that might lead us to a better focus on RV accidents.

In a nutshell, what we found is that accurate "RV specific" accident statistics are hard to come by or don?t exist for several reasons. According to Insurance data over time, historically only about ? of the homebuilt aircraft fleet that meet its underwriting criteria are insured. If there are 7300 RV?s flying then, it?s possible that only 3650 RV airplanes are insured. Divide that number by the number of aviation insurers and the pool of data available to a specific insurer shrinks dramatically. Most likely 70% of RV?ers who do carry insurance, carry liability only and 30% have hull coverage. (These are close estimates). This is one reason our insurance is high. Insurance companies are high stakes gamblers who use statisticians to better their odds. Well if the stats aren't reliable guess what...

As many surmised on VAF, the NTSB statistics are not considered accurate for reasons previously mentioned here. Everyone in the meeting at Oshkosh agreed on this point.

Training beyond the BFR; there is no hard data on training activities beyond the BFR since there is no requirement to report it but anecdotally we know there are far too many pilots who don?t seek much if any additional training. The recommendation was that we get with a good RV knowledgeable CFI at least once every 6 months and do recurrent training of our choosing. It could be flying under the hood, maneuvering slow flight or something else, such as simple take-offs and landings or emergency procedures. Once again, 80% of amateur built aircraft pilots don?t fly with or train with a CFI any more than is required by the flight review.

The accident rate for pilots that purchase amateur built aircraft that was built by someone else and are on their first flight to take the airplane home is about 2 ? times the accident rate for general aviation airplane buyers taking their new Cessna, Piper or other spam can airplane home. Think about that a minute!

If you survive the first 200 hours of your homebuilt flying, now you are only just as good as the average of rest of general aviation pilots. During that 1st 200 hours you are much more likely to be involved in an accident.

These are very similar to the items Ron Wanttaja mentioned when quoted in the first post in this thread. Ron is a highly respected AB safety researcher. I'd believe what he has to say.

Here are some recommendations that I came away from the meeting with and suggestions that we need to consider:

1. Put together a list of well respected, RV specific qualified CFI?s and let the insurance industry know who they are. Not all of the CFI?s out there are doing a good job. Please do not take offense at this if you are a CFI. I did not make the statement, I'm only repeating what I was told. I do not know how this was arrived at, either.

2. Put a training syllabus together that is endorsed both by Vans and recognized by the insurance industry. The RV Safety committee has done a lot of work along this line.

3. Strongly encourage RV?ers to get 6 month recurrent training.

4. Hire someone experienced in RV?s to fly your newly purchased non-owner built RV home.

5. Pay attention while taxiing! The more hours you have, the more likely we are to have a taxi accident. Students do not have taxi accidents. Experienced, complacent pilots do! We need to quit fiddling with the knobs and buttons while moving. Get everything set up before you taxi!

6. It was suggested that the only way to get good RV specific statistics would be to do a poll and ask people who have had claims to come forward and relate their time in type, PIC, recurrent training experience, etc.
Based on distrust voiced on VAF related to the EAA / FAA's more general A/B poll, I decided not to pursue this as I felt it's accuracy would also be in questioned and it would be hard to get people to come forward.

I was provided with more information but insurance companies are heavily regulated and they must be very careful about what they release. Some of the information might be propietary and give their competition a leg up. And some of it has government oversight, and legal ramifications.

Many of the above suggestions such as training syllabuses as stated above were being worked on by the RV Safety Committee and others.

Bottom line: Listen to Ron W.
My 2 cents
 
I'd like to thank Ron for his original post. Something we need to remember. Almost all these accidents have the same causes we've been fighting for a hunnerd years. Nothing new except a little higher rate for homebuilts. Very hard to pin that on a causal short list, don't y'all think? My bet is that there are so many different reasons for EAB accidents that no little bag of silver bullets can solve them. Slathering new regulations at absolutely everything might help a little, but that's no solution.
It may be as simple as working on our "invulnerability complexes" a little.
More training? How much and at what? A customer of mine once sold a 6 to a couple ex Blue Angels. Heading homeward they overnighted in Idaho. Next morning they sampled fuel and didn't close the gascolator. They crashed. They were well trained, except on gascolators. Saying "more training" is just sorta like saying "Uhhh... I dunno".
 
Is Your RV Insured

Caveman said:
I'll take a shot at this.

