What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

ATSB (Australia) Report - Amateur Built Aircraft Safety

R

rgmwa

Well Known Member
Link to ATSB report: Amateur-built aircraft Part 2: Analysis of accidents involving VH-registered non-factory-built aeroplanes 1988-2010.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4104579/AR-2007-043(2) FINAL.pdf

Hope it's OK to post this link (NB. 120 page report) as RV's are obviously part of this mix, and the safety of homebuilt aircraft is something that concerns the FAA and EAA also. If not, moderators please delete.
 
It's certainly an interesting report, but not really surprising. There are some "robust" debates around the traps about the AB and RA accident rates at the moment! :eek:

What's beyond any doubt is that there are many people trying to do the right thing, but also a few creeping in who need to undergo an attitude change. Part of the problem is how to weed out the latter before they kill their families or friends, especially when you operate in a less regulated and less formal environment.

That so many are from simple loss of control (without structural failure) is very concerning.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Dutchie, that is the problem the world over, in most things not just aviation. Transition training is one area being worked on. That being said, since the 1998 intro of ABE there has been a noticeable improvement.

When you weed out the exceptions that are the extremes, the results are not that bad.
 
Neutral skew of numbers??

My thoughts after reading this document was the emphasis on skewing the interpretation of the information specifically the use of the pictures and the %'s.

The overarching %'s are valid for the purposes of the discussion, however, these numbers continue down through the report not actually helping to understand the true differences in splits between the varying components.

The report does not help as much as it could. It could easily identify with more CLARITY the issues that are required to be addressed as opposed to trying to make a generalist statement.

Shame, because we really need a positive, constructive approache to these sorts of reports.
 
ATSB are comparing apples and oranges again. Yes, they're both both fruit, round, similar diameter and weight, but they're actually quite different.

The real question is "protection for who?" ... innocent bystanders or the participant? Don't we have to display a disclaimer because our sport is 'inherently riskier' than for production, type-certified aircraft? Yes we do. I haven't checked every accident statistic in Annex C, but at a glance I can't see a single event that caused injury or death to an innocent bystander.

The ATSB method is much like assessing road safety by comparing motor cars with motor cycles. One form of transport is inherently safer due to the lower power-to-weight ratio and extra crash protection, while the other actually performs but exposes the participant to far worse consequences if something goes awry.

It isn't rocket science that aeroplanes (particularly tailwheel types) achieving Cessna 210 performance on a small 4-cylinder engine are more likely to get ahead of the pilot, both on the ground and in the air. There would be far more tailwheel ABE types than TC aircraft too. Comparing a Corby Starlet to a Cessna 150, for example, is just wrong and entirely misleading. No matter which category (TC or ABE), high-performance tailwheel types with narrow tracks and short wheelbases are always going to feature in statistics. They're fun to fly for a reason, but much like riding a motorbike, the pilot has to keep driving until it comes to a complete stop and parked.

Stu Hutchison
IFR F1 Rocket VH-FLY
80% built
www.mykitlog.com/rockfly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top