RV/Experimental accident statistics ?

Guys, I'm sure I missed a thread somewhere but I was hoping for someone to have done some research with a breakdown on accidents with and without RV's.

Reason: I finally got approval from the S.O. into looking into an RV!
She has previously always balked at the 'experimental' category, but I guess all my complaints about a faster, more fuel economic plane (as long as its still as safe as non experimental planes) has paid off!

Currently we're cruising along in a PA28-180 - great plane but not so fast...
And its definitely not sipping gas at a leisurely 110KTS.

Anyway - any quick pointers ?
Thanks!

Try a search for "Statistics" in the Safety forum - a few recent threads.

Thanks

Found some statistics, and most point to 'normal' pilot errors, but I found this which was interesting - any ideas why that should be ?

http://www.eastham-lee.com/rv/rvaccident.html

HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT - Comparison with Factory Aircraft

In 2001, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 184 accidents. Of these,
51 fatal accidents resulted in 68 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes
in 2001 were involved in 1,310 accidents, of which 247 were fatal with
467 fatalities. Nearly 30 (27.7) percent of homebuilt aircraft
accidents resulted in fatalities, and 18.9 percent of the accidents in
factory-built airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that
there is a significantly higher risk of a fatality in the event of an
accident in a homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built
machine. The fatality rate for homebuilt aircraft increased seven
percent in 2001. Although fatal homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased
dramatically in 2000, they increased to 17.1 percent in
2001. Historically, homebuilt aircraft are involved in approximately
16 percent of all fatal accidents.

glider said:

Thanks

In 2001, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 184 accidents. Of these,
51 fatal accidents resulted in 68 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes
in 2001 were involved in 1,310 accidents, of which 247 were fatal with
467 fatalities. Nearly 30 (27.7) percent of homebuilt aircraft
accidents resulted in fatalities, and 18.9 percent of the accidents in
factory-built airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that
there is a significantly higher risk of a fatality in the event of an
accident in a homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built
machine. The fatality rate for homebuilt aircraft increased seven
percent in 2001. Although fatal homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased
dramatically in 2000, they increased to 17.1 percent in
2001. Historically, homebuilt aircraft are involved in approximately
16 percent of all fatal accidents.

Click to expand...

(1) Remove all the "Let me show you what she'll do" accidents.

These are "sport" planes, and just like "sport" cars or "sport" motorcycles a significant loss percentage is due to behavior.


and (2) Remove all the power plant failure modes from installation variations and unproven power plants.


And you will probably get pretty close to the rest of GA. The airframe is proven. The pilot, some engines and or engine installations, not so much.

Heikki

I think it would be very hard to get a "true" picture of safety without a lot of analysis.

Your article above could be easily explained by "homebuilts" doing less "training" - training aircraft will do lots of circuit training, with consequent landing incidents, usually without personal injury...

If you go for the RV world, maybe come at it from another viewpoint? How many RVs have suffered accidents due to the RV (failing), rather than the idiot sitting in it? I would suggest that we have one recent high profile accident here that may be, and there are the 'A' issues - the latter being either a design "feature", or an aspect that is less tolerant to handling technique than ideal RV tailwheel types clearly feature, but I doubt at any greater rate (and maybe less?) than tailwheels in general.

I could rip the article above apart statistically - you need to look at accident "rates", and then is that per flight? per hour? per landing? and that data is unlikely available to anyone.

Summary a sensibly built and configured RV is a low % factor in terms of accident probability. Who / how then flies it is a much larger %

Andy

As Paul suggested, start your search with "Statistics". Some good threads include:
Accidents statistics for for Fast Planes
2009 RV Accident Statistics
The Nall Report
Within those threads you'll find a direct link to the NTSB site. As already mentioned, a disproportionate share of RV accidents are pilot related - Low time pilots transitioning to a high performance airplane, low level aerobatics, buzzing, formation flight, etc. Perhaps there's a greater tendency in the homebuilt arena for the Walter Mitty syndrome - I've just strapped into a little fighter and I think I hear the music from Top Gun. Call me Maverick! In any event, if you fly your homebuilt with the same degree of caution you've flown the factory stuff, the stats between the two groups are probably pretty close.
Fly Safe
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

2009 Nall report

The 2009 report has more recent data and a reasonable write up on causes. However, it doesn't seem like they've ever really gotten a handle on how to deal with homebuilt statistics. They're more geared toward transportation aircraft, and they seem to make too big of a deal out of year-to-year changes that may not be significant.

Just repeating some of the same already mentioned in this thread. But I get tired of reading others on this forum repeatedly making broad comparisons of RVs/experimentals to the factory GA fleet. This does not accurately reflect the quality/effectiveness of the aircraft design.

I too am convinced that the accident stats for RVs flown like the average -182 would be comparable (with similar pilot competence and aircraft equipment).

But RVs are *sport planes*. Most buy/build them so they can fly them like sport planes. That's why I have an RV.

To simply compare overall RV/exp safety results against -172s and other factory planes is very misleading.

As to your question (sorry for getting off track there), you've got a 180 hp Cherokee. A nice hauler. If she values the additional 20-30 kts, lower op expense and the occasional view of the Earth out the top of the canopy, it'll be an easy sell. Otherwise, good luck. Might try going to a big fly in and showing her some of the more "factory looking" RVs. Tell her, "see - doesn't this look store-bought?!"

As mentioned, stay away from unproven engines because you want to run car gas.

