[Ron Lee]

The first telecon was held a week ago with plenty of participants who can aid this effort. We are currently seeking additional help in two areas:

1) Develop best practices, maintenance, construction sections: Note: This will include such topics as firewall forward accepted materials and techniques, guidelines on maintenance, etc. It addresses factors that should reduce the 20-25% of accidents attributed to these areas.

2) We need RV specific accident data: I suggest using the Nall Report and Lancair white paper for basic data:

Those links are as follows:

Nall Report: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Lancair white paper:

http://www.pilottrainingreform.org/documents/PTR_WP_LOBO.pdf

On page 5, use the hours in type data as assumed similar for RVs.

On page 7, Lancair Accident Analysis is adequate for basic causal factors (see Also Nall report)

From the 2010 Nall report, starting at page 36 we get this from page 37:

“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. Since 1999, amateur-built aircraft have consistently had accident rates from 3.6 to 5.1 times higher than those of type-certificated fixed-wing airplanes in non-commercial operation, and fatal accident rates from 4.3 to 7.6 times as high.”

What we ask for is as follows:

From the Lancair white paper we want to show data similar to the “Serious Lancair Accidents” chart on the third page. However, my view is that it is missing is “all accidents” which is an important metric. Thus our title for the similar chart would be RV Accidents and it would have for the last ten years bars for All Accidents, Destroyed Aircraft and Fatalities

 

[Toobuilder]

The first telecon was held a week ago with plenty of participants who can aid this effort. We are currently seeking additional help in two areas:

1) Develop best practices, maintenance, construction sections: Note: This will include such topics as firewall forward accepted materials and techniques, guidelines on maintenance, etc. It addresses factors that should reduce the 20-25% of accidents attributed to these areas...

Do we not already have a wealth of information concerning the above? AC43.13, T.O(s) 1-1A-8, 42E1-1-1, etc... Forgive me if I'm late to the party here, but if aircraft are poorly assembled and maintained, it's not the "acceptable practices" that are lacking - it's the people willing to follow those practices. How will another publication turn this basic problem around? After all, you can lead a horse to water...

 

[panhandler1956]

Indeed

Michael,
You are spot on. A large part of the effort should be getting folks to use the AC43.13.
Above and beyond that, it would be great if we could put some things together that tied the AC to our airplanes specifically. Van does a good job on building instructions, but FWF and popular mods (smoke oil, inverted oil, ignition options-to name a few) are left to the builder. Would be nice to account for this stuff...

 

[rv8ch]

AC43.13

I applaud this effort. It's abundantly clear that all the information needed to safely build an aircraft is available, but is it in a form that is easily digestible and relevant to RV builders?

Keep up the good work, Ron, et.al!

 

[Ironflight]

2) We need RV specific accident data: I suggest using the Nall Report and Lancair white paper for basic data:

I'd suggest contacting Ron Wantaja Lee - he has done a HUGE amount of data gathering and reduction in this area. If you've already got what he has done, then you're off to a good start. If not, then he's a good place to start.

Paul

 

[Toobuilder]

...It's abundantly clear that all the information needed to safely build an aircraft is available, but is it in a form that is easily digestible and relevant to RV builders?...

...do you mean developing a publication such as "RV Building For Dummies"?

I will admit to being "handicapped" in this discussion by being a trained, professional aircraft mechanic, and I will further admit that the publications out there can be a little obscure at times, but we do expect an education out of the airplane building process, don't we? After reading countless posts concerning extremely basic, fundamental questions it is clear that people are not even cracking open AC43.13 during the build process. If people are not even willing to try understand the info that does exist, I suspect that they will also ignore a "insert tab B into slot A" assembly manual.

One of the reasons for building EAB aircraft is for "education". Let's teach the people how to read and comprehend the abundant info that's already out there.

Just curious, but does Van include a copy of AC43.13 with each kit? If not, that would be a good start.

 

[Caveman]

FAAST team presentation

Thanks for the encouragement guys. We have several ideas in the works and Ron Lee is doing a great job of leading the effort. Please bear with us as we gather more information.

In the meantime...

Last Monday I presented an FAA FAAST team power point presentation to EAA Chapter 1115. I have taken the liberty to present a few of the slides that may be pertinent to the RV series of aircraft here.

Quoting from the accompanying letter:

"Dear EAA Chapter president:
In our positions of FAA Safety Team (FAAST) Program Managers we are tasked with reducing aviation accidents and incidents. What our statistics both locally and nationally show is that pilots operating under Title 14 Part 91 rules, which include EAA members flying experimental aircraft, have the highest accident/incident rates.

