Safety Study on E-AB - summary results & recommendations
Here are the summary results & recommendations.
http://go.usa.gov/pQt
My comment: they start off by saying that E-AB's are 10% of the GA fleet, but contributed 15% of total accidents and 21% of fatals (2011 data). However, I believe that when the FAA's "roll off the registrations" effort completes in the next couple of years, that E-AB's will be a MUCH LARGER portion of the CURRENTLY REGISTERED fleet, as thousands, if not dozens of thousands of abandoned, derilict, or simply too-expensive-to-maintain production certified aircraft are dropped from the registration list. Sure, some E-AB's will drop off as well, but we're building those and adding them to the fleet much faster than production aircraft are being delivered...
So, I hope the powers-that-be will wait before implementing the more costly and involved of the recommendations until they can have a better picture of what the E-AB contribution to various rates really is. I applaud the effort that went into collecting the mass of information for this study, but before we jump to a bunch more regulations, inspections, paperwork, and fees, let's be sure the situation really warrants such changes.
One recommendation that wouldn't cost anything that I could see EASILY being of benefit is the recommendation to allow a second person aboard during Phase I for a multitude of purposes - to fly the airplane while you collect the data; to help with keeping your flight tests on track (what's the next point to hit, what's next in the plan); to help with recording data; to watch for traffic, etc. Perhaps this could be implemented after some ballast testing was done to show the aircraft is controllable at the increased weight.
Another recommendation that wouldn't cost much that would seem to address two of the leading categories of accidents/fatalities (first flight of the airplane & first flight by a new owner) would be the standardization and promotion of the LODA to help get more E-AB's available for transition training.
NSTB’s Solution to Improve Experimental Aircraft Safety Record is Wrong
The NSTB and EAA should be applauded for their efforts to improve the safety record of amateur built aircraft. I have yet to meet a pilot of an experimental aircraft that wants to become the next aviation statistic. Nor do these pilots want to put their family, friends or subsequent aircraft owners at unnecessary risk. This “self preservation rule” should be readily apparent to everyone in the industry, including the public.
We have existing regulations for amateur built aircraft that ensure that these aircraft are thoroughly tested before passengers are carried. These same regulations require that the airplane’s performance is documented in the logbook and also requires that no unsafe handling characteristics exist when flown within it’s operating limitations. The person making these required logbook statements certifies that these entries are true. If, in some rare instances these existing regulations are not followed, then that person making those representations should be taken to task. There is no need for additional regulations for those that follow the rules.
The NSTB also asserts that onboard electronics can help improve the safety record of amateur built aircraft. This recommendation ignores the fact that aircraft have flown safely for decades, and continue to be flown safely, without costly or complicated electronics onboard. In fact it has been often argued that operating electronic gizmos can be a distraction and actually represent a safety hazard (think texting while driving). The existing regulations already require that certain instruments be installed to ensure that the pilot can safely operate the aircraft in accordance with its operating limitations.
EAA has a superior approach toward improving the amateur built safety record and that’s through education and training. This education and training approach leverages upon the “self preservation rule” and can provide a meaningful increase in safety.
One suggestion that may be offered is an on-line transition training course for those about to fly an amateur built aircraft. This could familiarize a pilot with the “hot spots” related to non-certified aircraft. The course might also suggest how a new owner of an existing amateur built aircraft can complete his/her own performance testing to, not only become familiar with the aircraft, but to verify the aircraft’s performance as documented in the logbook. The completion of such a course and aircraft performance verification could either be voluntary, or mandatory, but the “self preservation rule” would suggest that most pilots would want to participate. The insurance industry may feel the same and offer additional encouragement to pilots.
More people should feel passionate about preserving the freedom we have in building and flying experimental aircraft. Experimental aviation is the one bright spot in an otherwise declining industry. But this beacon can be quickly extinguished with burdensome new regulations. None of us, or those that will follow, will benefit from new requirements that are costly, time intensive to implement and do little or nothing to improve experimental aircraft safety. Please support EAA’s effort in tempering the NSTB’s experimental aircraft safety recommendations to the FAA.
The NSTB’s full recommendations to the FAA can be located by clicking on the link below:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012...udy/index.html
Mike Hongisto
President – EAA Chapter 1221
HongistoMichael@aol.com