What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Discussing RV Safety

mikebee

Member
When you initially started building (or bought) and RV, what was your response to friends/family/spouse inquiries about safety of Vans aircraft and homebuilt/experimentals generally? In other words, I'm looking for the follow-up after telling someone you're going to fly a homebuilt kit and they look at you with the thought, "THIS GUY HAS A DEATH WISH!"

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Best,
Mike B.
Oakland, CA
 
There must be 10000+ people with a similar death wish. Seriously, there are so many RVs flying the designs and engineering is well proven.
 
I just tell them the following: The accident rate is about the same as any light aircraft. Most accidents are pilot error and not related to the aircrafts design or manufacturing.
In other words, just as safe, or not, as any.....
 
I just read the Accident Rates article in March Kitplanes online. Basically most accidents are Pilot Mis-control. Most of those are in the pattern and tail-wheel is no doubt higher. Article points toward transition training to help either the builder or purchaser of their new airplane to bettering their odds at not having an accident.

The stats on the airplane itself causing the accident were substantially less.
 
One question I get is "how do you know it will fly?" - my response is "if the control surfaces move as they should and the engine runs it cannot help but fly". Doesn't really seem to convince some people though.....
 
I was building in a congested area with a lot of pedestrian traffic so I got my share of those stories. Two most memorable.

Coworker; I heard you are building your own airplane.
Me; Yes, I am actually.
Coworker; Wow. But if you give me a million dollars I would never fly in it. Too dangerous.
Me; Gotcha. But to refuse an offer you have to receive it first, right Santana?
Coworker; I gotcha ya man sorry I didn't mean disrespect ... :D

About a decade ago I moved to an airport for final assembly. I was also speedily working on my FAA plastic. Chasing every available instructor in every school plane making enormous progress. I asked a CFI what he thinks of experimentals. He said something in the line; if I can't trust what I build with my own hands how can I trust others'? Time flew, in couple weeks I had my temporary license, DAR issued AW shortly and I went ahead with first flight and Phase One. Forgot completely that talk. Flew for sometime then met the same CFI elsewhere. Is it your plane he asked. Yes. Did you build it? Yes. How many hours on it? Over a thousand... Good luck he said. :D
 
I just tell them the following: The accident rate is about the same as any light aircraft. Most accidents are pilot error and not related to the aircrafts design or manufacturing.
In other words, just as safe, or not, as any.....

And decades newer parts. Compiling accident statistics compared to a 182, and after reading all the pilot causes in the RV vs 182, I concluded the pilot was the weak link. I still made darn sure no defects were added though, thoroughly testing the systems prior to first flight, particularly the fuel system.
 
Local AME said I would not go up in a home built but I would go up in yours and even let my kids and grand kids go.
 
Every time I hear about some spouse or girlfriend who says it them or the airplane... I can only think "Bye bye, see ya "
Having said that I still often have nice dreams of my ex 17 years later

Even the first B737, 747,757,777 and 787 were all experimental aircraft until issued a type certificate.

Do what you must.
 
Last edited:
One of my favorite responses to these people is, "The Titanic was built by professionals. The Arc was a home-built!"
 
My dad's project was the talk of the street and all the kids dropped in to see our progress. They all thought it was the coolest thing; I never heard what the adults thought.

I told my wife on our first date about that airplane (it hadn't flown yet) and said one day, I was going to build one myself. She was warned :p

In college, I was at work one day (at my co-op job) and a couple of ladies were discussing an accident that claimed one of our senior engineers. One of them made the comment "what kind of person flies an airplane they built in their garage, anyway?". Being in earshot, I immediately snapped out "well, I do". The "brook trout" look on their faces was priceless.



By contrast, I think my project was a major factor in getting hired for my current job, especially when I mentioned my wife helps with the riveting. A couple of the other guys have homebuilt experience too. Though, one guy who used to be a mechanic gives me **** about engineers having tools :D

I've had a few of them over to see the project, and it's interesting seeing the looks on their faces. Most of them have only worked large aircraft, so when they see most of the structure being .025 and .032 and held together with -3 and -4 rivets they get a little freaked out.
 
