Accident numbers for some fast planes

At last night's EAA board meeting, we briefly discussed the Lancair accident on the east coast where a Lancair lost it's prop and in making an emergency landing on the beach, hit and killed a jogger. I mentioned that Lancairs have had a lot of crashes. So here are some numbers, based on NTSB accident records since January of 2005, the beginning of the online database. Registration information is imperfect as some may register their RV make as an RV or as a Van's and there could be some duplication. I only used "RV" in my search. And Lancairs, Glasairs and RV's have been around since long before 2005.

Lancair:
1,114 Lancairs registered in the US.

59 accidents, or about 5.3% of have crashed.

Of the crashes, 31 (52%) have resulted in fatalities, or 2.8% of the fleet have crashed with fatalities.

Glasair:
886 Glasairs registered. 20 have crashed (2.3%), 7 (35%) with fatalities, or 0.8% fatality rate for the fleet.

RV's
6,627 RV's registered in the US.

NTSB database shows 170 reported RV accidents or 2.6% of the flying planes, 56 fatal, or 33% of the accidents resulted in fatalities, or 0.8% fatality rate for the fleet.

It looks like you got your decimal point off by one on the glassair fatality rate per accident.
Otherwise I'd think the data reflects the landing speed, although I'd think the RV's would be better than the glassairs.
Fatalities increase exponentially with arrival speed. Crash as slowly and as horizontally as possible, in the flatest area available.

The only number that we incorrect is ....

RScott said:

At last night's EAA board meeting, we briefly discussed the Lancair accident on the east coast where a Lancair lost it's prop and in making an emergency landing on the beach, hit and killed a jogger. I mentioned that Lancairs have had a lot of crashes. So here are some numbers, based on NTSB accident records since January of 2005, the beginning of the online database. Registration information is imperfect as some may register their RV make as an RV or as a Van's and there could be some duplication. I only used "RV" in my search. And Lancairs, Glasairs and RV's have been around since long before 2005.

Lancair:
1,114 Lancairs registered in the US.

59 accidents, or about 5.3% of have crashed.

Of the crashes, 31 (52%) have resulted in fatalities, or 2.8% of the fleet have crashed with fatalities.

Glasair:
886 Glasairs registered. 20 have crashed (2.3%), 7 (3.5%) with fatalities, or .8% fatality rate for the fleet.

Click to expand...

Glasair:
886 Glasairs registered. 20 have crashed (2.3%), 7 (35%) with fatalities, or .8% fatality rate for the fleet.

RScott said:

RV's
6,627 RV's registered in the US.

NTSB database shows 170 reported RV accidents or 2.6% of the flying planes, 56 fatal, or 33% of the accidents resulted in fatalities, or 0.8% fatality rate for the fleet.

Click to expand...

Corrected

Kent is right & I corrected my original post and clarified the 0.8% for the Glasairs, which originally read .8%, which is the same thing.

BTW, last time I searched, there were zero fatalities listed for RV-9 and -9A's.

How many RV-9(A)s are there. Your point about no fatalities may just be a numbers aberration due to the small population size. Regardless, do your part to keep that number at zero. I intend to do that for the RV-6(A) population.

RScott said:

Kent is right & I corrected my original post and clarified the 0.8% for the Glasairs, which originally read .8%, which is the same thing.

BTW, last time I searched, there were zero fatalities listed for RV-9 and -9A's.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, IIRC there was a weather related VFR into IMC accident in the prototype RV-9A.

The lower landing speed of the RV-9x does improve your odds in a forced landing, but that's really only a small percentage of fatals.

The most dangerous part of any airplane, sadly, is the pilot.

Is is the Airplane or the Pilot?

From a post earlier this month:
Looking thru the fatal RV accidents from 2005 and on which list a probable cause (just over 40), I'm seeing the following:

VFR flight into IMC - 7
Fuel Starvation - 2
Buzzing/low level acro - 11
Formation - 5 (does not include ground related)

Just something to think about, especially if you're carrying passengers who are relying on your judgement.

These RV fatalities were in-flight and did not include deaths in motion or not in motion on the ground. While I agree that stall speed makes for a potentially more survivable "accident", the underlying cause is more pilot-related than aircraft. Of course, a faster plane will get you to the scene of that accident much sooner.
Incidentally, Vans lists the number of flying RV9s as approaching 500, but not sure what that means in terms of the accident stats.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

FAA database lists 485 RV-9's and 9A's.

The NTSB database shifts over time, defaulting the earliest year to 2005 now and probably changing that each year. I just noted you can list an earlier if you want.

In doing so, I found the report for the RV-9 prototype, but it was listed as an RV-6T. And going back to 1998, it shows 13 RV-9 & 9A accidents, still no fatalities.

Consider all the stats I posted to be for a specific time period--January 1, 2005 through today.

RScott said:

A

NTSB database shows 170 reported RV accidents or 2.6% of the flying planes, 56 fatal, or 33% of the accidents resulted in fatalities, or 0.8% fatality rate for the fleet.

Click to expand...

Going back to 1975 I get 147 hits for "rv", "experimental", and "fatal". About 10-15 of these aren't actually RVs, but the total looks to be something like 130 (about 2% of the fleet).

Lancair total is also higher I think.

One thing I would like to point out as a Lancair owner.

I think all of the IV and IV-P's should be removed from that list. Those of us that have flown both RV's and Lancair/Glasair know that these are WAY different airplanes in regards to, well, pretty much everything. But I can still understand a comparision between them. The IV and IV-P may be a Lancair, but it is not anything like the 200/300/Legacy class of airplane. And I don't mean in regards to speed alone. Going to 25,000 feet, presurised, de-ice, air conditioning, some turbines.. All things that are common with a IV, but not with the rest of the comparison aircraft. The IV is so much more complex, and flown for a different purpose the majority of the time, I don't think it should be included.

Now, all that being said. I am not defending the stats at all. I'm sure the statistics for these airplanes will not be as good for the reasons mentioned. I am often in formation with RV's (7 of them to the Olney TX fly in a few weeks ago) so I can clearly see the reason the stats are better. Nothing like being last in line to land behind 7 airplanes at 70 kts when I stall at ~75kts. RV guys have MUCH more time to get things done.