Thes statistics show that the following phases of flight:

• 
  Take Off and Landings

• 
  Maneuvering Flight

• 
  Maintenance

Continue to be the top accident/incident casual factors in Amateur built/Light Sport operations."

Slides to follow...

 

[Caveman]

Continued

 

[Caveman]

 

[Caveman]

 

[Caveman]

 

[Caveman]

 

[Caveman]

 

[Peterk]

Toolbuilder

does Van include a copy of AC43.13 with each kit?

simple answer is no. but...if you are building an ELSA which requires that you attend a 16 hr Repairman's Certificate class to do your own conditionals...you do receive one at the class. AC43.13 is what the class is about. I attended before I ever started the build and found myself using the book often during the process. As an example, installing cable turnbuckles..."now I get it!" For build quality, security...I think you are absolutely correct.

I also applaud the "in-air" efforts of the safety group. The only fatal RV accident at our location in the last several years was a VFR approach that got too slow. The FAA investigation was totally focused on "why did the aircraft get too slow." Maneuvering accidents are high on the scale, particularly during an approach. I don't think its any secret why Part 121 airlines do not allow any idle conversation/distraction during that phase of flight.

 

[Peterk]

Joe,

Does the info include what phase of "first flight" most accidents occur? Or is just a general "behind the airplane" event?

Pete

 

[Caveman]

As you can see from the last slide, the FAA is aware of the different categories of amatuer built aircraft and they are not specifically targeting RV's.

But your safety team's efforts will be directed towards the RV series.

Another quote from the FAAST team letter that accompanied the Power Point presentation:

"As airmen we are automatically considered to be a part of the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam). As leaders we are entrusted to bring all airment we come in contact with into a positive safety mindset and culture".

As Ron said in the original post we welcome additional help in this effort. Especially from CFI's and A&P's.

Please review his original post.

And stay tuned for more information...

Thanks,



Joe

 

[Caveman]

Joe,

Does the info include what phase of "first flight" most accidents occur? Or is just a general "behind the airplane" event?

Pete

Pete,

We hope to get you an answer within a week or two as we gather and sift through data from other sources...

 

[islandmonkey]

It would be interesting to know the worldwide statistics for Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft and whether for each country it is following the US upward trend. I will try and find the Swiss the German and the British numbers and come back. I am betting there are more experimental aircraft in the US than in the rest of the world put together.

However, this safety initiative should be regarded as international, as is Experimental Aviation.

 

[Andy Hill]

Echoing, but adding to, IslandMonkey's post.

In the UK we now have 500 RVs, and ~250 flying. That is a sizeable number, although nowhere near the US fleet. The type of flying, as a comparison to the national certified GA fleets, I cannot see as being significantly different to the US model?

Were you then to compare how "Experimental RVs" fared relative to other GA types, you would get data that might show:

1. UK RVs were similarly/more/less hazardous than US RVs when compared to the respective GA fleets.
2. What specific areas / types of accidents each fleet was "better" or "worse" at.

If there were findings thrown up, you might then look at how our system differs to yours:

1. All RV series approved to build in the UK, and now flying. None, AFAIK, require significant modificaitons to Van's construction advice/techniques to fly in the UK (unlike many other kit types, and even the B707, B747 required modifications to be UK registered). So the basic RV kit is judged by the UK (LAA) to be a "good kit".
2. Your build is overseen by an inspector, with various signed off inspection stages. Somewhat more onerous then the US, but you do have a final DAR signoff?
3. Very little deviation is permitted from the plans without an onerous "modifcation" process requiring application, payment, time delay and engineering anlysis/justification. Very different to the US.
4. Engines and propellers must essentially be certified types (or clones), and the combination "approved" (see below)
5. The "test flying" process is by a nominated test/check pilot, but in practice this can be a PPL with relevant experience.
6. The test flying is only required to be for 5 hours, 15 landings inc. a 2+ hour flight. It includes a specific Test Schedule to be completed in a formal Test Flight (usually the last of the flights). Far less than the US Phase 1, but then the RV will be far less "experimental" due above.
7. Maintenance can be done by owners and/or builders e.g. an owner buying an RV can maintain it who has no relevant skills i.e. no equivalent requirement to the "repairman certificate".
8. Maintenance is overseen, and an Annual Inspection performed, by approved inspectors. Their qualifications vary, but need not be extensive, and are primarily a second set of eyes and ensuring basic good practice is followed.
9. Flying is only Day VMC.