Basically, it is a great opportunity for educating someone. I always tell them it is an all metal, riveted structure the same as a Cessna, or for that matter, a Boeing. Uses basically the same engine as a Cessna 172, and better instruments than both of them. Then answer questions as they come. Most get interested and some education. Some say they would never go up in any small plane. To each their own.

Tim
 
If anyone I wish to take flying in my RV shows signs of not trusting me or the machine I eliminate the issue, they simply don't fly!
 
My dad was a PPL and in the "fly a homebuilt----you die" camp.
One day at OSH, after he found out my brother was building an RV9A, he wondered over to the sea of RVs. He studied a BUNCH of them, and asked a few builders some (lots) questions. He came away with a completely different attitude.

He then enjoyed helping my other brother work on his Zenith CH640, during construction. He even rode several times in the RV.


Oh BTW. I'm going to steal Mel's response.:D
 
One of my favorite responses to these people is, "The Titanic was built by professionals. The Arc was a home-built!"

OK, that's just funny right there, and it really doesn't matter what anyone's belief system is, it's still funny and a great ice breaker anyway :)
 
The Titanic was real, the Arc is a story but it?s still a clever response. :)

Huh, I thought the Arc was real.


Better one is that Langley was a professional but the Wright brothers were amateurs. Of coarse you need to know who Langley was.
 
...I'm looking for the follow-up after telling someone you're going to fly a homebuilt kit and they look at you with the thought, "THIS GUY HAS A DEATH WISH!"

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Best,
Mike B.
Oakland, CA

Hi Mike. You raise a good questions, and one that 99 percent of people who ask, have no intent to rain on anyone's parade with. There is no easy answer to it generally, if the answer is based on facts. Frankly, the exploration of this question relies not only statistics but mostly on the person and community who will answer it.

What really differentiates the wheat from the chaff in terms of the numbers with safety results (true progress in air safety) is the "system safety" elements in each type of flight operation. "System Safety" is the combination of passive, active and cultural safety elements to create an organizational safety piece required to keep operation underway. It's just as important as any other element that keeps the operation going (like having pilots in seats). With the absence of it, has the capability to put a stop to the operation, until it's back, functionally in place.

Sure, we have design, structural, regulatory and resource safety elements in the larger flight operations specifically known as first world, major airlines. "A big plane won't get taken out by a cloud like a little plane can" says the salesman by the water cooler. (Yes, most of us know about the seriously capable anti and de-icing equipment, highly maintained and well designed multiple redundant autoflight and instrumentation suites, high levels of performance and reliability available from the turbine powerplants, plus 500,000 pounds of inertia and hydraulic flight controls, the structural and aerodynamic design buffers designed into the system, the massive network of system connectivity in personnel selection, training, flight information provided and all other sorts of goodies first world airline ops have aimed to the benefit of any one flight). Sure that's true. AND, the homebuilt pilot that never enters the "dangerous cloud" doesn't need all that army of goodies above. Statistically speaking, the existence of the "dangerous cloud" did not increase risk to the homebuilt to an unacceptable level, since the pilot avoided that type of operation. Yes, the homebuilt still carries a much higher residual risk because of the aircraft itself in terms of design, the pilot himself in terms of training/validation (and other things), but the total system safety was kept to an acceptable level in this case even with that "dangerous cloud" lurking in the distance. It still comes down to the Captain of the ship on the day of the flight. What risks are taken, what sort of safety buffer will be the "bottom line" on that day, for that PIC?

It is certainly true today, unlike even 20 years ago, that flying in a first world major commercial airliner is "confusingly" safe. In fact, in these cases, the safety analogy is: A passenger on one of these airliners faces less chance of fatal injury sitting in that airliner seat for the same period of time than even stepping foot inside their own house for the same period of time. Yes, I said their house. If you chose to live in a house you'll die sooner than living in an airliner, statistically speaking, while taking off, flying and landing constantly. This isn't a race against the airlines vs cars anymore. It's a whole different game today.

