Doe Mac McClellan Write For EAA?

[flybuddy]

Ron, both you and I are of the opinion that the FAA has shortchanged experimental aircraft via overinflation of certified stats (hours and aircraft) while underinflating those of experimentals. Additionally ALL types of experimentals (exhibition, racing, et) show in the accident stats along with many older unique certified a/c mistakenly added to those roles. I knew also that certifieds would lose out on the Nall report via reduced registrations. Even with that, there are still many certifieds being registered that are in pieces in the rafters of hangars.
Along comes an example where E-AB has positive stats with various opinionable reasons. I would tend to think that EAA would lend itself toward a more positive version of these opinionable reasons (especially given the aforementioned skewing of stats)
If I were flying a Baby Ace or a Pietenpol (I've flown both), etc and that's was my MAIN exposure then I would concede to the line of reasoning being given. I've got close to 6K hours in a multitude of various certified and otherwise a/c ranging from ultralights to DC3s. I attend lots of aviation events. We're seeing this from 2 different sides of EA-B. IMO, there is PLENTY of cross country activity in homebuilts. Mac doesn't think so. The only factual statements he and I have made is that it's an OPINION. Wouldn't EAA/EA-B, be better served taking a viewpoint of potential optimism instead of negative fatalism? Think about the glass and AP manufacturers that are vendors at Oshkosh, Sun-N-Fun, etc. How many thousands of units do you think Dynon, MGL, Advanced, GRT, etc have sold. Isn't it logical that those planes will be more cross country oriented?

[Frank Giger]

I'm actually thinking that higher total hours of Experimental pilots + higher accident rate = a negative to the equation, unless I'm missing something.

Um, wait...if E/AB pilot fly more, they're more likely to work the percentages for failure; if there's a one in a thousand chance for something to go wrong and Pilot A flys 35 hours a year and pilot B flys 1000 hours a year, pilot B is more likely to have the lightning strike. Is that right?

On cross country numbers, it's a statistical lie in waiting. When I hop over to Talledega from Pell City, it's a ten mile jaunt - and also a cross country trip by definition, no different from flying from NYC to Seattle. Less challenging, as weather conditions are typically the same for close airports and the duration of the trip is very short, but it's still "cross country."

Then again, I've gone from fun to no-fun weather in about ten minutes thanks to a faster-than-expected front moving through, bringing a change of temps and nasty wind conditions.

I think a large chunk of Experimentals are doing short cross countries versus their certified brothers; the essence of recreational flying is tooling around the skies and meeting up with others, especially within the homebuiding community.

Personally, I think an hour of touch-and-goes is more hazardous than an hour cross country flight with one takeoff and one full stop. More chances to screw up.

[flybuddy]

I'm actually thinking that higher total hours of Experimental pilots + higher accident rate = a negative to the equation, unless I'm missing something.

Frank, the Nall report over inflates the numbers of certified aircraft by taking hours flown response data from pilots in their surveys and applying that average to every registered certificated airplane. Prior to the re-registration process there were many certified aircraft not flying (ramp queens) that were registered. The accident rate stats are fairly static except in Experimental reporting where there were numerous certified aircraft lumped into the experimental category for some unknown reason. Bottom line, the stats have been skewed against the experimental safety record. Now, in safety reporting we see a glimmer of hope inasmuch as fatal weather accidents are (comparatively) lower for E-AB aircraft. Sound like a good thing to me but then J. Mac writes this is Sport Aviation:

"The single most common cause of a GA en route fatal accident is weather, the pilot, or his airplane simply couldn't handle. E-AB aircraft are underrepresented in fatal weather accidents. The obvious guess is that E-AB fly more locally than pilots of standard airplanes."

While it does not seem to be a big deal, it does come across as having EAA say..well, if experimental aircraft show themselves to be safer in any way then we are of the opinion that it must be a mistake or some other reason rather than something positive. Positive things would be stuff like more experienced pilots in EA-B or better equipment. Wouldn't it be nice if the case could be made that the state of the art equipment in many experimentals is making aviation safer and maybe it would behoove us to allow that same equipment into older certifieds without the huge time and expense of current compliance?

[1600vw]

Are the Stats really correct? I wonder how many non fatal accidents there have been that do not get reported. I have had a few folks tell me stories of accidents where the aircraft mangled and then is pushed off into a hangar before anyone ever noticed. These where all EAB's that are of the single seat design. Its not until this is fatal that we hear about it.

One Gent just told me about something like this he went through a few months ago. 30 years ago this man flew weight shift gliders. Now 30 years later the things that kept him from flying are grown and out of the house. He goes out and buys an EAB that weighs in at almost 700 lbs. Trailers her home and then puts her together. He then tries to fly her. Not knowing what to do with rudder peddles we all know the outcome. Lucky he did not kill himself.

Now he wants to repair this airplane without ever working on anything like this. He went out purchased a Gas welding kit and is planing on welding the tubes back. I told him he is a dead man walking. I tried to get him to let me help him but he knows more then I, so be it. I tried.

Then another man kinda in the same spot. He has flown with others some and has a lot of cash or deep pockets. Goes out and buys a really nice I do not want to say RV but who knows. He gets her up and rolls her in a ball on touchdown, Again lucky this was not fatal. He goes and gets a forklift tractor and has this mess cleaned up in a short time. He said he stuck parts of that plane all over the place.