Now, were someone to say that the ability to fit and fly with "Alternative Engines" were a significant cause of accidents, the US v UK figures should show this up, since we cannot even consider going down that route Ditto props - no Whirlwinds over here, and even no Hartzells with dual EI I believe? True Dual EI (as PMags) has only recently been approved for the first time...

I belive the LAA produces annual safety stats, so may follow up with them if I can find them.

Andy Hill
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV-8tors

 

[DanH]

Post #10 is the interesting slide.

GA: 2176/230000 = 0.9%
EXP: 393/33000 = 1.2%

On a per aircraft basis, experimental is only slightly more dangerous than certified. Reduce the "first flight by pilots new to the type" rate and the mechanical rate and we would easily be in line with certified.

We don't start looking a lot more dangerous until you look at fatals per flight hour....and I for one have no confidence in the flight hour estimates.

 

[N941WR]

Interesting threads, these safety ones are

There are two rather long threads on this forum right now regarding safety. Yet, in another thread, the poster talks about wanting to pull the red knob all the way back and perform a real engine out approach and landing.

Yet, not on single person on this forum raised their hand and said this is not a good idea.

Was this because the person in question is a fomer military and current airline pilot who recently purchased his RV?

Sure sounds like a setup for an accident and yet not one person even suggested he not do this.

One said to practice at higher altitudes and I suggested he go to a much longer runway than his home airport.

If we (The collective RV / EAB community) really want better safety numbers, then we should question everyone. Because if one guy can do it, then surely I can do it also! (Even if I have 1/16th the skills of the pilot in question.) Remember, everything we post on this forum is read by someone who might try it at home.

 

[Alan Carroll]

Post #10 is the interesting slide.

GA: 2176/230000 = 0.9%
EXP: 393/33000 = 1.2%

On a per aircraft basis, experimental is only slightly more dangerous than certified. Reduce the "first flight by pilots new to the type" rate and the mechanical rate and we would easily be in line with certified.

We don't start looking a lot more dangerous until you look at fatals per flight hour....and I for one have no confidence in the flight hour estimates.

Total accident percentages do seem relevant to discuss, particularly since the great majority of RV flights probably last an hour or less? However, I suspect that the numbers are above are skewed by a large number of EAB aircraft that rarely if ever fly. RVs have had a fatal accident rate of about 2%.

 

[RV10inOz]

Post #10 is the interesting slide.

GA: 2176/230000 = 0.9%
EXP: 393/33000 = 1.2%

On a per aircraft basis, experimental is only slightly more dangerous than certified. Reduce the "first flight by pilots new to the type" rate and the mechanical rate and we would easily be in line with certified.

We don't start looking a lot more dangerous until you look at fatals per flight hour....and I for one have no confidence in the flight hour estimates.

That is all very well but figures can lie, and what we are really concerned with is the true reflection of experimental accidents and then drill down to those that are RV specific.

As I have posted on the other thread.........

Originally Posted by RV10inOz View Post
My 20c worth from down under, should get me 21cents of yours nowdays!

Take all the Experimental accidents, remove all the prangs which were attributable to CFIT from weather, and all the handling issues where it was certain not to be a unique handling fault, and lump them all onto the GA statistics. Then compare.

Why? Because the folk who are killing themselves by means of fuel running out then stall and spin or VFR into IMC etc etc etc, those same accidents would have occured in a C172/PA28/V35B.

Only then can you truly see what dangers lurk statistically in Experimental.

Anyone got the data to manipulate properly?

Looking at the FAA stats I smell a rat. Surely you guys in the USA are not that wreckless, is that 393 fatal accidents in a period of say 5 years, so around 80 per year. In Australia we have around 2600 ammateur built aircraft (VH and RAA) compared to 33,000 and per head of population that is a higher % than the USA. I wish I had the fatal accident data accurately at hand but its not that easy here, but lets compare with my memory.

If we use the ratio's it would suggest in Australia we should have 6.30 fatal accidents per year in ABE aircrfat. On the surface that appears close to what I recall, my guess would be 5 or there abouts so while in % terms thats a big difference overall we do not appear to be safer, but here is the kicker. In that fleet size 50% of the fleet is in our "Ultralight category" and about 85+% by my estimate of the accidents. So when you take that out, the overall picture for experimental and in particular RV aircraft in Australia is pretty good.

Lets drill down further, and study the VH register of which 1300 aircraft include all RV's Lancairs and the heavier Jabiru's etc. This is the serious end of the game, not tiny microlights etc. In the same assumed period 1st of 2005 to 2010, we had a total of 3, VH-BST a Lancair followed a few days later by another Lancair VH-ZNZ, and VH-ZGH.

