How safe are homebuilt planes?
09-04-2006, 11:40 PM
#101
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
The reason the Mooney Porsche wasn't successful was because it was a lot of money for a conversion that provided very little, if any, performance increase.
12-29-2006, 07:40 PM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: rockhampton, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
just been briefly readin this forum.......yes i would buy and build a van's rv-7. do any of you remember the guy that flew solo around the world both directions???...he is an aussie guy named john johanson. and he did this feat in a van's rv-4. i have worked on this plane and i know its a good solid and well designed airframe.
tell your soon-to-be-wife that its safer to fly than to drive a car. people who dwell on statistics about crashes etc are intensely morbid and need to get out more and have a good time.
just my 10 cents worth
cheers
craig
tell your soon-to-be-wife that its safer to fly than to drive a car. people who dwell on statistics about crashes etc are intensely morbid and need to get out more and have a good time.
just my 10 cents worth
cheers
craig
12-29-2006, 09:11 PM
#103
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
12-30-2006, 11:00 AM
#104
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
As an aircraft mechanic for the airlines and one who works on small planes on the side for flying privlages, I have seen many diffrent aircraft and how they are made. I have time( about 20-40 hours in each except the Cessna at 60) in the ubiuotious C-150, Grumman Cheeta, 68' Mooney updated at the factory to new specks, Enstrom helicopters F28a and F280FX. I have been lucky to get multiple rides in an Aircam, Cirrus 22 and RV8. The Cirrus and Mooney are great for traveling, the 150 and Cheeta are fun to knock around in. Aircam and helli are great for low tree top sight seeing and landing on river banks.
The RV8 is better.
The RV8 was so solid. It flew like a rc pattern plane.
I know there are better aerobatic planes out there, but i think anyone could fly an rv if they can fly a medium performance plane.
Most homebuilts are enginnerred to certified standards or better, and are built with more care than certified. Look at a new C-172 and an old. Look at the rivits in a row and compaire with the old one. The old straight as an arrow; the new wiggle around and sometimes miss the ribs! Cirrus gets by on its stall certification by saying you are not allowed too and have the parachute in case. Most plane crashes are stupid pilots flying their plane out of its entended envelope. One night late, I saw a Lear 45 take off and do a roll; at the rc field a pitts model 12 came over did some rolls. one set he extended it to thee rolls almost flew into the trees that line the back side when he washed out. That is what is dangerous, not what the plane is.
Tom
The RV8 is better.
The RV8 was so solid. It flew like a rc pattern plane.
I know there are better aerobatic planes out there, but i think anyone could fly an rv if they can fly a medium performance plane.
Most homebuilts are enginnerred to certified standards or better, and are built with more care than certified. Look at a new C-172 and an old. Look at the rivits in a row and compaire with the old one. The old straight as an arrow; the new wiggle around and sometimes miss the ribs! Cirrus gets by on its stall certification by saying you are not allowed too and have the parachute in case. Most plane crashes are stupid pilots flying their plane out of its entended envelope. One night late, I saw a Lear 45 take off and do a roll; at the rc field a pitts model 12 came over did some rolls. one set he extended it to thee rolls almost flew into the trees that line the back side when he washed out. That is what is dangerous, not what the plane is.
Tom
01-03-2007, 02:44 PM
#105
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR.
01-03-2007, 02:47 PM
#106
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
tell your soon-to-be-wife that its safer to fly than to drive a car.
Actually its the other way around. Proven many times. I suggest you by a copy of aviation consumer, then look up back issues.
01-03-2007, 04:39 PM
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: , NJ
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Perhaps it is the typical pilot of Homebuilts. Are these expert craftsmen also expert pilots? I think an examination of the pilots experience level, type and quality of training he recieved, etc. might be revealing.
01-07-2007, 05:29 AM
#108
My Feedback: (29)
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Homebuilts in general do require a greater level of knowlege and skill than factory planes do. Some designs are very common kits that are easy to build and fly and are as safe as an FAA certified aircraft. Others require a level of skill to build and fly that very few people possess. Airplanes are much like motorcycles, they can both kill you very quickly. You should only operate them if its something you have to do and for no other reason.
01-10-2007, 10:53 AM
#109
Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Santa Fe,
NM
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: 2fast
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
What I've found over the years flying homebuilts is:
- For certificated aircraft, the purchase price is the cheapest part with only rare exceptions. This puts them out of reach for a huge number of would-be pilots. This isn't typically the case for homebuilts, particularly with proven designs like the RV and light a/c like the Rans, Kolb and even the humble quicksilvers. These planes typically have a lower operating cost, mostly because parts/labor does NOT have to be yellow-tagged and paperworked to death. Even resale value is beginning to come up for the more popular designs like the RV and the Rans.
