An Objective Data Attempt!
In March 2005, I attempted to gather some relevant objective data regarding RV ground mishaps. I posted the following message on the SoCal RV-List:
SoCALers,
In an attempt to gather some related facts, I decided to review all the NTSB accident reports for RVs as listed on Dan's website. I counted the number of ground mishaps (landing roll, takeoff roll, and taxi) for nose-gear and tailwheel RVs. I discounted all other causes such as engine failure, off-airport landings, stall/spin, etc. Here's what I found:
Nose-Gear Ground Mishaps: 21 including 1 taxi contact, 1 flat nose gear tire, and 1 student pilot loss of control.
Tailwheel Ground Mishaps: 31 including 2 taxi contacts, 1 blown main gear tire, 1 powered nose over, and 1 intentional ground loop.
Note: These statistics do not compensate for the numbers of nose-gear vs. tailwheel RVs or their relative hours flown. (. . . in other words, ground mishaps per hours flown)
Note: I think Van's Notice on the Nose Gear Leg and Nose Wheel Fork may have been prompted by the Nov. 3, 2004 fatal accident involving nose gear bounce, nose gear collapse, and subsequent nose-over of an RV-6A. The private pilot was killed, and the private-rated passenger was seriously injured. From what I can tell from the NTSB accident reports, there are two things that RV nose-gear pilots must strictly avoid: bouncing the nose gear (hard) and landing at soft fields with subsequent nose-gear failure and nose-over (loss of pitch control on the ground).
Note: From what I can tell, tailwheel pilots must watch out for loss of lateral control on the ground, particularly on landing and particularly in gusty conditions.
A personal observation/opinion: Although less nose-gear mishaps are reported, they seem to result in more serious injuries (due to nose-overs) than tailwheel mishaps.
Another personal observation/opinion: I hate to admit this, since I'm planning to be an RV "nose-gear guy." but many of the NTSB nose-gear ground mishaps seem to be due to ham-fisted (or ham-footed) piloting. Tailwheel pilots seem to succumb more to uncontrollable ground gusts and that sort of thing rather than ham-fisted/footed piloting. I'm going to guess that low-time pilots trained in nose-gear Cessnas and Pipers are more likely to go for a nose-gear configuration. Also, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), the Cessna and Piper nose-gear designs (pneumatic, damped, and steerable) are more forgiving than Van's design. Van's nose-gear design is certainly simpler and more efficient, but it also requires more care with regard to piloting technique and adjustment.
Well, that's it - - some facts, some personal opinions, and some food for thought!
Take Care! (to all RV nose-gear and tailwheel pilots!)
Bill Palmer
RV-8A QB In-Progress