The first of these was a classic case of give the guy an A36/V35B or similar and he would have crashed that too! This guy despite being a successful businessman and Pharmacist in Townsville flew VFR, had no instrument rating and did a flight of around 560nm and running low on fuel he went right past no less than 4 suitable fuel depots at suitable airports in the last 15-20 minutes of the flight, which had VFR weather (just) and continued into a densly populated built up capital city area with mountains just to the west, in what was definite IMC conditions. I know coz I was there that day. This is a compulsory read.... http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24357/aair200601640_002.pdf

Now tell me that this should be considered an ABE accident? It is not.

The second one VH-ZGH was an RV4, which you can conclude maybe should be in the ABE accident data, but lets look again closer to the facts. This was a perfectly servicable aeroplane that had flown some 450 or so hours before the accident idiot got a hold of it. Now I suggest you all read the report closely about the actions of the pilot prior to the flight....can you see a trend and character profile forming . Needless to say had this been a CT4 or Citabria, a C152 Aerobat....the report would read the same just a different a/c type. More info here http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24397/aair200701033_001.pdf

So there ya go, two of the three I can find in the data base are definitively NOT the accidents we should include as being attributable to being ABE aircraft. Now onto the last one, another Lancair that was professionally built, and was being repaired by the owner who was a LAME and at a CASA approved repair shop, and when you read the report it is most likely the header tank was nowhere near the required fill for takeoff. Read the plaque on the panel. This explains the low attitude touch n go followed by a pitch up and then trouble. This could be a 50/50, would a certified aircraft have a fuel system this critical? Probably not. Did the pilot **** it up, most likely.

The result is we have half an accident that can be squarely blamed on being an experimental design aircraft. I want you to now go back and read page 20-21 of the ATSB VH-BST report(pg26-7 in the PDF), and take note of what it says there. Inparticular how the ATSB took a more balanced approach to the numbers without adopting my views. Over a period of 10 years the rate had closed to being almost the same as Certified GA, and if you apply filtering of mine you would find that ABE vs Certified debate means the greater risks are almost NIL, or very much approaching. After test flying and conversion training there would seem to me to be no greater statistical risk. For example I am far happier in my RV10 than a hired C172.

Now folks......consider this carefully, either we Aussies are far better at running our ABE programme here and are just gun pilots when things go wrong so we don't kill ourselves, or maybe your FAA data needs disecting and filtering properly to see where the problems really are. I believe we are not really any superior breed down here (well thats what I say now ) so you guys need to work harder on the data. Maybe our SAAA and CASA are doing a better job than the EAA and FAA, but given what I see here I find that very hard to believe, in fact the opposite more likely.

The USA has worse weather at many times of the year and possibly that has something to do with the numbers, might be lots of VFR into IMC making your numbers worse. Time to start digging in the digits.

 

[RV10inOz]

There are two rather long threads on this forum right now regarding safety. Yet, in another thread, the poster talks about wanting to pull the red knob all the way back and perform a real engine out approach and landing.

Yet, not on single person on this forum raised their hand and said this is not a good idea.

Was this because the person in question is a fomer military and current airline pilot who recently purchased his RV?

Sure sounds like a setup for an accident and yet not one person even suggested he not do this.

One said to practice at higher altitudes and I suggested he go to a much longer runway than his home airport.

If we (The collective RV / EAB community) really want better safety numbers, then we should question everyone. Because if one guy can do it, then surely I can do it also! (Even if I have 1/16th the skills of the pilot in question.) Remember, everything we post on this forum is read by someone who might try it at home.

Why should he not do it??? Do you know if he is not competent, and the choice of airfield. If you can feather its probably a moot point, but deadstick training done properly is a good thing. I wish I made more time for it myself.

Know thy aeroplane
Don't confuse ambition with ability!

RVs have had a fatal accident rate of about 2%.

Alan, where on earth did you get that little gem from. If I sampled some accident data from a selctive period I could probably find proof RV's had a 50% fatal record, and that would be just as accurate, but totally misleading. Is that 2% of the total fleet per year ? 2% overall time?

Now I just went to the NTSB and searched the same period in time 2005 to 2010 abd there were 49 RV's out of 306 fatal accidents, and after reading the summary of each here is how I grouped them.