- The familiarity with the aircraft that comes from building it one's self is a HUGE safety advantage. Even in case of 2nd-hand ownership, the freedom to do one's own maintenance is an equally large safety advantage. If you want your butt looked after, it's generally best done by one's self. Certificated a/c _require_ that someone else (an AnP) look after your butt, a not-good compromise in many cases.
If you don't know what you're doing, FAA has AC 43.13 that'll show you the proper building/maintenance techniques for practically anything in your plane, the manufacturer can show you the rest.
- The kits available on the market now are nothing like the scratch-built stuff we used to have to deal with in days past. The Rans for example are simply superbly designed and executed kits that leave virtually no stone unturned. Same with the RV, a very proven and popular design. Even my Kolb is a very well built airplane with very very little messed up stuff on it, these airframes can last 1000's of hours (mine has over 500 and is still in really good shape).
- John Denver died due to pilot error, if I recall correctly. Pilot error accounts for the large majority of accidents and fatalities in aircraft. I've only ever had one in-flight airframe failure, but I've screwed up many many times (fortunately without accident)....
LS
01-11-2007, 01:07 AM
#110
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Gravity, I have to chime in on this thread. I am building an RV7 and should have it done by summer. It is a quickbuild kit and I started it on July 15,2006. I am a very experienced builder and pilot and the Van's aircraft are hands down the best kits out there. The performance of the 7 is excellennt both in high speed and low speed handling. There is not a better all around airplane. As for the auto conversions or aircraft engine there is only one choice and that is a Lycoming in this airplane. Contrary to other posts you can expect 2000hrs or more of trouble free service from a Lycoming 320-360 series engine if built correctly in the first place. Also the 7 is designed for it and it is a no brainer instalation.You will spend as much time trying to fit an auto engine in the 7 as building the rest of the airplane and you will end up with less performance, more money in the powerplant and related systems and very little resale value. Also the Lycomings are not as expensive as you think. Here is a breakdown on my airplane so far. Don
RV7 quickbuild kit with all of the kit options
IO-360 parallel valve engine, balanced to within 1 gram, flowported, new ECI cylinders, new mags, harness and overhauled accessories, forward intake fuel injection, everything done to new engine specs. Dynos at 217hp. $21,000 outright.
Hartzell CS prop 0time overhaul again to new specs
Dynon D100 and D120 EFIS and EMS with all options
Navaid wing leveler autopilot with GPS tracking
ICOM 760 comm
King kt 76 transponder with encoder
Garmin 396 GPS in a dashmount
Aero Classics leather interior
I will have a little less than $75,000 in the airplane less paint when ready to fly and around 1000-1200 hrs construction time. RVs are great flying airplanes and if you ever get to fly one you will be hooked. Also you will fit in it just fine so quit dreaming and get building.
RV7 quickbuild kit with all of the kit options
IO-360 parallel valve engine, balanced to within 1 gram, flowported, new ECI cylinders, new mags, harness and overhauled accessories, forward intake fuel injection, everything done to new engine specs. Dynos at 217hp. $21,000 outright.
Hartzell CS prop 0time overhaul again to new specs
Dynon D100 and D120 EFIS and EMS with all options
Navaid wing leveler autopilot with GPS tracking
ICOM 760 comm
King kt 76 transponder with encoder
Garmin 396 GPS in a dashmount
Aero Classics leather interior
I will have a little less than $75,000 in the airplane less paint when ready to fly and around 1000-1200 hrs construction time. RVs are great flying airplanes and if you ever get to fly one you will be hooked. Also you will fit in it just fine so quit dreaming and get building.
01-11-2007, 09:21 PM
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne Victoria, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gravityisnotmyfriend
I just want to know some statistics. I'm a private pilot and am planning on building my first plane. I'm leaning heavily toward the RV-7. The problem is my soon to be wife is not entirely supportive on the idea. My dad crashed a plane when he was in his 20's which makes her think that planes are dangerous. I tried to explain to her that he has had one crash in 30+ yrs of flying and she's been in 5 car accidents in 7 yrs of driving. That didn't go over very well. I believe that private aviation is a very safe sport, but I need some facts to back me up. Can anyone help me convince her?
This may sound bad, but if you intend on flying in the future, get rid of the proposed wife!!!! They figure after the ring goes on, they can change you. You will be running uphill from now on...
