M

mcsteatlh

Active Member
Sitting at the local FBO listening to real pilots talking, I heard one offer up that he agreed to fly an experimental STOL(I have seen it. Not a Kitfox but something like it) after it was ready. Experienced pilot, many many hours, CFII, many ratings, etc etc.... Heard him say he was really concerned and worried. I opened my mouth and asked why? He said, "Because it was built in someones garage." I then asked why that bothered him. He replied, "do you know how many garage builts hit the ground?" I, uninformed and ignorant replied, "No more than GA aircraft I think. Maybe less." End of conversation.

This bothered me. I know this man to be gruff and a tad stiff, but this flippant comment about homebuilts struck a nerve. I know that all GA pilots can't think this way. Is there truth to him stating, "experimental = crash?"

McSteath
Student Pilot
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any statisics but..

He is right to be concerned. We RV types tend to be conservative and don't often deviate from the norm of what has been offered in our kits.

I think if everyone built an RV this way then we could expect the accident rate to be the same or better compared to GA.....At least as far as first flights go.

The trouble is the "experimental" category gives the builder a LOT of latitude...In fact we can pretty much do what we want.

I don't have a mechanical fuel pump...but an electric pump in each wingroot. Sure its designed carefully and I am very comfortable with the system, But if I hired a test pilot I wouldn't expect him to be.

Take this this to its logical conclusion where you have untrained folks trying out unproven ideas in their homebuilts and I think its fair to say a few more of them go down than the average GA airplane.

I was told of a Rotax conversion where the guy"invented" his own two stroke style lubrication system...Evrybody apparently tried to dissuade him from flying his contraption..He killed himself on a very early flight...Yup the engine seized.

This sort of thing is a rare example but it does happen.

If you are concerned about an RV falling out of the sky...well that just doesn't happen. Stick to tried and trusted methods (a Lycoming clone with a standard fuel system and one mag) and you will be as safe as any GA airplane.

Frank
7a 225 hours
 
Overall, many General Aviation pilots are uninformed about experimental aircraft. There's a group that generally look down on anythink that's not certified. You can try to talk to them but most have their mind made up.

Life's too short. Move on.
 
The data that I recall from about two years ago...

On average Exp have more accidents that certified.
But some certified have fewer then others. I remember that C172 had about the lowest rate. So why would the pilot that made that comment ever fly anything that a C172?

I don't recall all the details of the article about acc. rate, but I am sure that there are certified planes with higher rates the exp.

The largest type of acc. for certified as well as exp. is "pilot error". The best way to improve this is with training and practice.

I think that a pronounced difference in the acc. rate between exp. and cert. for mechanical failure was engine problems. If you want a safe airplane make sure that you have an engine that is reliable.

Kent
 
I agree with Frank. I TC a lot of projects other than RVs, and some of what you see will make your hair stand on end. RV builders tend to be much more conservative about following proven aircraft practice, but that's not to say they don't do plenty of dumb things too. Anybody drafted for a first flight should make a point of spending time inspecting the aircraft (lots of time!)and refusing to fly if they find anything they don't like.
 
mcsteatlh said:
Is there truth to him stating, "experimental = crash?"
Click to expand...

Ron Wanttaja wrote an article titled "Homebuilt Aircraft: How Safe Are They?" for the September 2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine. (If you have a subscription, the article is online here: http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/pdfs/0906-2832.pdf ) He crunched a lot of numbers and had to make some assumptions, so you should track down the article for the full scoop, but basically he found about 1 in 100 first-flights results in a crash. Quoting from Ron's article (with some commentary from him directly relevant to RVs):

"Two thirds of the 27 identified first flight accidents were due to human error. Thirteen were Pilot Error - Failure to Control, and five were Builder Error. Three of the Builder Error crashes were fuel-system related.

Looking at the entire test period, about 3.3% of the homebuilt fleet crashes during the first 40 hours. Again, this is similar to the results of the previous study. One of the interesting discoveries from before was that the homebuilt accident rate tapered off sharply during the test period, but that there was a secondary peak in the 40-80 hour range. As Figure 5 shows, the peak is still there, although not as obvious.

Another fascinating discovery from the first flight analysis: Although more than a third of new homebuilts are RVs, only one of the 27 identified first flight accidents happened to a Van?s Aircraft design. Only 7% of homebuilt accidents during the nominal 40-hour test period involved an RV. Why? Many factors, but I?d guess the biggest driver is the support available from the thousands of successful RV builders."
 
One question

Great comments.

But I have one question. If the guy doesn't trust the quality of "garage builts" why did he agree to fly it?
 
Back in the dark ages...

When I got my PPL I remember some of the old time pilots commenting on an experimental. They commented on how dangerous they were and only an idot would fly one.

At the time, that was probably correct, this was just as the RV-4 was starting to show up around the country and most home builts were rag and tube things which stalled at high speeds and cruised not much faster.

That and there was no "standard" home built, unlike what we enjoy with our RV's today.
 
mcsteatlh said:
Sitting at the local FBO listening to real pilots talking, I heard one offer up that he agreed to fly an experimental STOL(I have seen it. Not a Kitfox but something like it) after it was ready. Experienced pilot, many many hours, CFII, many ratings, etc etc.... Heard him say he was really concerned and worried. I opened my mouth and asked why? He said, "Because it was built in someones garage." I then asked why that bothered him. He replied, "do you know how many garage builts hit the ground?" I, uninformed and ignorant replied, "No more than GA aircraft I think. Maybe less." End of conversation.
Click to expand...

Time for a reality check here: Up until last summer, I was that guy. You couldn't pay me to even ride in an experimental, let alone fly one. I didn't want to "John Denver" into the ocean or the ground. I was grossly uneducated and very slanted in my "know-it-all-ness".