How does anyone compete with that? We can't. It's also why the FAA isn't satisfied with the numbers in the homebuilt community. They know we can do better. However, in terms of individual responsibility, we can copy the low hanging fruit, and do MUCH better. The only thing required is the will to do it. The educated and responsible "homebuilt" pilot can certainly pull smartly away from the pack in one's own category of "safety". Sure we can argue the benefit of really living one's life vs passing away never having lived a life... and do that all day... but that's a false logic and avoids the question. It comes down to us. Just reading this thread shows some of us are taking on the question and pulling at the thread to do better.

I'd love to see a "Vans Flight Operations Safety Best Practices" guide out there. Parts of what I have in mind already exist. For example, VAC published a series of documents here on VAF that cover a really useful training syllabus. Training is a part of safety and would form up part of the responsibility of it but safety also captures a lot of other elements (maintenance, procedural, operational, human factors, etc). I've thought about putting together one of these programs myself for our type of flying. I've done this for GA training facilities, corporate flight departments and larger commercial operations. I've been a pilot for major US/global airlines for 21 years so my exposure is there but it takes a lot of will for individuals to want to be a part of these types of programs. The benefits are obvious but I see a lot of behavior out there in the community that is contrary to a safety mind set. And then you read the accident reports time and time again of behavior that fits the "most wanted" list of how to get one's self into a coffin. So while I think we have it in us as a group to do something with this, I predict it won't be the majority of us who would stay with it, sadly.

How safe is a home built? It starts with the question, "How dedicated to personal accountability am I going to be, what resources for safety do I have, and what professionals are available to help keep me honest along the way?" We all have a part in answering these for the benefit of our homebuilt community. But for us individually? I think at the end of the day the answer could be anything from "fast motorcycle ride in LA" to "travel by automobile" depending on who is answering and on what day they are answering.
 
Last edited:
Reducing risk

My quick browse of the latest Nall report didn't really summarize the actions everyone can take in order of importance to reduce their risk of accident.

Here's my simplified list:

  • Fly in weather that the aircraft and the pilot are qualified for
  • Ensure the aircraft has enough fuel
  • Maneuver with enough kinetic (speed) or potential (altitude) energy
  • Maintain the aircraft properly
  • Fly the aircraft within its design limits
  • Look outside

From what I read in that report, doing these things would greatly reduce the accident rate.
 
A couple of thoughts on safety...
* Dr. Bill Rhodes, in his talks on aviation safety, anecdotally demonstrates that about half the folks who killed themselves in a light airplane were not a surprise to their friends;
* This means that safety initiatives which assume that the pilot is conscientious, rational and risk averse will have limited effectiveness;
* My personal opinion is that on a per flight hour basis, homebuilts are about 15% more at risk that factory builts. But, on a per airplane-year basis, the risk is about *five* times greater;
* There's lots of ya-hoos out there. "Can I put a TSIO-540 in an RV-3?" as a hypothetical example. "I've flown it for 60 hours and it's perfectly reliable." VAF is light on ya-hoos, but if you're on other social media sites, you'll see plenty of such folks. The worst example is, "It's a homebuilt and you can do what you want." The rest of the sentence is, "but the laws of physics don't care what you want."
* Some publications cater to the ya-hoos, and many journalists either have not paid their dues or are not allowed to be completely candid about safety issues;
* Individual freedom is an American cultural value, accountability is not. Peer pressure for safety is rare;
* There's a ton of political correctness in aviation safety that reflects the biases and preferences of the safety advocates rather than reflecting the realities of general aviation diversity. Combining historical and current fads, the list includes pilot error, failure to follow procedures, unstable approach, loss of control, visual angle of attack indicators, and continuous turns to final. Critical thinking combined with a broad and deep general aviation background finds lots of holes in these platitudes. (My background to make such strong statements includes working in the NASA ASRS office, having read at least 3,000 ASRS reports for safety research, well over 1,000 NTSB reports, 800 LOSA reports, teaching grad school in aviation safety, and presenting at at least four international conferences. And a Ph.D.);
* Many in leadership positions in government, industry and alphabet groups have paid impressive dues in military and airline operations, but have not paid sufficient dues in GA and worse, have no idea that they have not paid those dues;
* Contemporary flight training does not teach that large portion of the envelope between the very middle that is taught for licenses and the edges of the envelope where spins, upset training and aerobatics reside. I've done a bunch of exploration in that arena and there is much to be learned;

The risks in homebuilts can be managed, but not eliminated. It all comes down to each individual's risk/benefit preference.
 