I flyj3, I agree. Funny thing about men's and women's different expectations from marriage. a man marries a woman hoping she'll never change; a woman marries a man hoping she can change him!!
_____________________________
ORIGINAL: Gravityisnotmyfriend
I just want to know some statistics. I'm a private pilot and am planning on building my first plane. I'm leaning heavily toward the RV-7. The problem is my soon to be wife is not entirely supportive on the idea. My dad crashed a plane when he was in his 20's which makes her think that planes are dangerous. I tried to explain to her that he has had one crash in 30+ yrs of flying and she's been in 5 car accidents in 7 yrs of driving. That didn't go over very well. I believe that private aviation is a very safe sport, but I need some facts to back me up. Can anyone help me convince her?
This may sound bad, but if you intend on flying in the future, get rid of the proposed wife!!!! They figure after the ring goes on, they can change you. You will be running uphill from now on...
I flyj3, I agree. Funny thing about men's and women's different expectations from marriage. a man marries a woman hoping she'll never change; a woman marries a man hoping she can change him!!
_____________________________
01-11-2007, 09:47 PM
#112
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
The reason I can spend 30hrs a week building my airplane and work full time is because my EX wife didn't like airplanes. Unfortunately I see this all the time, the man loves flying and the wife hates it. I will probably never get married again. Don
01-11-2007, 11:54 PM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: 2fast
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Please allow me to comment with 20+ years as an FAR 121 airline pilot/simulator instructor/check airman, a CFI under both FAR 61 and 141 and an A&P mechanic.
The point you conclude with contradicts your assertion... If you read the NTSB report on the Denver crash, it was ascribed to pilot error... Mr. Denver crashed after taking off with minimum fuel, indequate knowledge and training on the airplane, running out of fuel and losing control of the airplane while trying to get another tank to feed. The airplane didn't disintegrate or fall out of the sky. Sadly, Mr. Denver fell victim to his lack of training and experience with the airplane.
It is a matter of NTSB record that the vast majority of GA accidents are pilot-related, and IMO that is directly related to training and recency of experience... One of the major reasons the airlines are as safe as they are is the training required of airline pilots... To be qualified as a First Officer at a jet airline, you will complete initial grouind training of some 6 weeks, 25-30 hours in a full motion simulator practicing normal and emergency procedures, an FAA checkride on those maneuvers, and at least 25 hours of line operations with a check airman. Total calendar time in training - 2-3 months, full time. Upgrade to captain? Back to ground school, additional simulator training, FAA checkride, another 25+ hours of line operations training followed by a FAA line check. Once on line, you fly 70-90 hours per month, 12 months a year in all weather. This tends to keep airline pilots pretty sharp.
Contrast that with GA flying - Private pilot training - 35 - 40 hours hours of flight training over any length of time. Ground school for the FAA written exam can be done self-study with a CFI signoff. Take an FAA designee checkride and you're good to carry the wife and kids anywhere you want in good weather. Unfortunately, GA airplanes continue to meet tragic ends at a distressing rate. The NTSB rules out mechanical failure in over 90% of these events, assigning the responsibiltiy to the Pilot in Command. Your point is well taken that a competent GA who flies an excellent, professional airplane is safer, but it is their natural ability and curiosity that makes him/her safe, not the training they must have. They consider the private pilot certificate as a license to learn as much as they can about their machine and about flying, and are likely to have a long and satisfying aviation career. Others take it far less professionally, and are rolling the dice that they won't have a problem, and are candidates for an NTSB report. In either case, the airplane is an inanimate participant in their activities, and will safely complete a well planned and executed flight, or crash on a fog shrouded mountain due to lack of pilot skill, knowledge or experience.
The weak point is the pilot NOT the machine.
01-12-2007, 10:23 AM
#114
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: 2fast
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
2fast, You have obviously not taken a close look at the average homebuilt flying out there. Most homebuilts are designed by people with aeronautical engineering backgrouds and are built to a much higher standard than certified aircraft. There are exceptions to this but very few these days. My RV7 is stressed +6 -4g (actually a very conservative figure from Van's as it is more like +8 -6g) and the average certified aircraft is +4 -2g. The standard of workmanship is also much higher on the average homebuilt than certified. It is not rocket science maintaining an airplane and I know every inch of my airplane because I put it together. Aircraft engines are pretty simple and again not hard to learn how to work on them. The vast majority of GA accidents are pilot error and have nothing to do with the type of aircraft involved. I have around 3000hrs of accident free flying and most of that time is in experimental, warbird and aerobatic aircraft. I am more nervous flying in smaller turbo-prop commuter airplanes because I know I've probably got more time than both the pilots combined.