This is like the computer programmer. The programs only as good as the man whom programmed it. Trust the stats if you want but they are not correct. I am sure things like this happen all over. This is one reason I am trying to push training in my area, at an affordable cost. We need it in the name of safety. I really do cherish each and everyone of you and want to see you on these boards and flying as long as we can. Lets not be a statistic and lets help those whom need it or aviation truly is a dead activity, hobby or sport.

You want to make aviation safer, we need training at an affordable cost. The man I spoke about with the deep pockets, after this happened to him he did go out and get training. I spoke with him about this and this in itself was something to tackle. So if he had a hard time doing it imagine someone with not so deep pockets.

I believe we all know this, I am telling no one nothing new.

Its all about...TRAINING.......

[rwanttaja]

Are the Stats really correct? I wonder how many non fatal accidents there have been that do not get reported. I have had a few folks tell me stories of accidents where the aircraft mangled and then is pushed off into a hangar before anyone ever noticed. These where all EAB's that are of the single seat design. Its not until this is fatal that we hear about it.

Yep, you hit a key point. If a 172 does a forced landing in the boonies, the pilot is probably incapable of doing much more than calling an FBO and having them send out a mechanic and a trailer. The FAA naturally shows up. But if it's a homebuilt, the owner is likely to be quite capable of disassembling the plane himself and carting it away, no one the wiser.

Years ago, one of my EAA chapters was having a picnic at a local airpark. One of the members based at the field lost his engine on the takeoff run. He ground-looped the plane to keep from going off a steep hill at the end of the runway, wiping out the gear (no one hurt). Coincidentally, it happened at the end of the runway near this man's hangar. Chapter members ran out, grabbed pieces of airplane, and hauled them into the hangar. By the time the cops arrived, the hangar door was shut. "What accident?"

More recently, a plane undergoing taxi testing had an accident. The owner successfully convinced the investigators that this did NOT count as an aircraft accident, since the plane...uhhh, "vehicle"...had not yet been given its airworthiness certificate nor been registered.

And as Flybuddy has pointed out, the NTSB accident records themselves are shot with errors, with "homebuilt" used as a catch-all term for all non-standard-airworthiness aircraft.

The problem is, the NTSB reports are all we have. There's nothing else to use, to try to compare production to homebuilt safety. All we can do is hope the errors even out....

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

And why the heck would the police be involved with the airpark incident, anyway? Nothing to see here officer, move along.

[rwanttaja]

And why the heck would the police be involved with the airpark incident, anyway? Nothing to see here officer, move along.

Third degree burns to the passenger, in the second instance.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Flybuddy's and my discussion regarding the equipment level of the homebuilt fleet got me curious. And when I get curious, I start analyzing.

I used my December 31 2012 copy of the FAA registration database, and extracted all the airplanes listed as Experimental Amateur-Built. Then, using a variety of filters and eventually a line-by-line manual process, I divided the fleet into eight categories. I managed to identify ~86% of the fleet into specific categories; some names weren't obvious as to what the "real" type was.

The seven categories were:

1. Ultralight-like. These are N-numbered homebuilts of ultralight heritage or of classic pod-and-boom ultralight design. Manually, I added all homebuilts using two-stroke Rotaxes. These aircraft are likely to have minimal additional equipment.

2. Recreational. These are homebuilts which are primarily built just for the enjoyment of flight. Pietenpols, Fly Babies, Kitfoxes, CH-701s, etc. A GPS is likely to be the most-complex instrumentation these aircraft have. But, while they typically do not have advanced navigation or weather equipment, some builders do add such capability.

3. Cost-Effective Performance. These are aircraft where an attempt is made to make them suitable for cross-country flying without going "whole hog." The RVs, T-18s, Long-EZs fall into this category. Many of these aircraft are likely to have expanded panels.

4. High Speed. These aircraft primarily exist to go fast. Lancairs, Glasairs, Legends, Rockets, and other things that go whooooosh in the night. Manually, I added most airplanes with O-540s, O-550s, and turbines. These planes will invariably have top-line panels.

Aerobatic, Racing, and Rotorcraft categories should be self-explanatory. These aircraft are unlikely to have high-buck panels. The final category, Unknown, is the aircraft that I wasn't able to assign a category to.

What's interesting is how close the results came out. The less-likely groups (1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) add up to 47% of the total, vs. 36% for the more-likely set (Cost-Effective Performance and High Speed). Considering the broad-stroke categories and the number listed as unidentified this is practically a dead heat.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kurt Flunkn]

Jack Pelton's engineering background is experience as a production/manufacturing/management engineer..

Read the wiki entry and pay close attention to the part about Hamilton University....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_J._Pelton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_University

[WLIU]

So Ron, DOT claims that there are about 223,000 aircraft in the general aviation fleet, and 10%, or 22,000+ are experimental, presumable amateur built. By your analysis, somewhere around 9,000 E-AB's are likely to be go fast, well equipped aircraft.

So we can guess that somewhere around 4% of the of the GA fleet is well equipped E-AB's. If the DOT assumptions that all of the GA fleet is active are off by 25%, that puts the well equipped go fast E-AB's at just over 5% of the GA fleet.

With that view, we can ask the question whether the E-AB's comprise more or less than 5% of the weather accidents. Do your analysis tools allow you to easily pull that info from the data? If so, that might give us an insight as to whether we think that DOT and NTSB are looking at the E-AB community fairly, or whether they are mis-analyzing the data.

Best of luck,

Wes