VFR into IMC crashes 6
Handling error - Aero's 12
Handling error - IFR 2
Handling error - General 13
Handling error - post engine drama due owner maint. 3
Handling error - post engine drama cause ??? 6
Collissions on the ground caused by others (non RV fault) 2
In flight breakup 1 (no SB compliance yet heavily aerod)
Unexplained 4

My comments.
1. Apart from one accident which may have been a deliberate suicide (NTSB alludes to it but does not say it) there were a very high number of poor piloting accidents. This could be IFR rated pilots who were not current on that particular aircraft / systems, and VFR into IMC accidents through to illegal aerbatics performed by untrained and dare I say it foolish pilots who otherwise might seem light great blokes. Far too many incidents had the hallmarks of "Hold my beer and watch this". In fact one had a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal road limit . One report the NTSB even declared the gathering was called a "Redneck Roundup".

Speaking of redneck roundups, we had one recently here in Australia where CASA have become very cranky with some individuals, they were professional pilots too, and while they were in control of their own actions, many others are not, and just days after said roundup, one of the ultralighters killed himself and his passenger doing aero's in a drifter! Low hour, untrained and totally foolish behaviour. So yes it even happens down under, but I am horrified at the greater rate this is happening in the USA. We do complain about how miserable CASA are but we do not seem to have the same % of idiot accidents. Maybe our idiot fringe is just luckier

2. Out of 49 accidents only 3-4 can I say hand on my heart are attributable to the experimental nature of the aircraft. Even then the fact the RV that broke up was not modified as required in the SB and was being flown in a manner that just proved the validity of the SB

The others may have stemmed from the owner builder maintenance that may have been sub standard which is not the norm expected from a certified LAME (A&P) maintained aircraft.

3. Have I mentioned Redneck and Cowboy Operations yet?

I am still gobsmacked at how many there were. And I might add so far I have only looked at the RV's and one other, so whether it is RV specific or across the whole ABE fleet, there seems to be a great number of folk (still the minority I am sure) who reside in the Experimental sector. I have seen plenty of reports where Bonanza and Cirrus and etc pilots do stupid things like push into weather they should not, or fly at night when they are not current ( A problem I have with the FAA PPL by the way) but I have seen nothing like the number of plane stupid cowboy behaviour leading to accidents.

Now this could be partly due to RV's being such "sporty" high performers and even my RV10 feels like a F18 compared to a C172, so it encourages all of us to push a bit more, so maybe the factors are that the ABE sector is (A) more affordable (B) Less regulated or policed and (C) until now less under the spotlight, that folk think they can get away with a more carefree attitude, not only in the air but on the ground and in the hangar.

RV SAFETY COMMITTEE message....start looking closely at the things that are bringing the spotlight on all of us. I do not think its that hard to work out, you just have to be brave enough to offend some of the morons out there trying to kill themselves and out sport. It may be that aircraft standards are a problem in other makes, it is not so with RV's. We seem to have a different problem.

Who is the RV Safety Committee? How does one get involved....if one is welcome after my strong points of view so far

Enjoying this discussion by the way and several hours of research and study have been very enlightening. I will be using some of this education within the SAAA down here in Oz, as we are on a quest to further enhance builder/pilot education.

Regards
David Brown

PS...would be nice if you can keep the FAA from kneejerk reactions, they follow down here with equal or bigger ones based on even less facts

 

[Andy Hill]

Why should he not do it??? Do you know if he is not competent, and the choice of airfield. If you can feather its probably a moot point, but deadstick training done properly is a good thing. I wish I made more time for it myself.

Know thy aeroplane
Don't confuse ambition with ability!

You, or I (and I assume you are as unqualified as me to make that call) might think it justified / safe.

However, for a safety system to judge it safe, various questions would be asked such as:

1. Is it safe for a PPL to routinely do this?
2. If not, what extra qualifications / airfield requirments are needed to make it safe?

I would venture the answer to 1 is not. 2 now needs a regulatory system to monitor, and I for am still not convinced it leads to an "improvement in safety".

Or put another way, if it is encouraged, even stated as acceptable, to shut your enigne down and practice (real) FLs, will we lose / damage more people / aeroplanes, when compared to not practising to this extent, and accepting the few occasions when an engine does fail will be harder to cope with?

The experience of history is that excessive realism in practice emergencies kills people. Just go through the 1960s NTSB reports and see how many airliners and crews were killed practicing asymmetric / 2 EO approaches In the RAF, "turnbacks" to a touch and go lost more aircraft than were ever saved in the narrow area when an engine failure required it. Sensible result was that instructors (only) continued to train/practice these, but all to an overshoot @ 250' minimum.