What it all comes down to in the end is life has choices. You can sit back and be ultra consevative and never do anything you think looks dangerous or you can take a few risks and enjoy the high you get from doing something you love. I love flying and learning new skills both full scale and RC. I also like high performance and the only place to get that in aviation these days is homebuilts. Don
01-20-2007, 03:37 PM
#115
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Apple Valley,
CA
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: 2fast
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Why would you want to fly in a home designed, home built, home maintained aircraft? This is YOUR LIFE and your wife's LIFE we are talking about. There are plenty of proven safe certificated GA aircraft out there to choose from, many are used and affordable.
Don't know about you, but if it's my wife and family in the plane I want something at least as safe as the airlines. To me that means a production certificated aircraft, professionally maintained and solid regular training for myself, both VFR and IFR. If I can't afford to do it this way then I'll just ride the "big iron".
Do you really want the last thing you hear on this earth to be the screams of your family after your homebuilt beauty comes apart or it flat gets away from you?
Anyone remember John Denver?
Jackjet
01-23-2007, 02:52 AM
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne Victoria, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Ed Toner's post, # 63, and his reference to a V tail bonanza being called "the flying doctor killer" reminds me of a joke.
What are the 3 most dangerous things in aviation?
1. Two check captains flying together 2. a doctor in a bonanza 3. A hostie (flight attendant) with a chipped tooth!!
You're right about the doctors having more money than flying ability, and the V tails were a slippery aircraft. I'm not sure about requiring a higher level of skill for single pilot IFR than any other slippery piston engined aircraft, e.g., a Ted Smith Aerostar in the single engined category, or any number of twins, both piston and turbine, that can be crewed by a single pilot. They can be a handful close in to the airport or flying an instrument approach in poor weather.
What are the 3 most dangerous things in aviation?
1. Two check captains flying together 2. a doctor in a bonanza 3. A hostie (flight attendant) with a chipped tooth!!
You're right about the doctors having more money than flying ability, and the V tails were a slippery aircraft. I'm not sure about requiring a higher level of skill for single pilot IFR than any other slippery piston engined aircraft, e.g., a Ted Smith Aerostar in the single engined category, or any number of twins, both piston and turbine, that can be crewed by a single pilot. They can be a handful close in to the airport or flying an instrument approach in poor weather.
01-31-2007, 10:10 PM
#117
My Feedback: (93)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sun City, AZ
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
I concour with Pitts Driver, stay single and fly and build to your hearts content. Nothing beats hanging in your seatbelts in a S2-C or cruising in your Very Safe favorite homebuilt to an airshow or just a fly-in breakfast.
Life is short gentlemen, enjoy.
Glasair RG Driver
Life is short gentlemen, enjoy.
Glasair RG Driver
01-31-2007, 11:07 PM
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: N Ft Myers,
FL
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
dOOd, Porsche pulled the plug, not Mooney!
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Actually it was business. Mooney got Porsche to pay for a good part of the certification of a new streached Mooney and when Mooney met the terms of the contract, and the window of opportunity was there they axed Porche. Thus getting rid of any future problems with debuging the engine. The engine actually had good performance with maybe 10 or so HP over the engine they replaced it with. Porsche projected good TBO, but I suspect Mooney was afraid they would not be able to meet that, or that their would be problems with the reduction drive down the road. Nevermind that this was not borne out with the testing. Were some problems with the fuel injection as I recall.
The reason the Mooney Porsche wasn't successful was because it was a lot of money for a conversion that provided very little, if any, performance increase.
02-01-2007, 02:42 AM
#119
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
2Fast must be renting 152s somewhere. Try owning a real plane. It's not a "real" plane until the weight of the AD's and paperwork exceed the gross weight of the airship. I've done well over 300 kts in an SX 300 a few feet off a runway on a low pass and watched the G meter peg and I had ZERO doubts of the safety of the structure because I knew exactly who built it. Can't say that for a factory plane.
02-01-2007, 02:55 AM
#120
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
Actually, the NTSB report on Denver says he took off light tanks and had not a clue where the tank selector(s) was. He was on his knees,facing the tail groping for it ( or another beer) and apparently kicked the rudder.
