Amateur-built planes more likely to crash

[Gnarly Gnu]

I noticed The Australian has this article (cut and past headline into Google to read full article, don't fund Rupert):

 

Amateur-built planes more likely than factory counterparts to crash, study finds

 

"Most accidents happened during private operations..." as opposed to commercial and training flights using amateur-built aircraft?

 

Hopefully not a precursor to more regulation and bureaucracy.

 

 

[cooperplace]

I noticed The Australian has this article (cut and past headline into Google to read full article, don't fund Rupert):Amateur-built planes more likely than factory counterparts to crash, study finds

 

"Most accidents happened during private operations..." as opposed to commercial and training flights using amateur-built aircraft?

 

Hopefully not a precursor to more regulation and bureaucracy.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2013/report-puts-spotlight-on-amateur-built-aircraft-safety.aspx

 

 

[boingk]

It then goes on to say that structural failure is fairly rare, and that pilots are to blame.

 

A quarter of accidents are apparently due to pilots mishandling the aircraft and over half are initially caused by engine failure... which would only be a big deal if you didn't know how to handle the aircraft... ie you mishandled it.

 

[sarcasm] Big surprise. [/sarcasm]

 

- boingk

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Well what is interesting (in my opinion) is this report only covers VH registered aircraft. i.e aircraft built under 101.28 and supervised under the SAAA.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Well what is interesting (in my opinion) is this report only covers VH registered aircraft. i.e aircraft built under 101.28 and supervised under the SAAA.

I wonder how these The Australian statistics compares with RA-Aus registered aeroplanes?

 

 

[facthunter]

SAAA go to a lot of trouble with inspections . They only have the GA licence (PPL usually). Each plane is often different even the W&B varies. Perhaps the pilot has been building and not flying much lately. Lots of instructors wil not be familiar with the type of plane being built etc. There are a lot of factors to consider here.

 

RAAus don't have such a lot of homemade planes these days. If engine failures feature highly there should be some way of better proving the engine and systems that support it before you commit to flight.

 

Also are the engines certified or otherwise?

 

Test flying is a critical phase of the aircraft's life..Nev

 

 

[jakej]

Well what is interesting (in my opinion) is this report only covers VH registered aircraft. i.e aircraft built under 101.28 and supervised under the SAAA.

some info -- most 'experimental' (I hate that word BTW) aircraft are not 101.28 & both categories are VH registered. There are only approx 320 aircraft built & flying under the 101.28 rules. Mine was 1 of them but after 10+ years I changed it to 'experimental' - plane doesn't know the difference & after 1954 hrs it's still good without owner/pilot induced issues.

 

As Nev says (I think) it's more to do with recency/experience IMO too. Then there are some who insist they do the test flight although they don't have any experience on type, why ?

 

 

[Yenn]

Early in the flight testing of experimental planes is the danger period I believe and he reasons are lack of currency, due to building rather than flying and not being familiar with the plane.

 

I am just about ready to test fly my RV4 and will be doing some training first and also I have kept current in the corby Starlet.

 

Time will tell how how current and ready I am. Wish me luck flying into Coolangatta while I retrain.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wish you luck flying into Coolangatta, while you retrain Yenn. If I can do it , you can Nev

 

 

[jakej]

Early in the flight testing of experimental planes is the danger period I believe and he reasons are lack of currency, due to building rather than flying and not being familiar with the plane.I am just about ready to test fly my RV4 and will be doing some training first and also I have kept current in the corby Starlet.

Time will tell how how current and ready I am. Wish me luck flying into Coolangatta while I retrain.

Yenn

 

You have the right attitude however you are also probably better prepared/capable given that you fly the Corby - what worries me are those who haven't flown anything other than GA or airlines, IMO they are, generally, not ready for the handling & performance characteristics of a 'sport' aircraft.