In a nutshell, what we found is that accurate "RV specific" accident statistics are hard to come by or don?t exist for several reasons. According to Insurance data over time, historically only about ? of the homebuilt aircraft fleet that meet its underwriting criteria are insured. If there are 7300 RV?s flying then, it?s possible that only 3650 RV airplanes are insured. Divide that number by the number of aviation insurers and the pool of data available to a specific insurer shrinks dramatically. Most likely 70% of RV?ers who do carry insurance, carry liability only and 30% have hull coverage. (These are close estimates). This is one reason our insurance is high. Insurance companies are high stakes gamblers who use statisticians to better their odds. Well if the stats aren't reliable guess what...
Click to expand...

Could someone that knows how to create a poll please do one with the with the following questions (I couldn't make it work...duh) in a new thread.

1. Is your flying RV insured? Yes ( ) or No ( )

If you answered yes to the above question please answer below

2. Do you have liability only coverage? Yes ( ) or No ( )

3. Do you have full coverage, liability and hull? Yes ( ) or No ( )
 
Caveman said:
I'll take a shot at this.

3. Strongly encourage RV?ers to get 6 month recurrent training.

My 2 cents
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your post, but not this one. I just can't see it having a good cost/benefit ratio.

IMO, the key is effective transition training. That'll eliminate many (most) of the accidents caused by pilots who can't fly their aircraft well. The thing we can't (IMO) effectively train out of pilots is decision making - VFR into IMC, low altitude rolls, etc. Pilots already know not to do those things, but they choose to do them anyway. I'm not sure recurrent training helps there...
 
A couple of thoughts for those who really believe that the statistics on RV accidents are "skewed" by poor or incomplete data collection...they ARE! But not necessarily in the way you think. I look at the preliminary accident reports from the FAA web site almost every day (if I miss a few days, I catch up), and I can tell you that many of the RV accidents that I am made aware of through other means (I hear a lot, and get lots of emails) are never reported. Lots of landing accidents, including those that tear off various bits of landing gear, never reach the FAA's system because they are not required to be "logged" (no injury, aircraft damage doesn't meet the criteria). That means that there are actually MORE mishaps than we are recording.

And unfortunately, most of those unrecorded mishaps are landing incidents that are usually pilot error.

I don't know how to fix it, because we've been trying for decades without success. Those that need to be reached won't listen. This that will listen are generally doing pretty well. We can preach to the choir all day long - they aren't the problem.

Unfortunate.

Paul
 
Own vs. rent

Does anyone know if there is a difference between owned and rented aircraft accident statistics?

Just thinking about myself, I'm a bit more careful with stuff that I don't own. Almost all AB aircraft are flown by their owners.
 
Ironflight said:
A couple of thoughts for those who really believe that the statistics on RV accidents are "skewed" by poor or incomplete data collection...they ARE! But not necessarily in the way you think. I look at the preliminary accident reports from the FAA web site almost every day (if I miss a few days, I catch up), and I can tell you that many of the RV accidents that I am made aware of through other means (I hear a lot, and get lots of emails) are never reported. Lots of landing accidents, including those that tear off various bits of landing gear, never reach the FAA's system because they are not required to be "logged" (no injury, aircraft damage doesn't meet the criteria). That means that there are actually MORE mishaps than we are recording.

And unfortunately, most of those unrecorded mishaps are landing incidents that are usually pilot error.

I don't know how to fix it, because we've been trying for decades without success. Those that need to be reached won't listen. This that will listen are generally doing pretty well. We can preach to the choir all day long - they aren't the problem.

Unfortunate.

Paul
Click to expand...

Same holds true for GA mishaps skewing the data used to make broad comparisons.
 
RV8R999 said:
Same holds true for GA mishaps skewing the data used to make broad comparisons.
Click to expand...
Not really, or at least not as much. If I prang my airplane I can (hopefully) get it back to my hangar, repair the damage myself and no one is the wiser. This is not as simple in the certificated aircraft world. Sure it does happen but it probably happens more in the experimental world.

There are a host of reasons that the accident data are skewed and this is one of them. I've frankly seen no data that I consider valid that tells me that we have a disproportionate problem, but the feds view the data differently than I do, and they make the rules.
 
sprucemoose said:
I've frankly seen no data that I consider valid that tells me that we have a disproportionate problem, but the feds view the data differently than I do, and they make the rules.
Click to expand...