The pilot had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built Long-EZ airplane, which had a fuel system that differed from the designer's plans. The original builder had modified the fuel system by relocating the fuel selector handle from a position between the front pilot's legs to a position behind & above his (or her) left shoulder. There were no markings for the operating positions of the fuel selector handle, which were up (for off), down (for the right tank), and to the right (for the left tank). This deviation from the original design plans did not require FAA approval, nor did it require a placard to indicate such change from the original design. On 10/11/97 at Santa Maria, CA, the pilot received a 1/2-hour flight and ground checkout in the airplane by another Long-EZ pilot.( oops) The checkout pilot reported that the pilot needed a seatback cushion to be in position to reach the rudder pedals, and that he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle while seated with the cushion added.During preflight, the pilot was not observed to visually check the fuel. The technician noted that when the pilot was seated in the airplane, he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle.
A certified true copy of the pilot's FAA medical record files were obtained and reviewed by Safety Board investigators. According to the pilot's FAA medical records, the physician who examined the pilot on June 13, 1996, issued a third-class medical certificate to the pilot at the conclusion of the examination. His FAA medical records further showed that on November 6, 1996, the FAA Civil Aeromedical Certification Division sent the pilot a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, acknowledging receipt of his June 13, 1996, medical application and stating, in part:
We had previously received an interim report from H. C. Whitcomb, Jr., M.D., pertinent to your alcohol problem. Dr. Whitcomb reported that "in general averages two to four drinks of either wine or beer/week when he's traveling." He further stated that there has been no abuse, (see footnote 1) ...in our letter of October 18, 1995, we specified that your "continued airman medical certification remains contingent upon your total abstinence for use of alcohol."
The letter informs the pilot that based on the above information, he did not meet the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any class of medical certificate at that time. The letter further states: "If you do not wish to voluntarily return your certificate, your file may be sent to our regional office for appropriate action." According to U. S. Postal Service markings on the envelope, the letter was returned unclaimed to the FAA on December 2, 1996.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Also, the Board determines that the pilot's inadequate preflight planning and preparations, specifically his failure to refuel the airplane, was causal. The Board determines that the builder's decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of airplane were factors in this accident.
Homebilts are as safe as the builder and the PIC.
The pilot had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built Long-EZ airplane, which had a fuel system that differed from the designer's plans. The original builder had modified the fuel system by relocating the fuel selector handle from a position between the front pilot's legs to a position behind & above his (or her) left shoulder. There were no markings for the operating positions of the fuel selector handle, which were up (for off), down (for the right tank), and to the right (for the left tank). This deviation from the original design plans did not require FAA approval, nor did it require a placard to indicate such change from the original design. On 10/11/97 at Santa Maria, CA, the pilot received a 1/2-hour flight and ground checkout in the airplane by another Long-EZ pilot.( oops) The checkout pilot reported that the pilot needed a seatback cushion to be in position to reach the rudder pedals, and that he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle while seated with the cushion added.During preflight, the pilot was not observed to visually check the fuel. The technician noted that when the pilot was seated in the airplane, he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle.
A certified true copy of the pilot's FAA medical record files were obtained and reviewed by Safety Board investigators. According to the pilot's FAA medical records, the physician who examined the pilot on June 13, 1996, issued a third-class medical certificate to the pilot at the conclusion of the examination. His FAA medical records further showed that on November 6, 1996, the FAA Civil Aeromedical Certification Division sent the pilot a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, acknowledging receipt of his June 13, 1996, medical application and stating, in part:
We had previously received an interim report from H. C. Whitcomb, Jr., M.D., pertinent to your alcohol problem. Dr. Whitcomb reported that "in general averages two to four drinks of either wine or beer/week when he's traveling." He further stated that there has been no abuse, (see footnote 1) ...in our letter of October 18, 1995, we specified that your "continued airman medical certification remains contingent upon your total abstinence for use of alcohol."
The letter informs the pilot that based on the above information, he did not meet the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any class of medical certificate at that time. The letter further states: "If you do not wish to voluntarily return your certificate, your file may be sent to our regional office for appropriate action." According to U. S. Postal Service markings on the envelope, the letter was returned unclaimed to the FAA on December 2, 1996.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Also, the Board determines that the pilot's inadequate preflight planning and preparations, specifically his failure to refuel the airplane, was causal. The Board determines that the builder's decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of airplane were factors in this accident.
Homebilts are as safe as the builder and the PIC.
02-01-2007, 12:15 PM
#121
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Apple Valley,
CA
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: Diesel_Flyer
Actually, the NTSB report on Denver says he took off light tanks and had not a clue where the tank selector(s) was. He was on his knees,facing the tail groping for it ( or another beer) and apparently kicked the rudder.