It wasn't until I saw my good friend Jim Rore's RV-10 that I realized what I'd been missing out on. I had no clue that an "experimental" airplane could be a "real" airplane. One year ago today, on my 40th birthday, I started building my RV-9A, and I've never looked back. In the past year, I've seen so many quality airplanes, most of which are safer than any certified plane I ever flew.

I'm sorry for my prior ignorance, and I'm sorry that there are still so many ignorant people within our small world of aviators. Build on !
 
Kudos to you, Craig, for admitting your ignorance in a previous life. :)
For many years I thought that folks who built their own planes were wackos. THEN I went to OSH and saw the quality of the majority of homebuilts ... and knew from that moment I'd be fumbling for my checkbook one day.

We have an instructor in our flying club who has the attitude of the crusty ol' dude that inspired this thread. With his jaw set like bulldog, I heard him growl one day, " I'd NEVER fly in a homebuilt in either L or R seat. Never have, never will." He said it was because he's seen some real "junk" made by amateurs. When I asked if he'd ever been to OSH, he growled again, "Nope. Never have, never will." THAT'S the kind of people that malign homebuilts. No prob. More room for us. :D

Terry
 
Educate

Rupester said:
When I asked if he'd ever been to OSH, he growled again, "Nope. Never have, never will." THAT'S the kind of people that malign homebuilts. No prob. More room for us. :D

Terry
Click to expand...

All good points and I go through those same things. They should be told that we're running a Lyc and the airplane has been inspected during its construction, complies with known aircaft construction standards. Furthermore, more time was spent on it than factory stuff because it's a labor of love. By the time its ready to fly, it gets a thorough inspection by a very qualified guy and is issued an airworthiness certificate. I know I'm preaching to the choir but this is the way I handle those kinda skeptics and I think we all should try hard to do that. Take the time to educate them and avoid confrontational situations.

Every time I go to Sun 'n Fun or any place where a number of RV's gather, I'm very impressed with the airplanes and the amount of time and love you guys have put in.

Regards,
 
Education

Sometimes the only thing we can do is fly safe. That is in it's own right an effort to educate the crusty among us. Other times we need to encourage. Back in a former life, during a time of poorness, I flew ultralights. I had a Phantom, IMHO one of nicest, safest and most fun of the lot.

Our airport manager was a great old guy, but really didn't like UL's. Every day the discussion would be: "Come on, Gil, go fly my ultralight." Reply, "That'll be the day." This went on for years. One day, before I could say anything, he said, "Today's the day." He had a great time and came back with a different attitude. In the few short months I have been flying my 9A, I have seen similar attitude changes about homebuilts, too. Sadly, Gil went in while flying a certificated AC not long after that. A fine friend and pilot, sadly missed.

Don't do anything dumb and someday you may win them over.

Bob Kelly
 
It's funny, really, how many aviators out there who pay homage to the Wright Brothers would consider them "idiots" by the standards they apply to aviation today.

It is the nature of humans to build, to experiment, to create, to risk in order to learn and explore.

That so many Americans now view these traits as "craziness" explains a lot about why we've lost our way as a country in the world. We've turned our backs on everything that created our greatness in the first place. The gentleman in the FBO is just a metaphor. Kinda sad, it is.
 
Last edited:
Time for a reality check here: Up until last summer, I was that guy. You couldn't pay me to even ride in an experimental, let alone fly one. I didn't want to "John Denver" into the ocean or the ground. I was grossly uneducated and very slanted in my "know-it-all-ness".
Click to expand...

Ditto:

Until my first ride in an RV 8 I thought homebuilts were fugitives from the soap box derby. Than I found an F1 and then built my own and would never go back to those safe certified production planes.

Just requires education.

Although I must say that before I found my F1 I looked at a lot of completed and partially completed RVs that shouldn't be flown because of poor workmanship.
 
Just my 2 cents. First off, and of course this doesn't apply to my plane or your plane, on the whole experimentals are a bit more dangerous. Secondly, I think it is prudent to be cautious of flying in someone elses airplane, especially a first flight. I think most of us have seen questionable contruction technique, misguided "improvements" to the design, and maintenence issues that would give us cause for concern at some point. Of course I have also seen certified aircraft that I would be leary of getting into. Thirdly, experimental aviation has changed, and a lot of pilots remember the days when many experimentals were truly experimental. Today things are different with well designed and tested kits and large support networks of other builders available to help. Of course, our own dirty secret is that our aircraft are likely built, maintained, equiped and perform better than many of the certified aircraft out there. You may or may not ever change how a lot of pilots view experimental aircraft, but the ever increasing numbers of experimentals out there, the continual improvement in accident statistics, and the ever increasing regulatory burdens of certified aircraft will continue to expose more and more pilots to the truth about experimentals.
 
I remember a year or so ago in the British "Pilot Magazine" there was a test of what kind of flyer you were: A "Pilot" or an "Aviator". A "Pilot" is a proffesional, not neccesarily overly interested in neither flying nor aircrafts, but a proffesional taking pride in doing things the way they should be (correct that is), preferably in 35 k feets. An "aviator" on the other hand was someone that like "flying by the seat of your pants", preferably in an open cockpit or in a cub with skiis.

Something like this, but I will have to dig up the magazine. But I remember that experimental types would be the archeotypical "aviator".
 
SvingenB said:
I remember a year or so ago in the British "Pilot Magazine" there was a test of what kind of flyer you were: A "Pilot" or an "Aviator".
Click to expand...

A seasoned instructor once put me in the left seat of his C 185 to see "If you are a pilot or an airplane driver." Kinda humbling flight, it was.

Bob Kelly
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.