On the main page at RVflightsafety.org we have this

"In 2009, the accident rate among amateur-built aircraft was just under four times the rate for type-certificated aircraft, and their fatal accident rate was more than six and a half times higher.? (Source: 2010 Nall Report, page 37)"

If you want to assume that the underlying data is so skewed that the 6.5x fatality rate is really equivalent, that is your choice.

Look at the chart (Figure 1) on this page:

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/safetyprogram/introduction/

Or Table 1: RV Accident Data and Causal Factors, on the same page.

Ignore the comparison to certified planes. Are you happy with this data? Are you happy with so many preventable accidents?

The RV community can do better. The question is are RV pilots open to not becoming a fatality/accident statistic?
 
Experience

What is the average experience of the pilots in these accidents? Are they low time pilots, high time pilots, or is there no correlation?
 
Let economics decide

Why not offer insurance discounts (or reimbursement) to Experimental pilots who voluntarily log recurrent training with a qualified instructor?

Let the lower-time and/or "shy" (incompetent?) pilots opt out and pay higher premiums. Ultra-high time pilots can keep their preferential rates and not be bothered by the instruction time. Pilots of rare birds can be careful and help keep their accident statistics low.

The rest of us constituting the majority of the EAB community can opt in, prove our proficiency, and enjoy our flight privileges at a discounted insurance rate. Over time, insurance companies and regulators could collect better, more stratified data on the relative risk of each group.

I'd happily sign up for the instruction. Shoot a few approaches and call it an IPC, or have the instructor put you in some challenging scenarios to see what you can learn from the experience. It's all good in my book. Seems like a win-win to me.

M
 
foka4 said:
Why not offer insurance discounts (or reimbursement) to Experimental pilots who voluntarily log recurrent training with a qualified instructor?

Let the lower-time and/or "shy" (incompetent?) pilots opt out and pay higher premiums. Ultra-high time pilots can keep their preferential rates and not be bothered by the instruction time. Pilots of rare birds can be careful and help keep their accident statistics low.

The rest of us constituting the majority of the EAB community can opt in, prove our proficiency, and enjoy our flight privileges at a discounted insurance rate. Over time, insurance companies and regulators could collect better, more stratified data on the relative risk of each group.

I'd happily sign up for the instruction. Shoot a few approaches and call it an IPC, or have the instructor put you in some challenging scenarios to see what you can learn from the experience. It's all good in my book. Seems like a win-win to me.

M
Click to expand...

This is similar to what some insurance companies are doing when they give credit for "Wings Program" course completions. Some insurance companies are also inquiring about recurrency training. I'm not certain that it affects our rates yet, though. The RV Flight Safety website has links to many of the Wings courses. I tend to agree with this approach, but it seems many pilots do not take advantage of it when the decision is left to them. I would not equate lower time pilots with incompetent at all. (I understand you put a question mark there). I'd encourage everyone to take advantage of the wings courses even if you do not bother to register completions.
 
Caveman said:
This is similar to what some insurance companies are doing when they give credit for "Wings Program" course completions. Some insurance companies are also inquiring about recurrency training. I'm not certain that it affects our rates yet, though. The RV Flight Safety website has links to many of the Wings courses. I tend to agree with this approach, but it seems many pilots do not take advantage of it when the decision is left to them. I would not equate lower time pilots with incompetent at all. (I understand you put a question mark there). I'd encourage everyone to take advantage of the wings courses even if you do not bother to register completions.
Click to expand...

The Wings and AOPA Air Safety Foundation programs are great resources for home study. But that is just part of the picture. There is a real need for recurrent training in the aircraft to be truly current. In more complex aircraft, light twins, for instance, insurance companies will not only insist on recurrent training, they will require specific experience and ratings before committing to writing a policy at any price. With the statistics that we are creating in the EAB end of aviation, we may well be in line for some of the same treatment.

The bottom line is that our results stink.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
One factor that has not been directly addressed in this discussion is that experimental aircraft pilots are (by definition) experimenters! :rolleyes:

Does the experimental category attract people who are willing to take on more risk than the "average pilot", I.E. certified aircraft pilots?

Is our willingness to take on higher risk a root cause of our higher accident rate?

Seems to me the answer to both questions would be "yes".

If that is true, the question becomes, "How do we mitigate our propensity for risk taking while preserving our character?"