The pilot had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built Long-EZ airplane, which had a fuel system that differed from the designer's plans. The original builder had modified the fuel system by relocating the fuel selector handle from a position between the front pilot's legs to a position behind & above his (or her) left shoulder. There were no markings for the operating positions of the fuel selector handle, which were up (for off), down (for the right tank), and to the right (for the left tank). This deviation from the original design plans did not require FAA approval, nor did it require a placard to indicate such change from the original design. On 10/11/97 at Santa Maria, CA, the pilot received a 1/2-hour flight and ground checkout in the airplane by another Long-EZ pilot.( oops) The checkout pilot reported that the pilot needed a seatback cushion to be in position to reach the rudder pedals, and that he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle while seated with the cushion added.During preflight, the pilot was not observed to visually check the fuel. The technician noted that when the pilot was seated in the airplane, he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle.
A certified true copy of the pilot's FAA medical record files were obtained and reviewed by Safety Board investigators. According to the pilot's FAA medical records, the physician who examined the pilot on June 13, 1996, issued a third-class medical certificate to the pilot at the conclusion of the examination. His FAA medical records further showed that on November 6, 1996, the FAA Civil Aeromedical Certification Division sent the pilot a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, acknowledging receipt of his June 13, 1996, medical application and stating, in part:
We had previously received an interim report from H. C. Whitcomb, Jr., M.D., pertinent to your alcohol problem. Dr. Whitcomb reported that "in general averages two to four drinks of either wine or beer/week when he's traveling." He further stated that there has been no abuse, (see footnote 1) ...in our letter of October 18, 1995, we specified that your "continued airman medical certification remains contingent upon your total abstinence for use of alcohol."
The letter informs the pilot that based on the above information, he did not meet the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any class of medical certificate at that time. The letter further states: "If you do not wish to voluntarily return your certificate, your file may be sent to our regional office for appropriate action." According to U. S. Postal Service markings on the envelope, the letter was returned unclaimed to the FAA on December 2, 1996.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Also, the Board determines that the pilot's inadequate preflight planning and preparations, specifically his failure to refuel the airplane, was causal. The Board determines that the builder's decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of airplane were factors in this accident.
Homebilts are as safe as the builder and the PIC.
Actually, the NTSB report on Denver says he took off light tanks and had not a clue where the tank selector(s) was. He was on his knees,facing the tail groping for it ( or another beer) and apparently kicked the rudder.
The pilot had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built Long-EZ airplane, which had a fuel system that differed from the designer's plans. The original builder had modified the fuel system by relocating the fuel selector handle from a position between the front pilot's legs to a position behind & above his (or her) left shoulder. There were no markings for the operating positions of the fuel selector handle, which were up (for off), down (for the right tank), and to the right (for the left tank). This deviation from the original design plans did not require FAA approval, nor did it require a placard to indicate such change from the original design. On 10/11/97 at Santa Maria, CA, the pilot received a 1/2-hour flight and ground checkout in the airplane by another Long-EZ pilot.( oops) The checkout pilot reported that the pilot needed a seatback cushion to be in position to reach the rudder pedals, and that he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle while seated with the cushion added.During preflight, the pilot was not observed to visually check the fuel. The technician noted that when the pilot was seated in the airplane, he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle.
A certified true copy of the pilot's FAA medical record files were obtained and reviewed by Safety Board investigators. According to the pilot's FAA medical records, the physician who examined the pilot on June 13, 1996, issued a third-class medical certificate to the pilot at the conclusion of the examination. His FAA medical records further showed that on November 6, 1996, the FAA Civil Aeromedical Certification Division sent the pilot a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, acknowledging receipt of his June 13, 1996, medical application and stating, in part:
We had previously received an interim report from H. C. Whitcomb, Jr., M.D., pertinent to your alcohol problem. Dr. Whitcomb reported that "in general averages two to four drinks of either wine or beer/week when he's traveling." He further stated that there has been no abuse, (see footnote 1) ...in our letter of October 18, 1995, we specified that your "continued airman medical certification remains contingent upon your total abstinence for use of alcohol."
The letter informs the pilot that based on the above information, he did not meet the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any class of medical certificate at that time. The letter further states: "If you do not wish to voluntarily return your certificate, your file may be sent to our regional office for appropriate action." According to U. S. Postal Service markings on the envelope, the letter was returned unclaimed to the FAA on December 2, 1996.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Also, the Board determines that the pilot's inadequate preflight planning and preparations, specifically his failure to refuel the airplane, was causal. The Board determines that the builder's decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of airplane were factors in this accident.
Homebilts are as safe as the builder and the PIC.
Excellent post.
Need I say more ?