Don't fly VMC into IMC

Don't run out of fuel

Don't skimp on the quality and proven installation technique of critical subsystems, eg fuel lines.

If you don't know how to do something, get expert advice, even if you have to pay to get it.

Don't fly stupid.

Avoid get home-itis.

I probably have over 1500 hours in my 6A. I have no concerns about the plane or the pilot. I will fly you, your wife, kid or dog and have no concerns about providing a safe experience.

Thanks all!

My S.O. is an electrical engineer, so she wants hard data...

I'll keep looking, it does seem tricky to differentiate between pilot error and possible airplane defects - maybe I'll look into AD's instead.

Well Said

Ron Lee said:

As mentioned, stay away from unproven engines because you want to run car gas.

Don't fly VMC into IMC

Don't run out of fuel

Don't skimp on the quality and proven installation technique of critical subsystems, eg fuel lines.

If you don't know how to do something, get expert advice, even if you have to pay to get it.

Don't fly stupid.

Avoid get home-itis.

I probably have over 1500 hours in my 6A. I have no concerns about the plane or the pilot. I will fly you, your wife, kid or dog and have no concerns about providing a safe experience.

Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I for one am sick of reading the "Doomsters" talking about the "Big Lie"
RVs are dangerous! Blah, Blah, Blah. I'm glad that those pilots recognize their limits.

I've been flying the Doll for ten years and some 1200 hours now. I don't feel in any more danger when strapping her on than I did when strapping on the Grumman Yankee AA-1A for twenty three years. That underpowered beast was much more dangerous than the Doll because of its poor climb ability.

I built the Doll according to plans. I installed a Lycoming I0360A1B6 and a Hartzel prop. The systems are factory aircraft quality. She is as safe as I am as a pilot. That would be true of any factory airplane I strapped into.

Safe flight is up to you. As the guy said above, build your RV according to plans. Install an aircraft engine, prop and sub-systems. Fly professionally, manage risk and die an old man.

RVs, not all experimental

You need to narrow your search. Don't lump RV's in with all experimentals. They will not have the same accident rate. All experimentals would include a one of a kind, unproven plane as well as other experimentals that many of us wouldn't dream of getting into. The reason most of us pick the van's planes is that they are proven and robust. You can also affect the reliability as others have pointed out- use a proven engine and equipment as van's intended. Any modification involves additional risk.

So, in short, don't look at the statistic for all experimentals, look at the statistic for the RV you want, configured how you want it.

The RV advantage - takeoff performance!

Danny King said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
That underpowered beast was much more dangerous than the Doll because of its poor climb ability.

Click to expand...

That alone, is what sets an RV far above the normal spam can. Density altitude can be dangerous, and pilots really need to think about it, when operating out of higher altitude airports on warm/hot days. RV's have a real advantage here, that I'll take over a typical certified Cessna or Piper.... anyday.
I can count on at least three times the takeoff performance........when flying out of our 4600' msl. airport.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

To reinforce Danny's point - there are now more RV's flying than ALL the Grumman singles ever built (Yankees, Travelers, Cheetah's, Tigers, etc...). Being a Grumman refugee myself, I know that the RV is built with very traditional, more robust methods than even those popular singles. Built to plans, it is very hard to go wrong. (I know those statements aren't statistics, they are rationale - but they are ammunition for your argument).

I also agree that you don't want to look at ALL experimental statistics - limit your view to RV's, and things are much better. And eliminating pilot error makes thing look far better.

Paul

Ron Wattaja just did a short commentary of the Nall Report for EAA, and I understand that there will be greater details in upcoming KitPlanes. Keep your eyes open for that as it should be fairly informative.

Jim P said:

Ron Wattaja just did a short commentary of the Nall Report for EAA, and I understand that there will be greater details in upcoming KitPlanes. Keep your eyes open for that as it should be fairly informative.

Click to expand...

Ron's commentary was very factual. The Nall report had listed many aircraft as experimental that were not and he broke the down by each plane "mistakenly" listed. Also, somehow they have claimed that there are less experimentals flying in 2008 than there were in 2001??????
The truth to me lies in the fact that my RV6 is MUCH cheaper to insure than my prior Velocity (which is understandable). However, it's much cheaper than my Mooney which I had over 2700 hrs in. I got more insurance for less money and had only one hour in a "6" when I got the quote. They didn't even ask for a checkout or additional in type time. Obviously the underwriter thinks RVs are safe.

Number of seats

Flybuddy2 said:

The truth to me lies in the fact that my RV6 is MUCH cheaper to insure than my prior Velocity (which is understandable). However, it's much cheaper than my Mooney which I had over 2700 hrs in. I got more insurance for less money and had only one hour in a "6" when I got the quote. They didn't even ask for a checkout or additional in type time. Obviously the underwriter thinks RVs are safe.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but one thing that insurers look at is the number of seats (read: number of plaintiffs after the crash.) So a two seat RV is generally going to be cheaper than a 4 place Mooney. A better comparison would be the Mooney vs an RV10.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

You can do your own research at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

You have to be your own statistician to develop valid info.

I did a lot of research before I started my -9A and concluded that most RV accidents were pilot error. A very few were construction errors.

I agree with some comments but you need to look at the specific model you are interested in and make decisions from that.

Like most said, the RV series suffers from many more pilot error crashes than design or builder issue crashes. (maybe 99%?)

An RV can be built to the same standards as a certified aircraft. Use a cert engine, avionics and prop then employ approved standards for wiring, fasteners and plumbing.