I just some last years stats and was surprised to see ATV accidents was like 7 times more likely to happen. Most people don't fear ATV's.


For me I want to reduce the risk as much as possible with good training and decision making. But I also don't feel sitting in a rocking chair in a room full of feathers is living life either.
 
I just tell them that our planes are paint by numbers kits and that the FAA still has to look it over along the way.

That along with the numbers of flying planes usually lowered the raised eyebrow.
 
The person putting in rivets at the factory knows s/he will never fly in that plane. It?s different with home-builds.
 
Arc is something circular...

One of my favorite responses to these people is, "The Titanic was built by professionals. The Arc was a home-built!"

Ark was the boat or in other contexts, a place of refuge. :D

I'll have to keep that in my collection of witty replies.

Cheers, Sean
 
My wife's friends/coworkers are either in one of two camps. Secretly jealous we can fly away for a weekend somewhere cool, or horrified that she would dare to go up in it for any amount of time.

I get passed every single "airplane crash" story in the social media feed by someone. We have had a couple of incidents at the local airports and every time I have to let everyone know it wasn't me (hopefully my streak of successfully avoiding an incident will continue).

I let everyone know that my attention to detail and maintenance practices are there to keep me and my passenger safe.
 
Somewhere (probably here), someone said that if I ever feel bad about the quality of my rivets, just go to the field and take a look at a 172. So true; some of those rivets are a complete freak show...

The real message and benefit of home building is that you REALLY know the plane you're flying and know what is quality and what is c**p. As I was building, I was learning to understand systems and how they work as well as the expected quality standards. I was also noticing that the quality output from the certificated A&P's from the flying club where I was a member was not ... awesome. Rivet repairs were pretty Van's practice kit, or less so (the mechanics never went to an EAA class). The final straw that broke my back was an oil cooler that was completely loose (no bolts!) on a Cherokee that just came out of a 100hr inspection .. yikes! R.u.n a.w.a.y! (and I did)

Knowing that my attentiveness to the details and my otherwise anal tendencies will keep me, my bird, and my passengers safe is priceless. This is the greatest part of the "education and recreation" homebuilt mandate. My hide's on the line, and the buck stops right here. Responsibility and accountability tied into a positively reinforcing circle.

Thanks so much to YOU ALL that help us builders make a/c that we can be proud of and be confident in.

Keep sharing -- and teaching!
 
Last edited:
I was building in a congested area with a lot of pedestrian traffic so I got my share of those stories. Two most memorable.

Coworker; I heard you are building your own airplane.
Me; Yes, I am actually.
Coworker; Wow. But if you give me a million dollars I would never fly in it. Too dangerous.
Me; Gotcha. But to refuse an offer you have to receive it first, right Santana?
Coworker; I gotcha ya man sorry I didn't mean disrespect ... :D

About a decade ago I moved to an airport for final assembly. I was also speedily working on my FAA plastic. Chasing every available instructor in every school plane making enormous progress. I asked a CFI what he thinks of experimentals. He said something in the line; if I can't trust what I build with my own hands how can I trust others'? Time flew, in couple weeks I had my temporary license, DAR issued AW shortly and I went ahead with first flight and Phase One. Forgot completely that talk. Flew for sometime then met the same CFI elsewhere. Is it your plane he asked. Yes. Did you build it? Yes. How many hours on it? Over a thousand... Good luck he said. :D

Vlad, you need to fly more. Where have you been with your "experimental" bird recenty? Yea, that's what I thought ;-) ;-) ;-). You haven't been to the moon yet, but, hey, I haven't read your latest posts...

You are a complete inspiration! Keep it up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top