Jackjet
08-19-2007, 08:37 AM
#122
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: Gravityisnotmyfriend
I just want to know some statistics. I'm a private pilot and am planning on building my first plane. I'm leaning heavily toward the RV-7. The problem is my soon to be wife is not entirely supportive on the idea. My dad crashed a plane when he was in his 20's which makes her think that planes are dangerous. I tried to explain to her that he has had one crash in 30+ yrs of flying and she's been in 5 car accidents in 7 yrs of driving. That didn't go over very well. I believe that private aviation is a very safe sport, but I need some facts to back me up. Can anyone help me convince her?
I just want to know some statistics. I'm a private pilot and am planning on building my first plane. I'm leaning heavily toward the RV-7. The problem is my soon to be wife is not entirely supportive on the idea. My dad crashed a plane when he was in his 20's which makes her think that planes are dangerous. I tried to explain to her that he has had one crash in 30+ yrs of flying and she's been in 5 car accidents in 7 yrs of driving. That didn't go over very well. I believe that private aviation is a very safe sport, but I need some facts to back me up. Can anyone help me convince her?
Being rational to a woman? Not a good move man, they win everytime. When I got married in the early 80's, I was already a pilot in the military for several years. it's different to them in this situation. Getting married and then saying "hey I want to get as pilots license!" Thats like saying " Hey! I can't, it's guys night out!"
08-19-2007, 08:51 AM
#123
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
ORIGINAL: Diesel_Flyer
Actually, the NTSB report on Denver says he took off light tanks and had not a clue where the tank selector(s) was. He was on his knees,facing the tail groping for it ( or another beer) and apparently kicked the rudder.
The pilot had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built Long-EZ airplane, which had a fuel system that differed from the designer's plans. The original builder had modified the fuel system by relocating the fuel selector handle from a position between the front pilot's legs to a position behind & above his (or her) left shoulder. There were no markings for the operating positions of the fuel selector handle, which were up (for off), down (for the right tank), and to the right (for the left tank). This deviation from the original design plans did not require FAA approval, nor did it require a placard to indicate such change from the original design. On 10/11/97 at Santa Maria, CA, the pilot received a 1/2-hour flight and ground checkout in the airplane by another Long-EZ pilot.( oops) The checkout pilot reported that the pilot needed a seatback cushion to be in position to reach the rudder pedals, and that he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle while seated with the cushion added.During preflight, the pilot was not observed to visually check the fuel. The technician noted that when the pilot was seated in the airplane, he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle.
Actually, the NTSB report on Denver says he took off light tanks and had not a clue where the tank selector(s) was. He was on his knees,facing the tail groping for it ( or another beer) and apparently kicked the rudder.
The pilot had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built Long-EZ airplane, which had a fuel system that differed from the designer's plans. The original builder had modified the fuel system by relocating the fuel selector handle from a position between the front pilot's legs to a position behind & above his (or her) left shoulder. There were no markings for the operating positions of the fuel selector handle, which were up (for off), down (for the right tank), and to the right (for the left tank). This deviation from the original design plans did not require FAA approval, nor did it require a placard to indicate such change from the original design. On 10/11/97 at Santa Maria, CA, the pilot received a 1/2-hour flight and ground checkout in the airplane by another Long-EZ pilot.( oops) The checkout pilot reported that the pilot needed a seatback cushion to be in position to reach the rudder pedals, and that he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle while seated with the cushion added.During preflight, the pilot was not observed to visually check the fuel. The technician noted that when the pilot was seated in the airplane, he had difficulty reaching the fuel selector handle.
Diesel your first sentence is not quite true. If you've ever been near a long eze you'd know you CANT move around inthe cockpit, you wear it more like a glove. He wasn't "on his knees". The builder of this particular plane chose to NOT FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. The fuel selector is supposed to be in the cockpit between your knees. This builder didn't want fuel lines in the cockpit so he chose to mount the fuel selector behind the aft bulkhead and run a tourque rod to the front seat cock pit. This resulted in a lever above and behind the pilots shoulder. I challenge you to sit in a chair and reach over either one of your shoulders and have enough strength or reach to rotate a valve. It was compounded byt the fact that the valve was sticking.
As for the intent of this thread. Yes homebuilts are safe when you build them and you follow the instructions. In the Denver case he didn't build it and it wasn't built to the specs.
11-24-2007, 09:26 AM
#124
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dublin, IRELAND
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
To fly or not to fly the ones-you-get-into, that includes hang gliders, sailplanes, ultralights, Cessnas, R22s. I’ve tried total about 20 hours between ‘em all.