Those of us this side of the pond raise our eyebrows at some of the US "freedoms" in RVs - "alternative engines", even IMC/IFR flying (it is being looked at here). One then sees your table, and these areas feature. I have put it down, frankly, to the experimental environment allowing people to kill themselves if they want to (or at least increase the risks of doing so)... Trouble is, it seems the trigger actions requiring this RV Safety Committee are now judging that fundamental right as maybe not (no longer?) valid?

You (David) of course bring a 3rd nationality's approach into the arena, which will add value.

Real problem to me is that an "RV Safety Committee" will produce some good work, but will it have the teeth to change the behaviour of those it needs to? As an example, would it have the power if it judged "alternative engines" as a risk, to prevent people fitting them to RVs? (just a theoretical example ).

Andy
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV-8tors

 

[RV10inOz]

Andy, mostly agree with the sentiment about too much realism kills far more than it saves, old school twin instructors litter the graveyards with that proof. What I am say in when over a long runway and a suitable environment, when properly briefed and practised why is it so foolish for someone to do one for real so they get the full benefit of a dead stick landing.

People need to be responsible and do their own risk mitigation of course, but to say we should not discuss things freely because somewhere some newbie pilot or some old guy might go try it at home..........well if the are dumb enough to do it without 100 % surity of success they are probably dumb enough to take themselves out of the gene pool in many other ways, this will only be one of them.

As for IFR flight in a suitable experimental, why not, Boeing and Airbus do it all the time. So do I. The RV10 makes an excellent IFR platform if built right. Us colonials down here are not entirely crazy ....or so I tell myself

PS Love your RV...pics look awesome!

 

[Ironflight]

Real problem to me is that an "RV Safety Committee" will produce some good work, but will it have the teeth to change the behaviour of those it needs to? As an example, would it have the power if it judged "alternative engines" as a risk, to prevent people fitting them to RVs? (just a theoretical example ).

The truth is, it has no teeth at all...but that doesn't mean that it isn't good for ANYONE or EVERYONE to take a more active role in safety - even if the only people that it helps are the folks directly invovled in it. If ten people "get involved" (really and truly invovled), then that's ten people who are hopefully safer.

The bottom line is that short of an environment where the safety organization has a "stick" to hold over the pilots (military, airline...someplace where one can be fired for not following the rules), the only behavior that an individual can truly change is their own. I have spent decades in flight safety, and I see my job as spreading the word, pointing out issues, and helping those that WANT to learn do better. But there are always going to be the ones who feel they need no help - right until they crash and burn.

As Doug R. likes to point out - you have to look inthe mirror to find the source of the problem. Until you do that, it's all window dressing.

Paul

 

[Alan Carroll]

Alan, where on earth did you get that little gem from. If I sampled some accident data from a selctive period I could probably find proof RV's had a 50% fatal record, and that would be just as accurate, but totally misleading. Is that 2% of the total fleet per year ? 2% overall time?

This is overall through time (based on an post I had made on a different safety thread). According to the NSTB data there have been about 154 fatal accidents since the 1970s, out of a 7261 RVs that have flown (per Van's website), which is 2.1%.

 

[tadsargent]

I love statistics as they can be twisted to prove whatever you want

Alan your equation assumes there were 7261 RV's since the 1970's and that that number has not changed.

I personally do not see an issue here that Van has to address. I wonder how much of thei "issue" has less to do with RV's and more to do with our growing hobby. Certified manufactures may be squaking due to lower sales

 

[Alan Carroll]

This is overall through time (based on an post I had made on a different safety thread). According to the NSTB data there have been about 154 fatal accidents since the 1970s, out of a 7261 RVs that have flown (per Van's website), which is 2.1%.

A followup, there are 69 fatal RV accidents listed in 2005 through 2011, which is 0.9% of the current fleet (apparently the same fleet percentage as GA). However, the RV fleet size grew substantially over this period whereas the GA fleet presumably was more stable.

I tend to agree with earlier statements that statistics based on hours flown are problematic when there's no reliable way to count those hours (as there is for airlines). What actually matters to me however is "what is the probability that the airplane I built is eventually going to kill me?". 1% and 2% both sound disturbingly high, so I'd like to do what I can to lower the percentage. I will be very interested to hear about how to best reduce the risks involved with RVs, while maintaining the fun.

 

[RV10inOz]

Thanks for your reply Alan. I wonder how many were in each 10 year era, and what the split was between a genuine ABE accident VS all the normal GA types.