:confused:
 
7dayflier said:
Does the experimental category attract people who are willing to take on more risk than the "average pilot", I.E. certified aircraft pilots?

Is our willingness to take on higher risk a root cause of our higher accident rate?

Seems to me the answer to both questions would be "yes".
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I see dumb buzzing/stall accidents with "certified"........all the time, in the NTSB reports.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
I don't think so. I see dumb buzzing/stall accidents with "certified"........all the time, in the NTSB reports.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

The safety record of homebuilts is not as good as certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours. (NTSB report)

The accident rate for homebuilt aircraft in the USA has long been a concern to the Federal Aviation Administration. At Sun 'n Fun 2010 FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said that homebuilts "account for 10 percent of the GA fleet, but 27 percent of accidents. It's not the builders [getting into accidents], but the second owners. We need better transition training."[5]

Interestingly enough, a Kitplanes article http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.phtml indicated that the pilots of homebuilt accident aircraft in one study typically had almost twice as much flight time as a similar group of certified accident aircraft pilots.

Do we, as a class, take more risk?

If so, Is this a causal factor in our accident rate?

If it is, how do we mitigate it?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true. :)

This just illustrates the issue that I (and many others) have with these statistics. They compare experimentals (not just E-AB) and the type of flying we do, pound for pound against total GA hours, which is dominated by Barons and 210s cruising for hours in the teens (and King Airs in the flight levels, after all they are GA too) and they conclude that we have a disproportionate problem that the government needs to fix

Call me cynical but I don't buy it. Before someone again acuses me of saying something that I did not, I'm not saying that we don't have room for improvement. It's just that the current level of hand wringing is not supported by the data.
 
sprucemoose said:
If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true. :)
Call me cynical but I don't buy it. Before someone again acuses me of saying something that I did not, I'm not saying that we don't have room for improvement. It's just that the current level of hand wringing is not supported by the data.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the data are skewed. I'm neither a collector of the data, nor am I a statistician. However, I have to add another question:

Are we better off being pro-active in building a safer experimental/homebuilt world, or are we better off discarding the data we do have and doing nothing?

:confused: Many questions, few answers!
 
How about the 99,978 flight hours that didn't result in an accident! I'd say the glass is way more than half full.:D

Let's not forget that many of the GA certified hours are rented. And at today's rates most certified airplanes a quickly (relatively) going from point A to B. I really doubt half the certified GA planes are tooling around like we do in experimentals. I am actually surprised and thankful our crash rates aren't higher. Like Jeff, I don't buy into all the stats. I am much more concerned with dying on the way to the airport than flying from it. And speaking of autos, why is it that insurance costs more for a sports car? Well, you crash them more frequently. Maybe we should ban them too.
 
7dayflier said:
Are we better off being pro-active in building a safer experimental/homebuilt world, or are we better off discarding the data we do have and doing nothing?
Click to expand...
This is a straw man, and is not helpful in this discussion. Nobody is saying that we are better off doing nothing to improve safety in our world. What I am saying is that the FAA is using flawed data to justify fixing a problem that does not exist, at least not to the extent that the data purports to show. That was the point that was brought up by the OP and the point of this thread.

Or let me try explaining my point another way. The FAA is on the cusp of using a heavy hammer on our heads to fix a non-existent problem. Why does this not seem to bother more people?
 
Not only a river in Africa...

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. It may take the form of:

simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Training

After reading Ron's post I felt it was too good to not put here. He is realistic about what is happening and made it clear that large changes by the FAA are going to be difficult to implement. He never said that training should be mandated, but that it would do the most to lower accident rates.

Statistics are difficult to accurately obtain. All we have is the NTSB, with likely all fatal accidents in the data base. In the last three years there have been 88 RV accidents with 25 fatal, only 4 so far this year. Some overlapping causes; stall/spin 10, forced landing 5, acro 4, IFR 4 (1 CFT, 1Thunderstorm), midair 3, mechanical 2, auto engine 2, landing 1, missing 1.

During the same time period there were 40 Cirrus,Glassair,Lancair fatal crashes. They have more cross country and IFR acvidents, but shows a large amount of fatal crashes in the type of high performance aircraft.

By far the most common non fatal accident is during the landing phase 27 and mechanical/power loss 20. This is the area where the most could be done with training. Surely many of this type accident or close calls are experienced which do not show up in the stats.