From what I read and hear, sports pilots, as distinct from airline types, spend a fair amount of mental effort justifying that what they do is safe, or can be made safe (“risk reduction”) which it is not, as long as you accept the historic fatality rate is too high.
Try this as a working definition:
• Driving=acceptable risk (which must nonetheless be carefully managed)
• Motorcycling= unacceptable risk (stated as true by some, even if carefully managed)
For if what you do is 8-30 times more risky than driving, and 2-8 times more than motorcycling, you are in fact way off the scale of normality. The wide range of variability of the estimates is down to different sources quoting different data and assumptions.
This argument could be modified to include elimination of most attitudes such as illegalism, distraction, boredom, arrogance, bravado, carelessness, distraction, indiscipline, boredom, fatalism, that underlie the human factors stated to be the cause of 85% of (fatal) air accidents. Eliminate? Ah yes, you’re a superman (superior type of human being), and therefore trainable to such a high degree you function at some level like an automaton.
So here’s my proposal: in order to make me a safe pilot, I first prove to the instructor I’m a superman. Kind of wrecks the economics? Of course these human traits are never completely eliminated even from the best trained. Witness high time professionals getting it wrong and getting killed. Can even happen to superman. As Dirty Harry said: “A man’s got to know his limitations”. The grave yards are full of the ignorant who were feeling lucky at some level.
As of now, I consider the only honest justification is death-wish masquerading as thrill seeking. Either you think it’s worth the cost and risk, or you back away and sadly fly models: “if you crash you don’t die”.
At 13.9 - 23 fatalities per million hours, flying 1246 hours is what your "Ace of Spades" odds (1 in 52) are.
Gamblers have an unflattering name for those who bet more in hope than in accordance with calculated odds.
Using basic probability theory and raw data, here is an extract from an excel file I did:
General Aviation 15.58 1000000 0.0000156 0.9999844 0.9807744 0.019225616 52.0
So why the heck do I want to learn to fly?
Activity
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
Fatalities per million hrs
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003
From what I read and hear, sports pilots, as distinct from airline types, spend a fair amount of mental effort justifying that what they do is safe, or can be made safe (“risk reduction”) which it is not, as long as you accept the historic fatality rate is too high.
Try this as a working definition:
• Driving=acceptable risk (which must nonetheless be carefully managed)
• Motorcycling= unacceptable risk (stated as true by some, even if carefully managed)
For if what you do is 8-30 times more risky than driving, and 2-8 times more than motorcycling, you are in fact way off the scale of normality. The wide range of variability of the estimates is down to different sources quoting different data and assumptions.
This argument could be modified to include elimination of most attitudes such as illegalism, distraction, boredom, arrogance, bravado, carelessness, distraction, indiscipline, boredom, fatalism, that underlie the human factors stated to be the cause of 85% of (fatal) air accidents. Eliminate? Ah yes, you’re a superman (superior type of human being), and therefore trainable to such a high degree you function at some level like an automaton.
So here’s my proposal: in order to make me a safe pilot, I first prove to the instructor I’m a superman. Kind of wrecks the economics? Of course these human traits are never completely eliminated even from the best trained. Witness high time professionals getting it wrong and getting killed. Can even happen to superman. As Dirty Harry said: “A man’s got to know his limitations”. The grave yards are full of the ignorant who were feeling lucky at some level.
As of now, I consider the only honest justification is death-wish masquerading as thrill seeking. Either you think it’s worth the cost and risk, or you back away and sadly fly models: “if you crash you don’t die”.
At 13.9 - 23 fatalities per million hours, flying 1246 hours is what your "Ace of Spades" odds (1 in 52) are.
Gamblers have an unflattering name for those who bet more in hope than in accordance with calculated odds.
Using basic probability theory and raw data, here is an extract from an excel file I did:
General Aviation 15.58 1000000 0.0000156 0.9999844 0.9807744 0.019225616 52.0
So why the heck do I want to learn to fly?
Activity
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
Fatalities per million hrs
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003
12-05-2007, 05:38 PM
#125
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How safe are homebuilt planes?
The only stats you need to look at are the failure rates of the plane that you're going to build/buy. You can look at all kinds of stats but the only that matters is your version. A RV-7 is a relatively safe aircraft compared to a ultralight held together with cables. The wings on the RV series are one of the strongest on the market. And then you have to look into engines and find those stats. If you build and RV-7 with a certified or very dependale engine and build it to specs, you'll be just as better off as you were to buy a Cessna. So don't base your stats on all experimentals combined or you're looking in the wrong direction.