 

 

[dan3111]

There is so many factors in building your own aircraft and testing . I have a saying you can have proven air fame and a unproven engine or a unproven air frame and proven engine . You don,t have both unproven items together as deadly to most ending in a pine box . But have a changed my saying over the last 10 tens years to "stuff the unproven car engines and other crap test engines let someone else risk there life thinking they are saving money. The maintance is so much higher on a test engine and often you replace part after part trying to get the hole package right . Use late model aircraft motors and have a lot less worries . They all can stop no matter what they are but you can say you did the best to stay safe as you can .

 

 

[facthunter]

Dan, That view has been put many times in American homebuilt forums. and it makes a lot of sense.Engine failures can be because of fuel supply problems often. The fuel system must be proven to supply well in excess of the full power flow rate and the operator must know it's intricacies. With a new system there is a possibility of swarf and bits of fuel pipe metal from new threads etc or design faults. Not effective heat shielding. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

YennYou have the right attitude however you are also probably better prepared/capable given that you fly the Corby - what worries me are those who haven't flown anything other than GA or airlines, IMO they are, generally, not ready for the handling & performance characteristics of a 'sport' aircraft.

A sizeable chunk of airline guys, including myself, have flown smaller aircraft which are any combo of "a handful", "unforgiving", "tricky" and various other adjectives. Flying relatively docile and predictable airline aircraft is, quite frankly, a very pleasant change.

 

 

[facthunter]

You are supposed to keep that a secret Dutchroll. Nev

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

YennYou have the right attitude however you are also probably better prepared/capable given that you fly the Corby - what worries me are those who haven't flown anything other than GA or airlines, IMO they are, generally, not ready for the handling & performance characteristics of a 'sport' aircraft.

Yes I found this out recently. Having only flown GA and not for 8 years due family, my first take off was nothing short of terrifying! Not only was I not current but was very surprised by the Sportstars handling. Very different to the GA aircraft! Instructor earned his pay that day....

Scotty

 

 

[metalman]

Early in the flight testing of experimental planes is the danger period I believe and he reasons are lack of currency, due to building rather than flying and not being familiar with the plane.I am just about ready to test fly my RV4 and will be doing some training first and also I have kept current in the corby Starlet.

Time will tell how how current and ready I am. Wish me luck flying into Coolangatta while I retrain.

Not sure what donks in the Corby but the first time I flew an RV I was so far behind the bugger it wasn't funny, the climb out speed was about 25knots faster than the cruise speed of anything else I'd flown, I dropped into YHBA at about 170knots and then struggled to lose nearly a 100 kts on half a downwind ,,,,,but once you get on top of them they are a truly great aeroplane ,now project number one is flying I'll be back onto my RV6

 

 

[poteroo]

Early in the flight testing of experimental planes is the danger period I believe and he reasons are lack of currency, due to building rather than flying and not being familiar with the plane.I am just about ready to test fly my RV4 and will be doing some training first and also I have kept current in the corby Starlet.

Time will tell how how current and ready I am. Wish me luck flying into Coolangatta while I retrain.

As I've posted elsewhere, owner/builders should be able to undergo parallel transition training in the same type as they are building. This is allowed in the US and particularly helps VANS RV builders because there are quite a number of FAA approved CFI's able to offer this training.....but, in the instructors' own EXP built aircraft. Here, we can only offer the owner training - in his own aircraft - and only then after it has been test flown and Phase 1 completed. (25 or 40 hrs). The new SAAA initiative has not convinced CASA to allow this in Australia - at least not so far. Owners have to either take the risk of a DYO test flying exercise - or wait until after the aircraft is through Phase 1.

 

Yenn, the issue is whether you can legally do some training in an RV4 that you don't own. If it's owner was both brave and well insured, I guess there's nothing to stop you 'self familiarising'........... bit like we did in Pawnees and Agwgons many moons ago. However, you can't actually do 'dual' in someone elses' aircraft, although carrying a 'safety pilot' in the other seat might get around this - provided you remained the PIC.

