View Single Post
  #5  
Old May 15th 04, 03:09 PM
anonymous coward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 14 May 2004 22:17:24 +0000, Dave S wrote:

In my opinion, the majority of accidents are the result of human error:
Running out of fuel, running into the ground, running into other planes,
flying into instrument conditions without training (and then losing
control) and the like. Certified versus experimental-amatuer built
status has little to do with these human factors.


I feel very human. That's the problem... I currently fly hang-gliders, and
on my first long flight I stalled at about 10M AGL (wind gradient). I bent
the base bar by landing on it, but as luck had it, I was in a harness for
a tandem glider and had a double parachute between my chest and the
aluminium. I think I broke a rib or two anyway, but I'm sure the passive
safety of having a parachute under my chest saved me from more serious
injury.

A friend has the wreck of a homebuilt in his garage. Again, the pilot
stalled at low altitude, but in his case the fuselage broke in half around
the pilot compartment and his injuries were much more serious than mine.

If you are looking for a "volvo in the sky" I cant offer much to you.
Trying to derive a relative safety equation is an apples to oranges
affair unless you can account for hours flown per type, pilot experience
and other factors for which the data isnt routinely sampled and available.


I agree this sounds impossibly fraught. What I would like (ideally) would
be the results of something akin to the car-crash tests that show how the
test-dummies fared in various scenarios - e.g. side impacts etc... I saw a
documentary about car-safety a few years ago, that mentioned that the
technology of crumple-zones and reinforced passenger compartments was
originally developed for WWII naval aircraft. Don't homebuilt designers
think about features such as these? Or would they help in so few scenarios
that it's an irrelevance?

The EAA (www.eaa.org) may be a good source to look at for
charactaristics of certain homebuilts. I seem to remember seeing reviews
of some types of homebuilts in their Sport Aviation publication. They
evaluated things such as static and dynamic stability, control forces,
maneuvering characteristics and the like.

The NTSB (www.ntsb.gov) has accident reports available, and searchable,
for several decades. You can look and see what seems to be the most
common causes of accidents for yourself... by type, by date, by
region...etc.


Thanks, I'll have a browse.

AC

Dave

anonymous coward wrote:
I'd be grateful if anyone can direct me towards links about the relative
safety of different types of homebuilt aircraft. Not figures I can use to
prove to myself that flying a homebuilt is safe, but a discussion of all
the factors that affect safety in homebuilt aircraft. I haven't found much
through google - perhaps it's a contentious subject?

Though I realise that most of the safety equation is down to the pilot,
presumably some types have safer flying characteristics than others? And
presumably crashes in some types are more survivable than crashes in
others in the same way as some car-wreck scenarios that would have been
lethal 20 years ago are easily survivable today?

AC