tomwebster

tomwebster

Well Known Member
I didn't want to create more noise in
the 'returning to airport' thread, so am
asking a Safety question in a new thread.

Does the FAA report EX accidents much
differently than certified aircraft?

I see a lot of points being made using
accident statistics. My experience has
been that the FAA doesn't care as much
about our problems as maybe they can't
do as much about them. I feel that using
a FAA accident search doesn't mean much as
far as EX statistics is concerned.

IE:
I was one of the RV-7A forced landings
mentioned in another Safety thread.
I called a friend in the local FAA office
to ask if I should report it. I told him
that the newly overhauled ex engine failed
at 78 hours and I had a forced landing in a
clover field. He met me at the airplane,
checked my paper work and went home early.
He was on site about 10 minutes.
He said I was covered if anyone asked.
No public report, no statistics.

I would love to be able to do searches on EX
aircraft referencing different modes of failure.
I wonder if they would be very accurate.

Tom
 
Conundrum

This sort of data can be a double edged sword. Yes, it would be educational to read of failures and causes. But remember what the same helpful data could be in the hands of an unscrupulous plaintiff's attorney. Most of us look at the information as helpful in making decisions, others see it as a profit center.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
The AOPA Nall report has some experimental statistics in it.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf You may have to be an AOPA member to see it, if you are not, you should be, they are fighting for us in DC.

Also, I was asked to speak to the MN Rvators about safety so I did a quick search of the 2008 NTSB database and found 11 fatalities in RVs last year. That is much better than warbird numbers based on the number of airplanes and amount of hours flown, but that is still way too many dead friends.

John and Martha King talk about "The Big Lie" That is when we tell our friends things like, "the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport." or "remember when sex was safe and flying was dangerous." Flying is a high risk business and while it might be OK to BS your wife or your pals about it, when we look in the mirror, we need to be honest with ourselves about the risk in this business.

They include maneuvering flight, (read low alt acro and buzzing) fuel mismanagement, (read running out of gas) weather, formation, and mechanical problems.

I do not tell anyone this to cause them to quit flying, rather to cause them to search for ways to drive the risks out of flying. You can read all the accident reports you want but the risks just don't change. Good pilots still do stupid things.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
B25Flyer said:
I do not tell anyone this to cause them to quit flying, rather to cause them to search for ways to drive the risks out of flying. You can read all the accident reports you want but the risks just don't change. Good pilots still do stupid things.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Click to expand...

Amen Doug, Amen!!

"Stupid Pilot Tricks" are clearly our worst enemy, and the hardest problem to fight - because everyone has a way to justify everything they do. The ability to be self-critical is probably the greatest indicator of a good, safe pilot in my opinion.

Paul
 
Good pilots still do stupid things.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, I'm working through my CFI renewal right now through AOPA/Jeppesen and one of the chapters is on causes of accidents. I believe the number was 80% of fatal accidents can be/are attributed to pilot error/mismanagement of the flight.
 
Last edited:
If we as pilots would stop doing stupid things that we know are bad, there would be far fewer accidents and deaths. How do you teach someone not to continue flying to get home when they know better (ala the guys who departed from Santa Teresa last year into a thunderstorm?)

How do you ensure that no one runs out of fuel? It is easy to stop and get more but people still run out of fuel.

The problem is not the inherent safety of the RV. It is the pilot.

Realistically, the RV community needs a safety program. It could be based largely on AOPA online courses showing what you should not do. But the key is a group discussion where you have to ingrain into people that they have to recognize potential problems before they occur and make safe choices to avert problems. This means that your destination may not be made that day. It may mean an overnight you did not plan on.

Until this element is addressed and largely followed, expect more accidents and deaths.

The RV community can do better. I am going to start a new thread on an RV safety program.
 
Last edited:
Ron Lee said:
If we as pilots would stop doing stupid things that we know are bad, there would be far fewer accidents and deaths. How do you teach someone not to continue flying to get home when they know better (ala the guys who departed from Santa Teresa last year into a thunderstorm?)

How do you ensure that no one runs out of fuel? It is easy to stop and get more but people still run out of fuel.
Click to expand...

Have them read the NTSB reports on Mon, Wed, Fri of each week. This is when they get updated. It makes you think...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
You can search the NTSB data base for accidents involving experimental aircraft here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Doesn't show any difference in investigation procedures and you can't search by cause, but you can see the reports and figure things out for yourself. For example, a search for all RV-9 accidents gave 9 hits, all non-fatal and looking at the reports, 3 out of the 9 involved planes with Subaru engines.
 
I have noticed a difference in reporting...

RScott said:
You can search the NTSB data base for accidents involving experimental aircraft here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Doesn't show any difference in investigation procedures and you can't search by cause, but you can see the reports and figure things out for yourself. For example, a search for all RV-9 accidents gave 9 hits, all non-fatal and looking at the reports, 3 out of the 9 involved planes with Subaru engines.
Click to expand...

...between quiet, uncontrolled airports and those with control towers.

Accidents/incidents that are not viewed by FAA personnel sometimes seem to go unreported, unless it's fatal.

The burden for reporting seems to be on the pilot, and they would rather it not go on the record, and interestingly, unlike auto accidents, the aircraft insurance companies do not seem to insist on the aviation equivalent of a "police report".

At one time, I though that an airport operator was responsible for reporting accidents/incidents, but I'm not sure if that really is the case.
 
KSQL is required to report any damage to a/c or property. It is gov funded, not sure about private airports.
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.