My guess is the early days were far worse in technical issues from being ABE and transition training or the lack of. In more recent times the majority I call handling errors and the like, but really when the political correctness is peeled back, its the moron factor at work largely.

If you have the time and inclination it would be interesting to look at Bonanza crashes V produced. They make a good comparison as a high performance piston single.

Cheers

DB


PS :as this thread has ticked over a page...PLEASE go and read my two posts on the last page and read the reports linked and think carefully about what the REAL problems are. Do some research and comment away. I think the FAA are off the mark. Its not the ABE aircraft thats the problem....its the nuts on the stick

 

[Ron Lee]

David (RV10inOZ) makes a relevant point that not all RV fatalities/accidents are due to the amateur built (ABE) status. My opinion for what it is worth is that the ABE factor will always be a contributor as will VMC into IMC and "maneuvering" factors and several others.

So you develop a safety program that attempts to raise awareness. Perhaps some things get emphasized more than others. That emphasis may change yearly. But trying to raise awareness about VMC into IMC and ways to safely get out if you do get into that situation probably will never be a pointless effort.

Darwinism is at work here. Some folks are on a path to killing themselves. We can try to get them on a path of long life and great RV experiences. But we will not succeed in some cases. All I can do is try to make a difference and make sure that I don't end up in a NTSB report.

Whether RV fatality rates are 5 times higher than GA, 8 times higher or the same is unknown. Why accept worse or the same when we can be better?

 

[Sam Buchanan]

I'd like to do what I can to lower the percentage. I will be very interested to hear about how to best reduce the risks involved with RVs, while maintaining the fun.

1) Keep your plane maintained to a high level.

2) Don't run out of gas.

3) Don't fly in clouds.

4) Don't fly at night.

5) Don't buzz your friend's house.

6) If buying a flying plane, make sure you receive excellent transition training.

That will eliminate most of the accidents and still provide a lot of fun flying.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

There are two rather long threads on this forum right now regarding safety. Yet, in another thread, the poster talks about wanting to pull the red knob all the way back and perform a real engine out approach and landing.

Yet, not on single person on this forum raised their hand and said this is not a good idea.

I think it is a great idea, properly managed.

I've done the whole Bob Hoover routine at altitude - shutting down the engine, then various maneuvers on the way down, including determining the glide ratio, speeds where the prop will stop, and what speed it takes for a restart. Also, I've stopped the engine in the pattern to test my airplane's engine out landing behavior. My thoughts are that it is far better to do these things in controlled circumstances now, so I know what to expect in the eventuality that the engine actually stops sometimes and I have to execute a forced landing.

It is all about setting up the experiment carefully. Just like the remainder of the test flight program.

 

[apkp777]

...do you mean developing a publication such as "RV Building For Dummies"?

I will admit to being "handicapped" in this discussion by being a trained, professional aircraft mechanic, and I will further admit that the publications out there can be a little obscure at times, but we do expect an education out of the airplane building process, don't we? After reading countless posts concerning extremely basic, fundamental questions it is clear that people are not even cracking open AC43.13 during the build process. If people are not even willing to try understand the info that does exist, I suspect that they will also ignore a "insert tab B into slot A" assembly manual.

One of the reasons for building EAB aircraft is for "education". Let's teach the people how to read and comprehend the abundant info that's already out there.

Just curious, but does Van include a copy of AC43.13 with each kit? If not, that would be a good start.

Yep!!. "Best Practices" would have anyone building an aircraft be a licensed A&P mechanic, that's not going to happen. I think "acceptable practices" is all we can hope for.

Frontline just did a report on airline maintenance outsourcing. Of which, I am a victim, Seems like the FAA, airlines, much of GA and certainly all of EAA and the home built community are okay with the statistics despite their casual comments otherwise.

I am in total agreement with Toolbuilder. AC43:13 should be included in kits. I wonder how many builders have a copy? Also, throw in a set of A&P text books. Also, follow Van's construction manuals and recommendations.

Additionally don't wait until your plane is airworthy to start flying. These planes are high performance and require an extra level of skill. You should be flying regularly and have some good skill.

The FAA did a good thing with the release of a new policy on L.O.D.A's. However, they would have gone much further in the safety of homebuilts if they allowed a Flight Instructor to accompany a builder on their first 40 hours of flight. Which of course is currently prohibited.

Personally, I am terribly saddened by the loss of life in aviation. But I for one don't believe that we will ever eliminate it. People will always bend and break the rules. They will always find new and spectacular ways to kill themselves.