 

happy days,

 

 

[djpacro]

"Training" is specifically defined in the regs (away from my PC so I won't guess). I can't see that stopping some dual in another example of the type if both have licences valid for that type.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Saw some interesting stats the other day...Did you know that pilots that fly are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident than pilots who dont fly....I found that stat equally staggering......It sort of flys in the face of the whole recency argument doesnt it!!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

some info -- most 'experimental' (I hate that word BTW) aircraft are not 101.28 & both categories are VH registered. There are only approx 320 aircraft built & flying under the 101.28 rules. Mine was 1 of them but after 10+ years I changed it to 'experimental' - plane doesn't know the difference & after 1954 hrs it's still good without owner/pilot induced issues.As Nev says (I think) it's more to do with recency/experience IMO too. Then there are some who insist they do the test flight although they don't have any experience on type, why ?

Hi Jake, I know the UK isn't Australia BUT, here, the owner / builder is NOT allowed to test fly his / her aircraft following a new build. This work is carried out by a certified test pilot who has experience of type.

 

Otherwise, how the heck is the owner liable to understand if the airframe is not performing to design specs ? it's A NO - BRAINER really, how on earth would anyone expect otherwise ?? Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Saw some interesting stats the other day...Did you know that pilots that fly are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident than pilots who dont fly....I found that stat equally staggering......It sort of flys in the face of the whole recency argument doesnt it!!

Andy,. . . . I'm still recovering from belly busting laughter about that post. . . !

 

Still,. . . it's a valid point,. . . now I'm CERTAIN,. . . . that if I don't drive, or cross a highway, I'll never die in an automobile accident, ( I can't understand why noone thought of this before )

 

Sorry, I'm still laughing so much I can't think of a cute way of ending this post, so I'll just say,

 

OOroo mate , and keep up the good thinking!

 

 

[jakej]

Phil

 

aarh yes, but we have a 'test schedule' to follow which allows you to find out the 'performance of your plane. IMO the LAA has TOO MUCH control over what you guys do & they have prevented IFR in homebuilts as well & charge heaps of fees etc & you have to go through their approval process anytime you want to do a mod. An example of how much out of control they are was the case of an RV owner who was required to get engineering justification from DYNON re the Auto Pilot install brackets.

 

Talking of IFR, my Glasair was built under 101.28 (certified, but I was not allowed to sign off the maintenace release annually) & flew for 10 + years (including 2 'big' trips over water to NZ etc). Then I changed it to Experimental category, plane doesn't know the difference & is still IFR. Why is is so difficult for the LAA to allow IFR there especially given the high numbers of VFR aircraft having CFIT fatalities ?

 

With regards to test flights as NEV said earlier, it IS about ATTITUDE which covers just about everything. We don't need more regulation but just for pilots to think seriously of whether they are really up to the task of flying a generally high performance, low inertia, extremely responsive (adepending on aircraft type) aircraft that they haven't flown before. From my observation most pilots are too emotionally (& financially) involved with their plane to be able to make cool calculated decisions on their first flight.

 

From what I've heard in the USA a lot of builders conider it much smarter for someone else to do the first flight, whereas some here probably think they'd be called a wuss if they didn't test fly. Go figure.

 

We don't need more regulation & just use our head more rather than our heart . Off soapbox now

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Completely agree with you Jake J:score 010:

 

 

[jetjr]

Could be to do with Aust having way smaller population, less test pilots with confidence to jump in a homebuilt let alone to have "time" in every model and configuration.

 

If these rule applied getting test flights done would be difficult for all but common kits.

 

 

[Yenn]

Nothing in Oz stops us from getting training in a similar aircraft to what we build. Only restraint is that the owner cannot legally recover all of the cost of the flight.

 

there are dedicated people in SAAA who let you fly with hem in their plane and get a feel of how competent you are.

 

As far as doing test flying yourself there are two ways to look at it. firstly someone else may be more competent on type, but secondly if there is a major flaw in the construction then it is better for the builder to kill himself than somebody else.