Landing accidents are an area where training would be of the most benefit. Going to a flyin it is clear that many pilots could use improvement in this area. Formal training could help, along with more practice, experience and proficiency. If you are weak in this area you should evaluate your performance and work on improving. If not comfortable on a 2000 foot strip or with a 15 knot cross wind you need work. There are different comfort limits, but there needs to be minimum proficiency.

Loss of control is a commonly fatal. Everyone should be familiar with slow flight and engine out procedures. This can be a dangerous area to train for, so a quality instuctor or carefull self training is important. Several fatals occured with instructors. When things go wrong you need to know the best glide speed and fly it without fail.

Mechanical is another area. With newer kits the airframe has become the safest part of the plane with firewall forward kits, better new engine choices and better system information/parts avaiability making obvious improvements. The number of builders helping, internet information, and EAA reps has done a lot to improve mechanical safety. There is still more that can be done, but a lack of increased accidents with a ever growing fleet shows that Van and suppliers have done a good job at making the plane safer than ever.

So, training is where the most improvement can be found. This can be formal, hanger flying, mental scenarios, reading, etc. But mostly attitude. Everone must self evaluate and be realistic. If you lack the skills and feel you can not acquire them you are not doing yourself a favor by not working on them. The best pilots make it look easy by putting effort into it. It is easier for some than others, but above average skill can be obtained by all.

George
 
444TX said:
... but above average skill can be obtained by all.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Prarie Home Companion - "Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average." :D

I got your point but your English failed you. Yes, with training, the average skill level can be raised. After my incident last year, I have become much less complacent about my skills.
 
Average

If we all raise the average to a new level more are above the old average. The average is what is at at any one time and can be raised. If you do not feel you can be above average maybe you should not be flying.

Sorry about some of the spelling. It is difficult to fix mistakes and go back after preview with an Ipad and no spell check. I am sure you get the point.

I always regret starting a thread due the stupid comments from some, but with all the RV bashing thought this may somehow help. Figured why sugar coat it.

George
 
George - I think you are right on, we all need to work to improve our flying and looking in the mirror is the first place to start (as painful as it is) :)

Being the "mechanical" guy that I am, I would also like to encourage everyone to have an experienced RV mechanic look over your bird before flying it or on the next condition inspection. Owners are always surprised at the number of things I find that they either overlooked or thought was OK (which they weren't!). Some of the thngs I've found would scare the bejesus out of you :eek:
 
Walt. I agree on the first flight inspections and have posted concern in the past (search: pre-first flight inspections). They were not mentioned because I found no NTSB reports with mechanical failure during the first flight or flyoff period in the last three years. I was suprised. This does not make it any less important or that they have not occured.

In earlier posts the subject was brought up and there was mention of putting an inspection list on the site. I will contact Steve and let him know what is going on. He can get a copy to Doug.

We need to come up with a list of inspection findings and put them on the site. If there is a common area there could be a tutorial on the site to help. Example: proper crimping, proper tubing flares, bolt length selection, control rod lengths, safety wiring, securing cables, etc. Having this as a reference would be of great help to builders that have no experience or access to the information.

George
 
Screwing with the Laws

We all mess with the rules and regs to some extent - most of the time without harm. However, there usually are serious consequences when you screw with the "Laws" - as in the laws of aerodaynamics and physics.

We cannot legislate away stupid - however, we can encourage a better understanding of the laws of aerodynamics - both intellectually and practically from an increased understanding of aircraft performance, particularly near the edge of the envelope.

Acro training, spin training, dedicated and repetitive training at low airspeed and high wing loadings, full stall maneuvers, early recognition of stall onset at various angles of bank/airspeeds, crosswind landing practice, etc.

The list above won't help with VFR into IFR, and fuel exhaustion, but it might help with loss of control accidents. Self discipline is required - you have to make yourself practice.
 
444TX said:
Walt. I agree on the first flight inspections and have posted concern in the past (search: pre-first flight inspections). They were not mentioned because I found no NTSB reports with mechanical failure during the first flight or flyoff period in the last three years.
Click to expand...

George we have had two inflight fires and one on the ground recently. I believe that the two inflight fires were due to not tightening a fuel line B-nut. The RV-10 may have been in the Phase 1 period.

This is just one area of many that we as a group can develop and follow better procedures to catch these errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.