4 propeller strikes per year?

Four people hurt by propeller strikes in 2006 sounds very low to me. (page 21 of the report) I wonder if some of these accidents go unreported?
 
Last edited:
Ironic Picture of RV8 N58RV

On page 20 there is a picture of N58RV.

Nall20.jpg

N58RV.jpg
 
Last edited:
Experimental under reported?

The Nall Report list of aircraft includes the Experimental category. Of the total US fleet, the report says there are 2972 aircraft in the Experimental category. Am I missing something or is the Nall report? That # has got to be wrong, but they repeat it in text and graphs. Can anyone shed any light on this? Did I miss that it is reported in 100s of aircraft, that would seem to be more accurate.
 
Last edited:
Build9A said:
The Nall Report list of aircraft includes the Experimental category. Of the total US fleet, the report says there are 2972 aircraft in the Experimental category. Am I missing something or is the Nall report? That # has got to be wrong, but they repeat it in text and graphs. Can anyone shed any light on this? Did I miss that it is reported in 100s of aircraft, that would seem to be more accurate.
Click to expand...

I glanced through the report and didn't see any data listing #'s of registered aircraft (in any catagory). Where is that located?
In the USA there are in excess of 25000 aircraft with experimental C of A's.
 
Page 24 Appendix

rvbuilder2002 said:
I glanced through the report and didn't see any data listing #'s of registered aircraft (in any catagory). Where is that located?
In the USA there are in excess of 25000 aircraft with experimental C of A's.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, as I had thought that there were about 25-30,000 in the Experimental category.

Check the appendix, Page 24 -- Figure 35.
 
NallFig35.jpg


It does not look like the totals add up. Maybe that is a clue to why the number of experimentals are low.
 
Last edited:
I love these reports

Well that proves it, once again, if your not a dumb *** you are 79% less likely to not get killed. Also pilots should learn how to land well. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting, the more experience you get, the less likely you're to get into an accident, until you really get lots of experience and become dumb. Than you have fatal accidents at a worse rate than new private pilots? One problem with the stats is annual hours flown by ATP's, which tends to more. Not sure if they accounted for that?


SE: 706 total/118 fatal (fleet 43,584 including fixed/retract)
Retract: 174 total/59 fatal
Multi: 93 total/39 fatal
Experimental 126 total/40 fatal Experimental. (47% growth in 10 years, fleet 2,972)

It would seem that the fleet of SE factory planes (many which are hanger or ramp queens) have a better accident rate than the Experimentals. I would also say Experimentals fly way more as a fleet per plane and less sit. The experimental trend is on an up tick. Keep in mind AOPA is not PRO experimental. In general AOPA, is AMSA - Aircraft Manufacture Sales Association. Kit planes are the ugly red headed step-child to the big dogs and AOPA. Think of how many kit sales means less factory sales. AOPA has and never will be a big promoter of kit and armature built planes. They only got behind the LSA - light sport planes because that's industry, manufactures. Not saying they are against, just that their traditional membership, including manufactures, is not really in line business wise with homebuilt do it yourself planes.

AOPA's report is always interesting and was encouraged that weather and fuel management accidents are down (from historic highs) but maneuvering and landing :confused: what the heck? WHY SO MANY maneuvering and landing accidents? Geee, I'm not saying it can't happen to me, I darn well know it could, knock on wood, but that's a really embarrassing sad stat. What can I say, practice more? Keep in mind they can't report the accidents/incidents that are not reported. Also the +4,000 hour pilot rate does not include the hours flown per year. You would think more total hours, the more they fly?

"Liars figure and figures lie"

It's hard to draw conclusions but its good to remind yourself accidents happen and MOST OF THEM HAPPEN BETWEEN THE EARS OF THE PILOT. :rolleyes: That is humbling. "Fate is the hunter" and your destiny is in your own hands, when you fly. Even if you do it all right "s**t happens".

Takeoffs are optional but landings are mandatory."
 
Last edited:
Build9A said:
I agree with you, as I had thought that there were about 25-30,000 in the Experimental category.

Check the appendix, Page 24 -- Figure 35.
Click to expand...

I guess I skimmed it too fast...I totally missed it.

If they have that big of an error in total # of registered experimentals, maybe the accident data regarding them is totally off also.

I also wonder why they list 752 experimentals under airtaxi operations. The only thing that comes to mind is Ag operations. If Ag operations are being lumped in with all other experimental accident data, it is sure to be slanting the data in regard to amature built accidents per 100,000 flight hours
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
"Liars figure and figures lie"
Click to expand...

Whenever I read one of these reports filled with graphs and figures I'm reminded of this one:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

Regardless of my guarded personal opinion of these sorts of reports, it's still sobering reading. Now, if they could just make the totals add up correctly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.