For now, use the manuals, follow the FAR's and have a reasonable set of "personal minimums". Your chance of survival will be greatly increased.

 

[Toobuilder]

There are two rather long threads on this forum right now regarding safety. Yet, in another thread, the poster talks about wanting to pull the red knob all the way back and perform a real engine out approach and landing.

Yet, not on single person on this forum raised their hand and said this is not a good idea.

Was this because the person in question is a fomer military and current airline pilot who recently purchased his RV?.

That's part of it. We have to make a judgment call that this individual knows the risks of his actions. The situation could go bad (just like every single flight), but at least his eyes are wide open. The other part of this is that pulling the mixture knob under controlled conditions is a whole lot different than an ignorant builder securing the main battery cable to an aluminum fuel line with zip ties because he is too lazy to look at AC43.13.

If we (The collective RV / EAB community) really want better safety numbers, then we should question everyone. Because if one guy can do it, then surely I can do it also! (Even if I have 1/16th the skills of the pilot in question.) Remember, everything we post on this forum is read by someone who might try it at home.

I have a hard time embracing this philosophy completely. On the one hand, it's true; but on the other, if we censor every response to accommodate the "lowest common denominator", then we will have a board full of information that is useless to the more advanced members. People must take responsibility for their own actions, and if a few don't and kill themselves as a result - well, that's the way the world has worked since the beginning of time.

 

[FloridaJohn]

They will always find new and spectacular ways to kill themselves.

This really isn't the problem. The way I see it, people are continuing to die in predicable and boring ways. If we could just stop people from running out of fuel while still in the air, we would have eliminated the majority of GA accidents. Nothing new or spectacular about that.

 

[RV10inOz]

John,

While I agree that may apply to the GA arena in some sense, it is a little bit of an OWT to suggest fuel starvation/exhaustion is the major element. It is significant of course.

If you read my posts on the last page, you will see the Lancair at Bankstown is most likely a classic example of starvation, fuel on board just not getting to the cylinders, yet of the 49 RV prangs in the same time period I am struggling to remember the NTSB coming up with many if any fuel caused accidents. There may have been a couple, but not many if any.

Folks, lets not be in denial, (switch sense of humour on ) the problem is without doubt all you idiots out there, err sorry I know they are probably not you, as a VAF member chances are you are better read, better educated and informed and far less likely to be in a prang because you are sensible and safe, so when next you go to the field look at the other guy and ask, is he a whopping great idiot.....if you think not then it probably is you

What is it as a single person one day at a time you can do to limit the gretest majority of these accidents? I suggest we start a list. If we eliminate half the moron accidents the number of accidents will be reduced by 50% at least.

Sam Buchannan started a list a few posts back.

DB

 

[RV7AV8R]

1) Keep your plane maintained to a high level.

2) Don't run out of gas.

3) Don't fly in clouds.

4) Don't fly at night.

5) Don't buzz your friend's house.

6) If buying a flying plane, make sure you receive excellent transition training.

That will eliminate most of the accidents and still provide a lot of fun flying.

Maybe Doug R could put a version of this on the header next to VAF logo as a constant reminder. Like we have drilled into our memory by our CFIs "Fly the airplane!".

 

[David-aviator]

A followup, there are 69 fatal RV accidents listed in 2005 through 2011, which is 0.9% of the current fleet (apparently the same fleet percentage as GA). However, the RV fleet size grew substantially over this period whereas the GA fleet presumably was more stable.

I tend to agree with earlier statements that statistics based on hours flown are problematic when there's no reliable way to count those hours (as there is for airlines). What actually matters to me however is "what is the probability that the airplane I built is eventually going to kill me?". 1% and 2% both sound disturbingly high, so I'd like to do what I can to lower the percentage. I will be very interested to hear about how to best reduce the risks involved with RVs, while maintaining the fun.

The 1-2% estimate factors in every dumb thing a pilot can pull off, including buzzing, running out of fuel. low altitude aerobatics, and weather incursions. The risk factor is much lower than that if a bit of prudence is practiced.

There is no way of eliminating all risk, but I view my chances of being done-in in an auto wreck higher than in the RV. We drive 2 lane roads a lot and all it takes is one cross over, I am spring loaded to head for the ditch all the time. Driving in night rain is really filled with stress and I try to avoid it just like I won't fly the RV at night.

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

I was thinking about my Airscout time in gliders as I read the debate about real power off training being such a hazard.
That's too bad. My first 10 hours of flight instruction were without an engine.
I'd like to do it some more, and it would make me a better pilot.